@kDest I will repeat it, so that you can pretend that your theory could work even "in a vacuum" which it could not.
An unemployed man is a golden opportunity for an employer, just as a man with commodities and nothing to trade them for is a golden opportunity for a producer. Businesses may only be profitable, by selling, by producing, by hiring. Anyone capable and willing of work who remains unemployed is a lost opportunity, and one simply cannot expect that to go on for long on a large scale.
@eggory You have forgotten one glaring fact. Welfare. When it started to pay to not work, your argument became invalid. Today there are entire families supported on state and federal aid.
@dlstb Of course if people were physically barred from applying or hiring then that would invalidate my argument as well, except for the fact that I was speaking in terms of a free market, that is a world in which private property is respected and force is never used except as an answer to force.
>>An unemployed man is a golden opportunity for an employer
Unless there is high unemployment, in which case they are merely expendable cogs.
>>Anyone capable and willing of work who remains unemployed is a lost opportunity, and one simply cannot expect that to go on for long on a large scale.
@kDest It is quite simple that your claims of capitalism causing mass poverty only on the basis that "at one point in time there was a free market and also a lot of poor people," remains completely insubstantiated. You interpret one event to be a factor in the other only according the principles which you're trying to demonstrate in the first place. You must demonstrate a connection in history using economic theory. And my demonstration of your theory's self-contradiction stands unchallenged.
>>your claims of capitalism causing mass poverty... remains completely insubstantiated
I am supported by the industrial revolutions of the United States and Britain. I am further supported by the many present-day developing nations which serve as cheap labor pools to developing nations. I have history and the present as my evidence.
>>economic theory
Besides its obvious nature, you no-doubt subscribe to a libertarian school like the austrian or chicago schools, which are bogus.
>>your claims of capitalism causing mass poverty... remains completely insubstantiated
I am supported by the industrial revolutions of the United States and Britain. I am further supported by the many present-day developing nations which serve as cheap labor pools to developing nations. I have history and the present as my evidence.
>>economic theory
Besides its obvious nature, you no-doubt subscribe to a libertarian school like the austrian or chicago schools, which are bogus.
@kDest It is usually ignorant but in your case unscrupulous to point to the history of the rise of man as wealthy - and free - and say that at one particular point in time there were only two things happening, one of which was the cause and the other the effect which you wish to demonstrate. History is not a controlled experiment. A million things happened at the same time, some of them causes, some of them effects, and most of them unrelated to most others. Raw data is not evidence in itself.
And are totally incompatible with modern economic theory anyway.
>>History is not a controlled experiment
I don't have to claim it is. If you studied those periods you would know how insightful they are, and if you studied international politics and application of your ideology, you would know it doesn't work so well. Instead you have to pretend that I base my entire beliefs on one piece of data, because your understanding of your ideology's application in the real world is so shallow.
@kDest You talk about not being able to rely on the benevolence of your employer. Well that is only the half truth. You Should not rely on the benevolence of Anyone.
Perhaps it is you who relies on the benevolence of your government. In which case you are terribly naive.
Or perhaps you rely on the benevolence of your fellow citizens. But if they are so benevolent, why must their hand be forced by the government?
What is left is, you rely on forcing other people to give you what you want.
>>You Should not rely on the benevolence of Anyone
Why do people like you waste space in our societies? You demand a free ride, no civic duty. You proudly defend the most base natures of humanity like greed and selfishness. You work to further toxic social policies designed to undermine our post-enlightenment governments and cultures.
You are the first to complain about the society you live in, but you will not move. You will stay there and ruin society for everyone else, proudly.
@kDest You are pure rhetoric. Nothing you say is anything but a disguise for a lack of substance, you manipulator of emotions, you shameless coward of a sophist. Do you have a real ideology, still breathing somewhere under that pile of lies, completely hidden from the public to your only, pathetic advantage? Let me show you how one debates with a standard of virtue in mind - honesty.
>>Do you have a real ideology, still breathing somewhere under that pile of lies, completely hidden from the public to your only, pathetic advantage?
You are projecting your own insecurities. Creationists do the same thing when they accuse scientists of having to believe in the absurd. Proponents of alternative medicine do it when they claim there is some massive conspiracy.
You want to live like you are one man on an island. Problem is there are 35 million who share it with you.
@kDest One can improve his situation further, by exactly the same token he was able to the first time. You seem to be saying that the way these companies make money, is by offering something only Slightly better than what terribly desperate people have already got. The more desperate someone is the less you have to offer him, so everyone wants to hire the unemployed. What do you do when you run out of unemployed? You must offer to the already employed, slightly better employment!
>>You must offer to the already employed, slightly better employment!
Sweatshops are not in the business of competing with each other through higher wages. They are trade-based jobs, which means their labor pool is endless. You really don't seem to understand the history of these business practices.
There is almost always a labor surplus, and unskilled labor is the most common. Sweatshops survive because there is always someone who is able to replace a dead or fired employee.
@kDest "here is always someone who is able to replace a dead or fired employee" Yes, there are plenty of low skilled, lazy, stupid or unproductive people to exploit. Thank goodness for that because it makes my job of being productive and smart that much easier.
3.35 an hr. i remember being paid that. it wouldn't go far today, that's for sure, not to mention it didn't go that far then, but none the less, it was still more worth then than what it is today. one could get a little more for their money then.
Youtube has a 500 character limit. I prefer to address concerns that are most meaningful as concisely as possible.
>>ill leave u with this; grow up. life is not fair. no one is gonna be there to protect u unless u ask.
You just graduated high school and judging by earlier comments have no real-world experience. You are at a stage where you can choose to be either humble, and learn why you are wrong, or remain stubborn and live your life confusing what is with what ought to be.
Because they were the victims of unregulated capitalism. They were plentiful, cheap labor and this is how capitalism works, it doesn't care about morality, but efficiency in deriving profit.
>>working standards were getting better
They became better once the unions gained a foothold.
>>it was to a point where children did not have to work
That was later on. It was mandatory schooling and abolishment of child labor together that ended it.
In the United States similar things happened but because we are a large nation, it was less amplified. However, there were instances where union organizers were hanged, union protesters were shot by private security firms. Medicine back then was quackery, anything could be sold, and it usually was. Coca-Cola has cocaine in it. Radium-laced water was sold as a cure-all.
Running a society on profit is not moral. It just leads to powerful men with no restraint. Learn from history.
The factories would dump their wastes straight into rivers of London, and because the workers could not afford imported water, they were chronically sick from the water supply. Unions were violently repressed. You see factories were big and powerful and could make unions illegal. You were expected to work your life away and live with nothing. If you were maimed, you were fired. if you rebelled you were beaten. It was a hard life, but we beat it over centuries.
Now picture this, children as young as 4 year old working around exposed, dangerous machinery for long hours. Who would do such a thing? Well, it was profitable. You could pay children less, and they were expendable, unskilled labor. In match factories girls would develop phossy jaw from handling the phosphorous. In coal mines young boys not much older than you would die regularly, because a regular life of work there made their lungs black. It was profitable.
Back before regulation, unions, and safety laws it was common practice to have children work in factories. You see, they were small and had nimble hands. They would be shipped off to the nearest available factory and work around exposed machinery for very long hours, sometimes 14 hours a day. They did repetitive, grueling work. Sometimes they would get tired and have accidents, because the machinery was fast and there were no safeguards. They would lose limbs and then be fired.
Markets are not moral entities. You do not know what you are talking about. This is why unregulated markets are fraught with child labor, indentured servitude and slavery, violence, tainted food and water, etc.
>>so yeah i've got no problem with getting rid of the minimum wage law.
Before you ruin society for the rest of us, go move to a country where there is no minimum wage and regulation. Experience the reality before promoting nonsense.
>>if u keep regulations low, markets will rise, wages will increase
This is incorrect. Wages do not increase naturally because the point of business is to create a good that maximizes profit. This is why nations which do not enforce a minimum wage are some of the poorest.
>>the standard of living not only economically
In order for the standard of living to raise, you need power sided with the workers. Unions and government. Otherwise you have very low standards, like China.
@kDest What are you talking about? Singapore does not have a minimum rage and has one of the highest standard of living in Asia. Same with Macau. United Arab Emirates is a wealthy Middle Eastern country also does not have minimum wage.
>>Singapore does not have a minimum rage and has one of the highest standard of living in Asia
Singapore's private sector is dominated by government-owned corporations, and immigrant labor. They also have a heavily regulated healthcare system.
Macau does not count because it is so small.
The UAE is rife with corruption and is a common destination for foreign workers and businessmen. Their prosperity is in part because of foreign wealth, but principally due to oil exports.
you're wrong nations that enforce minimum wage do it BECAUSE they are rich(they can) and Nations that don't enforce minimum wage do it BECAUSE they aren't rich.
undeveloped and developing nations refrain from price floorinfg in the labor market because their markets need the flexibility to grow so hiring and production as well as income need maximization market wise.
MW in post industrial nations are a political ploy and only help those that get jobs those that lose are worse off.
@kDest Those groups lobby to bring the law down on the heads of other workers. Those who are desperate for a job and willing to do something about it are barred by force from underselling their competition, left only to seek donations, and you think that's moral?
"Sweat shops" offer jobs exactly where they're wanted and lacking, to the desperate. They raise the standard of living. But you demonize them for doing it in their own interests - they don't give donations. But it's a sign of respect!
>>"Sweat shops" offer jobs exactly where they're wanted and lacking
They are a calculated solution to profitability. They take the most desperate workers, sell the fruits of their labor overseas where we cannot empathize with these workers' situations, at a huge profit, while denying these workers a majority of that profit for the calculated reason of keeping them dependent on this hard labor job. If they had fair wages they might open up their own business, and might not be desperate.
No they don't. They exist only out of desperation, and work to perpetuate that desperation by maintaining low wages and dependence on foreign investors. They are the modern-day equivalent of plantations - labor factories designed to operate using a dependent source of labor.
@kDest Because I can tell you're not going to be at all honest about this, I will make one small point at a time so you must address it directly. You will address it directly, or you will embarass yourself.
If someone is desperate to make money, that does not mean they are desperate to make less money than they currently do, but more. Less is no incentive to work for you. The same is no incentive to stop doing what they're used to. Switching jobs is a hassle.
This is particularly true when foreign investments start to outstrip local jobs which have a culture friendly to the native residents, or when they make deals with the local governments which want the industry growth and are willing to make bad deals for their citizens because of this.
So, no. The answer is not that sweatshops provide a mutually beneficial arrangement. They provide a one-way beneficial arrangement, an exploitative arrangement, to poor people who will take anything.
@kDest Yes they are mutually beneficial, why else would people flock from subsistence farming or other extreme poverty like jobs to sweatshops? Because they pay better and it's a safer work environment.
It's easy for westerners or just from rich nations to assume that kids that are working there would simply go to school if they weren't working there, but that's not the case. Often times if these kids are pushed out of sweatshop jobs they'll end up in prostitution. The same with adults.
The practice of preying on people and luring them into bad situations for the promise of riches is not beneficial to the person. It is exploitative.
>>why else would people flock from subsistence farming or other extreme poverty like jobs to sweatshops?
Pay attention, because I've said this before: these factories pay so little that they spread poverty where they exist, it is just that an agrarian economy is poorer.
>>So all the europeans that flocked here in the begining of the 20th century and worked horrible jobs never found their way out of poverty.
They worked hard jobs and were disposable. Then they formed labor unions and got higher wages, safer jobs, and were not so easy to fire. Then they found their way out of poverty.
You will never get out of poverty by depending on the benevolence of your employers. It is a struggle, especially last century.
@kDest If it results in a better living standard for them than they had before, then it's absolutely beneficial to them. Even if it doesn't, it could still be beneficial to them, values are subjective, meaning what people see as positive some would see as negative and vice versa.
If the sweatshops or factories pay so little why are people going there instead of remaining at their original vocation? Obviously because they're better off there than scraping a living out in the fields.
>>If it results in a better living standard for them than they had before, then it's absolutely beneficial to them.
It isn't beneficial because it keeps them in a perpetual state of poverty. Sweatshops do not increase pay over time. They do not cause economic booms that lift communities out of poverty. They exist to pay as little as possible for as much labor as possible. They freeze the economy for the people who work in them. In Britain sweatshops lasted over 100 years.
@kDest No it doesn't, it's increasing their standard of living. If you take a job that pays better than your previous job than of course you're wealthier than you were with that job rather than without it. How can they be keeping them in poverty when their offering them better wages than they had. That seems to be the way out of povery.
How do you know that sweatshop don't increase wages over time? Even if they didn't their still giving them better wages then they had.
>>How can they be keeping them in poverty when their offering them better wages than they had.
Because the wages they offer still put them in the poverty bracket, and will not change to lift them out of that bracket.
>>How do you know that sweatshop don't increase wages over time?
I know that they do not increase wages in a meaningful way over time, I know this because only the poorest nations have sweatshops, and they persist for decades without improving the social situation.
All business pay as little as possible for as much labor as possible. That's how they stay in business. If you pay more for labor than you get out of it, your business won't last for long.
>>All business pay as little as possible for as much labor as possible.
So ask yourself why our standard of living is so much better than India or China. The reason is that we force our businesses to treat our workers better. If there were no artificial bottom enforced, we would resemble Mexico, China, etc.
Sweatshops persist because there is no power on behalf of the workers. The workers cannot organize effectively, and the state doesn't side with them, so wages stay low.
>>If the sweatshops or factories pay so little why are people going there instead of remaining at their original vocation?
Because nothing is a better wage than less-than-nothing. These people are not Americans. They aren't well-fed, most live on less than 2$ a day. They don't have labor unions in most cases who will back their demand for higher pay and better hours. When you and your community are faced with a choice between bad work and starvation, you choose bad work.
@kDest Look, what you're really arguing is that once such an economy has been established, nobody who starts out with a low-paying factory job can improve his situation.
We agree that for these people, a job at a sweatshop enables them to eat better than they had been able to before, you're just trying to say that if they are then stuck with that greater income that makes them poorer. Well no, if that was true they would be more wealthy, and less free. So say what you mean.
>>nobody who starts out with a low-paying factory job can improve his situation.
That was the case in Britain for 150 years. Over a century of sweatshops, which kept populations poor.
>>a job at a sweatshop enables them to eat better than they had been able to before
That is a platitude you work very hard to dress up. The fact is that these people are poor, and continue to be the poorest in the world, and they will stay that way unless there is government intervention and unions.
Don't get me wrong, I realize that to us the wages they receive at the sweatshops are really low, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that sweatshop work is better paid comparatively. It might be a low wage, but it's still a better wage then they had.
They spread poverty by giving people a better wage?
These factories use the lure of a little extra money to trap people into economies based on exploitative practices. These types of economies will last centuries (see Britain's industrial age) because they keep workers poor, dependent on hard work, and move financial power towards the factory owners, who often use their influence to disperse worker organization, and enforce bad work conditions through government law.
What counts as exploitation is subjective. To a very poor man a low paid job in a factory is a godsend. If he doesn't like the wage he's offered he has every right to deny that offer and seek employment somewhere else.
>>To a very poor man a low paid job in a factory is a godsend.
To a small child, making some extra money is a godsend, he just doesn't know he'll be selling sexual favors to wealthy businessmen.
>>If he doesn't like the wage he's offered he has every right to deny that offer and seek employment somewhere else.
You mean starve. He can either work in a sweatshop or starve. Or the child can have sex with businessmen or his family will starve. You have no idea what it's like.
@kDest I'm not advocating children go into prostitution. In fact I have argued that eliminating sweat shops results in children having no other recourse than to resort to prostitution. Since now they can't get the money they need for food, because their employer has been shutdown, they'll have to get that money some other way.
If he doesn't eat he'll starve. There are several ways to get food. You could grow it or buy it. Not having job means he doesn't have to money to buy food,...
>>In fact I have argued that eliminating sweat shops results in children having no other recourse than to resort to prostitution.
Which is a half-truth. You can eliminate sweatshops and child labor, but you must also mandate free education, or provide conditional vouchers like Lula did.
>>Not having job means he doesn't have to money to buy food
When you live on less than $2 a day it does, it also means that charities are overburdened so you cannot really rely on them.
...there's still charities and such. He doesn't have to starve to death. The freer the market the more easily it will be to employ people so as long as the market is free, there would always be a demand for labor.
"Charities" is one of the fudge words of libertarians. Every social problem, like poverty and lack of healthcare, is thrown to the mercy of charity, as if it is always there to pull up the slack when it never can fully. Charity is the last resort of poor social welfare. It is a band-aid on a deep social problem caused by poor wealth distribution.
>>demand for labor
High tariffs and universal unions and minimum wage would help fix this.
>>Often times if these kids are pushed out of sweatshop jobs they'll end up in prostitution.
Again, if you study the industrial revolutions of developed nations, like the United States, you would know that child labor ended only when we banned it and mandated school attendance at public schools. Child labor will last for literally centuries unless the state intervenes and provides free education.
@kDest Actually According to the stats I've found, child labour was decreasing long before child labour was made illegal on a federal level. The only place they had an increase in child workers was agriculture. This is just speculation on my part but where I'm from it's expected that the kids help out on a farm, so maybe that was the case in the US. Child labor is only used when the parents are poor to the degree that not sending the kid to work will result in them starving.
>>child labour was decreasing long before child labour was made illegal on a federal level.
It still existed though, and specifically there were groups that formed who protested it and sought to abolish the practice. They found that the best way to end it was to mandate education. A simple ban wouldn't be enforced well enough. This was also the case in Britain. The laws existed but were not enforced.
This anti-minimum wage rhetoric is simply pro-business propaganda. The full picture is that minimum wage raises the standard of living for workers beyond their developing nation counterparts who can hardly afford anything. However, because we do not impose strict policies of high tariffs on imported goods, businesses simply move our jobs overseas where they can pay a dollar a day for labor. If you want our standard of living to be like developing nation, then by all means end minimum wage.
If minimum wage is reduced or eliminated, more people will have to go on welfare at the taxpayers' expense. Michele Bachmann wants to end minimum wage. That's bad enough, but exactly what are people supposed to do when there aren't enough jobs to go around so that we can pick up second and third jobs?
BOO FUCKING HOO!! Cry me a fucking river! Can't live on what you're paid? Get a 2nd job. Get a 3rd job. Move to where the better jobs are. Get an education and upgrade your skills and make yourself smarter and more valuable. Start your own business. Why should I pay for your shitty choices?
@DarrelfromZeeland What an ignorant respionse. In some areas there aren't enough jobs to go around, jackass. I'm well-educated, btw, so don't go there with me. God you're a moron.
@cincyblows So move to where the jobs are. There's always an overflow of work somewhere. Plenty of farm jobs picking fruit. Or ENLIST. Uncle Sam needs you on the front lines against the muzzies. Well educated? In what? Probably some useless libturd arts degree like theater, modern dance or gay feminist studies.
@DarrelfromZeeland Um yeah -moving costs money. Clearly you've never been in the workforce, so to you it all seems so cut-and-dry. One day when you grow up and join the rest of your 50-something cohorts, let me know. Until then I'm ignoring your stupidity. By the way, I'm more highly educated than you'll ever be, and a bachelor's in business admin is an easy walk-through. I bet even you can do it. Good luck little man.
@nfwvideo2011 He's not saying blacks aren't worth the minimum wage, he's saying low skill, aren't worth the minimum wage. Unfortunately many with in the black community are exactly that, low skill workers. He also stresses even if it isn't a lot of money, they're busing working, getting skills, work experience, lessons, and some cash. Instead of turning to crime and the welfare state.
When you look at it, Unions are just businesses. They provide a service: represent the workers, or so they claim. They have a source of income: dues. And like large corporations they send lobbyist to Washington to create rules, laws, regulations, loopholes, and etc. to improve profits.
@DarrelfromZeeland If I have children they're not going to work 20 hours a day in a sweat shop while all our money goes to Israel or to cover the tax credits for churches.
@DarrelfromZeeland You're the one who would kill a child if that child refused to go to Sunday School. You want to lock people up for listening to music you don't like. You make it clear on your channel you want to kill gay people and anyone who's into pornography. You've got it backwards you're the fascist.
@DarrelfromZeeland What about Ziofascists like Doctor Michael Savage and Doctor Laura Schlessinger? They want kids to be put in school uniforms 24/7. They want to tell us what music we can and cannot listen to. Well let me tell you fourth of July is coming up and I'll stand for what the founding fathers wanted. I won't get on my knees for the demands of radical Zionism.
And what's wrong with school uniforms? I wore a uniform all though school. It's better than looking like a fucking Barnum and Bailey reject with baggy clothes, dyed hair, tattoos and piercings. Somebody needs to set their foot down and tell these punks they can't listen to their hip hop and rock music, their dipshit parents aren't doing it.
@DarrelfromZeeland It's the fourth of July and today we honor our founding fathers. Our founding fathers gave us a nation where we're free to listen to rock and rap music. They gave us a nation where we are NOT forced to go to church. Oh and it's Monday and that's Lord Satan's Day. I love the Constitution. I'm NOT sorry for being a Satanist. I love the Stars and Stripes.
@MatthewCVR Your choice of god does not offend me, but your love of mondays shows clear opposition to the philosophy of Garfield the cat.This simply must not be tolerated, heretic!
@DarrelfromZeeland Hey Darrel did you notice in this video the economics professor in this video is a well known and outstanding man of the black race? Oh I even saw another black guy in a suit and tie in that video. You said to me "look what's happened since we freed them!" Oh hey did you hear about the late Johnny Cochran and his Law Firm that expanded throughout the nation? He made more money in a month than you or I made in 10 years.
@nfwvideo1 It's called homeschooling. Otherwise they can get vouchers and scholarships. For the poorest of the poor, there would be charity schools funded by donations and staffed by volunteers.
@nfwvideo1 The workweek and safety standards should be set by the free market, not by law. A business owner has a better knowledge of what his company's safety needs are than the government ever will. As for the 40 hour workweek, because obesity is such a huge problem, extending the workweek to at least 70 hours would help in reducing it by having workers spend more time working off their calories. It'll also enable them to buy that gallon of milk without having to use their credit card.
@RobTheHuntingMan Too bad that Republican Nixon signed OSHA into law. So much for there being a dimes worth of difference between the two main parties.
@nfwvideo1 After doing my own homework, yes, I would have been against the entire labor movment. Unions present the idea that they fight for everyone, when in fact, they look out for their members and no one else.
@heavym3tal So you'd rather do without safer standards or having weekends and holidays off or family leave or workmen's comp or anything else that unions brought us? You'd rather go back to 12-19 hour workdays with no safety protections, no bathroom breaks, for less than half the cost of living indoors WITH DIGNITY, as opposed to sharing a 1 bedroom apartment or trailer with 10-30 other people, child labor, and the boss being able to fire you simply because he doesn't like you personally?
@Pbirv What you have said is total nonsense. Although I would like to ask if you have ever been fired from a job that you did well? In my experience (I have never been in a union), I never been fired from a job before. In fact, it makes no good business sense to fire trained employees, unless they consistently do something wrong (it costs too much).
@heavym3tal Your assumption only works when there's more jobs to be filled than there are workers available to fill them. It's definitely not the case when an employer can count on at least a dozen people outside the gate willing to take the job.
@Pbirv Look what happened recently when they started drilling for oil shale in Montana/N. Dakota. There are not enough employees in the surrounding area to fill the positions. Clearly more people can move and get a decent job. But you dodged the question of $50 or $100/hr minimum wage and what justifies full time employment.
@heavym3tal "What you have said is total nonsense." Actually what I said was a fact of life for most working Americans before workers started organizing into what became unions.
"Although I would like to ask if you have ever been fired from a job that you did well? In my experience (I have never been in a union), I never been fired from a job before."
Companies have been firing good workers to bring in cheaper ones, mostly foreign, simply to boost their bottom line.
@Pbirv " Actually what I said was a fact of life for most working Americans before workers started organizing into what became unions." So what? At least they had jobs.
"Companies have been firing good workers to bring in cheaper ones, mostly foreign, simply to boost their bottom line." So they should've offered to work for less. Chinese, Indians, and Mexicans are willing to do the same jobs as us, and do them better, cheaper, and faster.
@Pbirv Are you in a Union? If you are, I can understand your POV. Regardless, Unions do not care about the poor in society. Unions lookout for one group, Union members (as they should). What they do is intimidate people looking for work and employers offering jobs, often with violence. It is clear that you have no idea how to run a company in the real world. If you have invested so much time into training your present workforce, you would not fire good workers.
@heavym3tal Unions need to be outlawed and declared to be terrorist groups, then hammered with both the Patriot Act and RICO, all their members and supporters need to be rounded up and executed or sent to Gitmo, and all their assets and property seized.
@Pbirv The list of statements you made for "If it wasn't for unions:" is factually untrue. That said, it is the role of government to protect its citizens from harm from other citizens. Clearly if a worker is injured due to the employer's fault, then the worker has a legal claim that can be settled in court, but that doesn't require legislation, its merely common sense. Even now with standards like OSHA, why does anyone need unions?
I agree that unions, like all large organizations, have their problems and are long overdue for a good overhaul, but overall do more good than harm. At the very least they give the worker a measure of balance and recourse against overly arbitrary, greedy, and abusive employers.
@Pbirv Your statement that unions protect the individual worker is absolutely untrue. Unions look out for the good of the whole, not the few. They also use violence and intimidation with both their members and the employers that have to use them. Is it right to take away a person's right to choose to be or not be a member of a union? In many states the worker has no choice but to join a union. The cost of Union collective bargaining always gets passed on to the consumer.
And yes, there may be labor laws, but the day that unions are gone and employers no longer have to fear or worry about workers organizing, how long do you think it'd be before corporate lobbyists and their right wing buddies in Congress and state legislatures start working to get those laws rolled back if not altogether repealed, or at the very least watered down and neutered so far that they won't make any difference or simply no longer enforced?
For example, George W Bush's picks for the Labor Board reclassified hourly workers as "managers" to avoid paying them for overtime, so they might work 70-80+ hours a week but only get paid for 40. If the pro-corporate people could get that passed with unions in existence, imagine what they could do to the labor laws once unions are no longer around to see that they're enforced?
@Pbirv Those labor laws never should've been passed. OSHA, EPA, labor standards, workmen's comp, unemployment, etc, are all Marxist fascist entitlements that drive the cost of doing business thru the roof. They, the commie union thugs, and the taxes to support the socialist welfare state are why we're losing jobs to the Chinese and Indians.
@Pbirv Where does all this corporate power come from? Senators and representatives are elected by the people they serve, not by corporations. It is the fault of the people living in the states for not holding their representatives responsible for the problems inherent in large business. But all the wage, subsidy, and import quota legislation decreases competition in the market, and thus the worker suffers. The worker is well protected in a competitive free market.
@Pbirv What your last sentence shows is your ignorance. The reason a company would shift their labor force to overseas is because unions in the U.S. prevent the company from competing in the U.S. marketplace, since they use collective bargaining to bankrupt the company. In fact, if you watched the above video, minimum wage laws hurt inner city and teenage workers. I'll leave you with some words of wisdom, "The fundamental principle to a free society is voluntary cooperation."
@heavym3tal Not only unions, but communist minimum wage, workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, fascist safety and environmental laws, child labor laws, and business regulations and taxes to support the Marxist welfare state.
Unions are the cause? Then why are so many NON UNION jobs, like customer service and IT leaving? In fact, pretty much any job that can be put on software or digitalized can be outsourced and any job that can be done cheaper overseas is being outsourced whether they're union or not. That includes, but isn't limited to, architects, engineers, chemists, radiologists, journalists, etc. Just so the CEO can give himself another pay raise or bigger bonus.
@Pbirv If it was just cheap labor, then you would have software and customer service jobs in countries like Liberia, Samoa, and Grenada. So your argument makes little sense. Besides what is "cheap"? For example, if a U.S. company pays overseas workers (Let's say China) in $1 U.S. Bills, that would be incredibly great, since they would accept pieces of green cloth for the work they do. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Chinese can not build a house from $1 dollar bills, so what happens?
@Pbirv The Chinese currency is the "Yuan." The Chinese worker then exchanges their Dollars for Yauns. When they do this, the exchange rate changes, and eventually gets to the point where the Yaun is fairly strong versus the dollar, and suddenly Chinese labor is not cheap anymore. Now all that manufacturing goes back to the United States. Please look up how currency exchanges work on youtube from the user: KhanAcademy, it will help.
@Pbirv But lets look at your questions to me. If you have no minimum wage, you can hire so many employees that people can take days off, or 4 hour work shifts. If you like what unions have done so far, why not strike for $50 to $100 per hour minimum wage? Why not strike for 8 hrs a week as full time? You should really investigate what conditions were like before people worked in factories, or explain how unions are the largest special interest group (lobbyists) in the country.
Going by your assertion, unemployment should be a lot lower than it is in places like India, which have no minimum wage laws. And without a minimum wage, there's nothing to keep unscrupulous or greedy employers from lowering their workers' wages to less than $1 an hour.
@Pbirv India has maintained laws that prevent modernizing of many industries, one such example is cotton. In order to "protect" old ways of making cotton fabric, the country actually keeps people from modernizing and uplifting the poorest of the country. Pay of <$1/hr is bad by our standards, however, people in India work for rupees (dollars have no value unless they can exchange them). But they choose to work in those companies because it is better wages than the other job(s) they were working.
@heavym3tal They don't teach those in public schools. They only thing they teach is Marxism, gay sex, self esteem, the global warming scam, the evolution hoax, how to put a rubber on a banana, ebonics, gangbanging, and how to do drugs. No wonder we're losing jobs to China and India.
@Pbirv Actually India HAS minimum wage. And it is only slowly transforming from its former socialist self which began in 1991. You can compare the standard of living now, to the then and judge for yourself if it has been for the better.
And employment like anything else in the market is based on supply and demand. If greeeeeeeedy employer wants to pay only $1 then you can get a job elsewhere. And if there are no jobs elsewhere, then its more of a reason for you to have a job than NOT
@tjohn1986 It doesn't do much good for a worker to go elsewhere when all the employers are doing pretty much the same thing. If one employer lowers their workers' wages to less than $1 an hour, the others have to do likewise to stay competitive.
@tjohn1986 Even if your assertion was true, that would only happen in an economy where there's more employers hiring and jobs to be filled than there are workers available to fill them. It would never happen when employers can count on dozens, if not hundreds of applicants for each available opening, much like we have now. And workers would accept their wages being cut because they have to eat and being paid no more than $1 an hour is better than having no income at all.
@Pbirv Well at least you got half right. That's some progress I guess. Exactly you need employers to hire. Not the other way around. Employers create jobs, not the employees. And all the laws in the world CAN'T create jobs. You can raise the minimum wage to infinity, that won't make everyone rich, but instead everyone will be poor. Jobs are created by businesses and they should be allowed to operate freely. ...contd...
And when markets are free, both employer and employee will compete amongst each other. An employee will be paid what he is valued by the employer. 90% of American workers are paid ABOVE the minimum wage. Your bs govt regulations CAN'T cure poverty. WHAT PART OF THIS IS TOO DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND? Like Williams himself says, if that was the case we should go tell Bangladesh and other poor countries to start unions and raise the minimum wage to cure away the poverty
From Yahoo Answers; "India's minimum wage law, the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, recognised the argument for minimum protections, but has since fallen significantly behind. The law itself is now nearly 60 years old - a time during which inflation has raised costs several hundred percent - and does not set a specific minimum wage for all provisions, instead leaving it to the states to set occupation-specific wages.
"But, the states have largely had an anti-poor record in setting minimum wage levels; witness the massive variation in wages across the nation from Rs.25 a day - a ridiculously low figure - to a high of Rs.134, itself still questionable. While some revisions in specific areas have been made apart from this Act, there has been no revision of this law on an all-encompassing scale."
Walter Williams makes a thoughtful, rational argument on the failure of "the War on Poverty". The vicious, profane and racist reaction of some on this thread to his presentation supports his position..."the War on Poverty" is a complete failure.
@davisch51 If I was president, I would abolish all welfare, minimum wage, social security, medicare, medicaid, all educational aid, workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, osha, epa, all other labor and environmental laws and business regulations, end all taxes on business, abolish the IRS and replace all taxes with a flat tax, close all public schools or turn them over to Bible believing churches.
@DarrelfromZeeland Yes those bible believing churches have done everything else so well. Let's see here witch burnings over trumped up accusations. Church preachers who were always found to live by the motto "do as I say not as I do." They swindle the elderly and their ideas of spanking aren't just a few hits with a paddle. We're talking brutal beatings by pastors just like old Fred Phelps. Oh yes the churches will save the nation. HA HA HA HA
@nfwvideo1 You're fucking retarded. Look you tard if you are just starting out in the workforce(white or black) you have no value. Labor is a good, like any commodity you pay for what you feel a product is worth and if you feel a product is too expensive you will of course not purchase it. I would rather get a shitty pay check then not get one at all. Go fuck yourself you racist asshole. Its because of people like you over 10 percent of this country is unemployed.
@nfwvideo1 The way I see it, it's the video of "How white people and their minimum wage law took our jobs"..."They tuukkk our jobbsss".. But honestly, the racial discrimination was so strong back then the black has had to struggle to live. First you have higher wages due to the law, which pushes up the production cost (or labour cost), Then, employers would start cutting off employees and to make those who stayed worked for those who made redundant. Thus, black has no place to stand back then.
This is total bullshit, I remember when I was in college the managers at this retail store would try to force people to work off the clock, not pay overtime and so much other bullshit.
I believe this video is all about minimum wage, which is a huge problem in all western societies.I encourage you all to go to South Africa to experience how they deal with no minimum wage and minimum welfare. Check out the service stations where people still pump your gas, check your tyres, oil etc. They rely totally on tips, as do the people watching your cars in the shopping ,malls, helping you load up your car and backing out. Not only blacks, but whites also.
May the Lord bless us with more Uncle Tom's like Walter Williams.
A handful of Blacks have the courage to speak out about disastrous government policies and the rest of the stick their heads farther up each other's butts.
@nfwvideo1 i dont argue that rain is wet with dumbfucks like you...you cant understand the simple concepts, so whats the point...go ahead and pretend its because obama is in office, i dont give a fuck, retard
@nfwvideo1 by forcing me at gunpoint to hand over the product of my labors , and charging me for owning property, you jackass.. thats how im being robbed
what happens to kids who leave 3rd rate public schools to the job market? In 2011, there are no jobs for people with college degrees, so if you have just a high school diploma....
The corporations would replace the comintern in a system about identical to the soviet tyranny, except it would be the fat cats instead of Stalin cracking the whip.
I'm left Libertarian, I guess. I see the world as a common treasury created for all, and every man and woman in it deserves to live a life not of drudgery, existing to create wealth for the powerful, but with advances in science and technology a better system is possible than one where success and happiness is measured in dollars.
I have to ask one question where are the "Blacks" who question their government? They are two busy going to Church on Sunday praising the Lord. The lack of a Minimum wage has also made minorities stupid, because a job instill the emotion of purpose, without jobs they seek purpose where there is none, and thats religion. Religion then make them emotional slaves to a book, so currently we have a minority class who has no critical thinking skills and also with no labor skills. Feeding off the sys.
@1:45 "The Government, in an attempt to 'protect' poor people often creates new obstacles for them." - Walter Williams
cgktuber 1 day ago
The Gov. is getting bigger everyday consuming liberty and freedom,gathering more and dependents with good intentions.The Gov needs to be more Ltd.
OnlyAPawn1970 1 week ago
GO TO COLLEGE OR GET A TRADE WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RELY ON MINIWAGE.
KEVLANEW80 3 weeks ago
9 and hour minimum wage in DC.... Great news for minorities. yeah right! More black youth unemployed and hanging around. Victims of good intentions
jjmdirector 3 weeks ago
williams is the greatest!!!!
denny3161 3 weeks ago
@kDest I will repeat it, so that you can pretend that your theory could work even "in a vacuum" which it could not.
An unemployed man is a golden opportunity for an employer, just as a man with commodities and nothing to trade them for is a golden opportunity for a producer. Businesses may only be profitable, by selling, by producing, by hiring. Anyone capable and willing of work who remains unemployed is a lost opportunity, and one simply cannot expect that to go on for long on a large scale.
eggory 4 months ago 2
@eggory Sorry, businesses do not have to hire to be profitable, they have to hire to grow.
Huboons 3 weeks ago
@eggory You have forgotten one glaring fact. Welfare. When it started to pay to not work, your argument became invalid. Today there are entire families supported on state and federal aid.
dlstb 3 weeks ago
@dlstb Of course if people were physically barred from applying or hiring then that would invalidate my argument as well, except for the fact that I was speaking in terms of a free market, that is a world in which private property is respected and force is never used except as an answer to force.
eggory 3 weeks ago
@eggory
>>An unemployed man is a golden opportunity for an employer
Unless there is high unemployment, in which case they are merely expendable cogs.
>>Anyone capable and willing of work who remains unemployed is a lost opportunity, and one simply cannot expect that to go on for long on a large scale.
It does during recessions.
kDest 3 weeks ago
@kDest It is quite simple that your claims of capitalism causing mass poverty only on the basis that "at one point in time there was a free market and also a lot of poor people," remains completely insubstantiated. You interpret one event to be a factor in the other only according the principles which you're trying to demonstrate in the first place. You must demonstrate a connection in history using economic theory. And my demonstration of your theory's self-contradiction stands unchallenged.
eggory 4 months ago
@eggory
>>your claims of capitalism causing mass poverty... remains completely insubstantiated
I am supported by the industrial revolutions of the United States and Britain. I am further supported by the many present-day developing nations which serve as cheap labor pools to developing nations. I have history and the present as my evidence.
>>economic theory
Besides its obvious nature, you no-doubt subscribe to a libertarian school like the austrian or chicago schools, which are bogus.
kDest 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eggory
>>your claims of capitalism causing mass poverty... remains completely insubstantiated
I am supported by the industrial revolutions of the United States and Britain. I am further supported by the many present-day developing nations which serve as cheap labor pools to developing nations. I have history and the present as my evidence.
>>economic theory
Besides its obvious nature, you no-doubt subscribe to a libertarian school like the austrian or chicago schools, which are bogus.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest It is usually ignorant but in your case unscrupulous to point to the history of the rise of man as wealthy - and free - and say that at one particular point in time there were only two things happening, one of which was the cause and the other the effect which you wish to demonstrate. History is not a controlled experiment. A million things happened at the same time, some of them causes, some of them effects, and most of them unrelated to most others. Raw data is not evidence in itself.
eggory 4 months ago
@eggory
And are totally incompatible with modern economic theory anyway.
>>History is not a controlled experiment
I don't have to claim it is. If you studied those periods you would know how insightful they are, and if you studied international politics and application of your ideology, you would know it doesn't work so well. Instead you have to pretend that I base my entire beliefs on one piece of data, because your understanding of your ideology's application in the real world is so shallow.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest You talk about not being able to rely on the benevolence of your employer. Well that is only the half truth. You Should not rely on the benevolence of Anyone.
Perhaps it is you who relies on the benevolence of your government. In which case you are terribly naive.
Or perhaps you rely on the benevolence of your fellow citizens. But if they are so benevolent, why must their hand be forced by the government?
What is left is, you rely on forcing other people to give you what you want.
eggory 4 months ago
@eggory
>>You Should not rely on the benevolence of Anyone
Why do people like you waste space in our societies? You demand a free ride, no civic duty. You proudly defend the most base natures of humanity like greed and selfishness. You work to further toxic social policies designed to undermine our post-enlightenment governments and cultures.
You are the first to complain about the society you live in, but you will not move. You will stay there and ruin society for everyone else, proudly.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest You are pure rhetoric. Nothing you say is anything but a disguise for a lack of substance, you manipulator of emotions, you shameless coward of a sophist. Do you have a real ideology, still breathing somewhere under that pile of lies, completely hidden from the public to your only, pathetic advantage? Let me show you how one debates with a standard of virtue in mind - honesty.
eggory 4 months ago
@eggory
>>Do you have a real ideology, still breathing somewhere under that pile of lies, completely hidden from the public to your only, pathetic advantage?
You are projecting your own insecurities. Creationists do the same thing when they accuse scientists of having to believe in the absurd. Proponents of alternative medicine do it when they claim there is some massive conspiracy.
You want to live like you are one man on an island. Problem is there are 35 million who share it with you.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest One can improve his situation further, by exactly the same token he was able to the first time. You seem to be saying that the way these companies make money, is by offering something only Slightly better than what terribly desperate people have already got. The more desperate someone is the less you have to offer him, so everyone wants to hire the unemployed. What do you do when you run out of unemployed? You must offer to the already employed, slightly better employment!
eggory 4 months ago
@eggory
>>You must offer to the already employed, slightly better employment!
Sweatshops are not in the business of competing with each other through higher wages. They are trade-based jobs, which means their labor pool is endless. You really don't seem to understand the history of these business practices.
There is almost always a labor surplus, and unskilled labor is the most common. Sweatshops survive because there is always someone who is able to replace a dead or fired employee.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest "here is always someone who is able to replace a dead or fired employee" Yes, there are plenty of low skilled, lazy, stupid or unproductive people to exploit. Thank goodness for that because it makes my job of being productive and smart that much easier.
Huboons 3 weeks ago
@Huboons
>>Thank goodness for that because it makes my job of being productive and smart that much easier.
Actually, a misinformed based of stupid people is what makes your job easier.
kDest 3 weeks ago
@kDest "Actually, a misinformed based of stupid people is what makes your job easier." Thanks for making my job easier.
Huboons 3 weeks ago
This is an excellent, well-considered documentary. Very current.
SFConifer 4 months ago
3.35 an hr. i remember being paid that. it wouldn't go far today, that's for sure, not to mention it didn't go that far then, but none the less, it was still more worth then than what it is today. one could get a little more for their money then.
sr71ablackbird 5 months ago
@ninjashade411
Youtube has a 500 character limit. I prefer to address concerns that are most meaningful as concisely as possible.
>>ill leave u with this; grow up. life is not fair. no one is gonna be there to protect u unless u ask.
You just graduated high school and judging by earlier comments have no real-world experience. You are at a stage where you can choose to be either humble, and learn why you are wrong, or remain stubborn and live your life confusing what is with what ought to be.
kDest 5 months ago
@ninjashade411
>>why u keep talking about children
Because they were the victims of unregulated capitalism. They were plentiful, cheap labor and this is how capitalism works, it doesn't care about morality, but efficiency in deriving profit.
>>working standards were getting better
They became better once the unions gained a foothold.
>>it was to a point where children did not have to work
That was later on. It was mandatory schooling and abolishment of child labor together that ended it.
kDest 5 months ago
@ninjashade411
In the United States similar things happened but because we are a large nation, it was less amplified. However, there were instances where union organizers were hanged, union protesters were shot by private security firms. Medicine back then was quackery, anything could be sold, and it usually was. Coca-Cola has cocaine in it. Radium-laced water was sold as a cure-all.
Running a society on profit is not moral. It just leads to powerful men with no restraint. Learn from history.
kDest 5 months ago
The factories would dump their wastes straight into rivers of London, and because the workers could not afford imported water, they were chronically sick from the water supply. Unions were violently repressed. You see factories were big and powerful and could make unions illegal. You were expected to work your life away and live with nothing. If you were maimed, you were fired. if you rebelled you were beaten. It was a hard life, but we beat it over centuries.
kDest 5 months ago
@ninjashade411
Now picture this, children as young as 4 year old working around exposed, dangerous machinery for long hours. Who would do such a thing? Well, it was profitable. You could pay children less, and they were expendable, unskilled labor. In match factories girls would develop phossy jaw from handling the phosphorous. In coal mines young boys not much older than you would die regularly, because a regular life of work there made their lungs black. It was profitable.
kDest 5 months ago
@ninjashade411
Back before regulation, unions, and safety laws it was common practice to have children work in factories. You see, they were small and had nimble hands. They would be shipped off to the nearest available factory and work around exposed machinery for very long hours, sometimes 14 hours a day. They did repetitive, grueling work. Sometimes they would get tired and have accidents, because the machinery was fast and there were no safeguards. They would lose limbs and then be fired.
kDest 5 months ago
@ninjashade411
>>but MORALLY would go up much faster
Markets are not moral entities. You do not know what you are talking about. This is why unregulated markets are fraught with child labor, indentured servitude and slavery, violence, tainted food and water, etc.
>>so yeah i've got no problem with getting rid of the minimum wage law.
Before you ruin society for the rest of us, go move to a country where there is no minimum wage and regulation. Experience the reality before promoting nonsense.
kDest 5 months ago
@ninjashade411
>>if u keep regulations low, markets will rise, wages will increase
This is incorrect. Wages do not increase naturally because the point of business is to create a good that maximizes profit. This is why nations which do not enforce a minimum wage are some of the poorest.
>>the standard of living not only economically
In order for the standard of living to raise, you need power sided with the workers. Unions and government. Otherwise you have very low standards, like China.
kDest 5 months ago
@kDest What are you talking about? Singapore does not have a minimum rage and has one of the highest standard of living in Asia. Same with Macau. United Arab Emirates is a wealthy Middle Eastern country also does not have minimum wage.
jisangNY1 4 months ago
@jisangNY1 Oops, I meant wage not rage.
jisangNY1 4 months ago
@jisangNY1
>>Singapore does not have a minimum rage and has one of the highest standard of living in Asia
Singapore's private sector is dominated by government-owned corporations, and immigrant labor. They also have a heavily regulated healthcare system.
Macau does not count because it is so small.
The UAE is rife with corruption and is a common destination for foreign workers and businessmen. Their prosperity is in part because of foreign wealth, but principally due to oil exports.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest
you're wrong nations that enforce minimum wage do it BECAUSE they are rich(they can) and Nations that don't enforce minimum wage do it BECAUSE they aren't rich.
undeveloped and developing nations refrain from price floorinfg in the labor market because their markets need the flexibility to grow so hiring and production as well as income need maximization market wise.
MW in post industrial nations are a political ploy and only help those that get jobs those that lose are worse off.
Ravengaurd6 4 months ago
@Ravengaurd6
>>BECAUSE they are rich
Many developing nations and poor nations have minimum wage. It all has to do with how much power worker advocacy groups have in these nations.
>>because their markets need the flexibility to grow
Nations without minimum wage keep this way because they wish to draw foreign money. The governments sell their citizens out for personal gain.
>>and only help those that get jobs
It raises the standard of living higher than it would otherwise be.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest Those groups lobby to bring the law down on the heads of other workers. Those who are desperate for a job and willing to do something about it are barred by force from underselling their competition, left only to seek donations, and you think that's moral?
"Sweat shops" offer jobs exactly where they're wanted and lacking, to the desperate. They raise the standard of living. But you demonize them for doing it in their own interests - they don't give donations. But it's a sign of respect!
eggory 4 months ago
@eggory
>>Those groups lobby to bring the law down on the heads of other workers.
You mean workers who betray solidarity for personal advantage?
>>barred by force from underselling their competition
If you cannot provide a good or service without exploiting the desperation of others and violating basic ethics, then you ought not have a business.
>>you think that's moral?
It is more moral than forcing these people into desperate jobs where they must sell their livelihoods away for nothing.
kDest 4 months ago
@eggory
>>"Sweat shops" offer jobs exactly where they're wanted and lacking
They are a calculated solution to profitability. They take the most desperate workers, sell the fruits of their labor overseas where we cannot empathize with these workers' situations, at a huge profit, while denying these workers a majority of that profit for the calculated reason of keeping them dependent on this hard labor job. If they had fair wages they might open up their own business, and might not be desperate.
kDest 4 months ago
@eggory
>>They raise the standard of living
No they don't. They exist only out of desperation, and work to perpetuate that desperation by maintaining low wages and dependence on foreign investors. They are the modern-day equivalent of plantations - labor factories designed to operate using a dependent source of labor.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest Because I can tell you're not going to be at all honest about this, I will make one small point at a time so you must address it directly. You will address it directly, or you will embarass yourself.
If someone is desperate to make money, that does not mean they are desperate to make less money than they currently do, but more. Less is no incentive to work for you. The same is no incentive to stop doing what they're used to. Switching jobs is a hassle.
You must offer them improvement.
eggory 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eggory
>>you're not going to be at all honest
If you lack a case, or have a weak argument, don't resort to the tired tactic of claiming your opponent is a liar. it makes you look desperate.
>>If someone is desperate to make money, that does not mean they are desperate to make less money than they currently do, but more.
Sweatshops are jobs. In a society where a job equates to survival, there is no choice but to work, no matter how bad the job is.
kDest 4 months ago
@eggory
This is particularly true when foreign investments start to outstrip local jobs which have a culture friendly to the native residents, or when they make deals with the local governments which want the industry growth and are willing to make bad deals for their citizens because of this.
So, no. The answer is not that sweatshops provide a mutually beneficial arrangement. They provide a one-way beneficial arrangement, an exploitative arrangement, to poor people who will take anything.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest Yes they are mutually beneficial, why else would people flock from subsistence farming or other extreme poverty like jobs to sweatshops? Because they pay better and it's a safer work environment.
It's easy for westerners or just from rich nations to assume that kids that are working there would simply go to school if they weren't working there, but that's not the case. Often times if these kids are pushed out of sweatshop jobs they'll end up in prostitution. The same with adults.
crazypants88 4 months ago
@crazypants88
>>Yes they are mutually beneficial
The practice of preying on people and luring them into bad situations for the promise of riches is not beneficial to the person. It is exploitative.
>>why else would people flock from subsistence farming or other extreme poverty like jobs to sweatshops?
Pay attention, because I've said this before: these factories pay so little that they spread poverty where they exist, it is just that an agrarian economy is poorer.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest So all the europeans that flocked here in the begining of the 20th century and worked horrible jobs never found their way out of poverty.
USfutbol 4 months ago
@USfutbol
>>So all the europeans that flocked here in the begining of the 20th century and worked horrible jobs never found their way out of poverty.
They worked hard jobs and were disposable. Then they formed labor unions and got higher wages, safer jobs, and were not so easy to fire. Then they found their way out of poverty.
You will never get out of poverty by depending on the benevolence of your employers. It is a struggle, especially last century.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest If it results in a better living standard for them than they had before, then it's absolutely beneficial to them. Even if it doesn't, it could still be beneficial to them, values are subjective, meaning what people see as positive some would see as negative and vice versa.
If the sweatshops or factories pay so little why are people going there instead of remaining at their original vocation? Obviously because they're better off there than scraping a living out in the fields.
contd.
crazypants88 4 months ago
@crazypants88
>>If it results in a better living standard for them than they had before, then it's absolutely beneficial to them.
It isn't beneficial because it keeps them in a perpetual state of poverty. Sweatshops do not increase pay over time. They do not cause economic booms that lift communities out of poverty. They exist to pay as little as possible for as much labor as possible. They freeze the economy for the people who work in them. In Britain sweatshops lasted over 100 years.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest No it doesn't, it's increasing their standard of living. If you take a job that pays better than your previous job than of course you're wealthier than you were with that job rather than without it. How can they be keeping them in poverty when their offering them better wages than they had. That seems to be the way out of povery.
How do you know that sweatshop don't increase wages over time? Even if they didn't their still giving them better wages then they had.
contd.
crazypants88 4 months ago
@crazypants88
>>How can they be keeping them in poverty when their offering them better wages than they had.
Because the wages they offer still put them in the poverty bracket, and will not change to lift them out of that bracket.
>>How do you know that sweatshop don't increase wages over time?
I know that they do not increase wages in a meaningful way over time, I know this because only the poorest nations have sweatshops, and they persist for decades without improving the social situation.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest contd.
All business pay as little as possible for as much labor as possible. That's how they stay in business. If you pay more for labor than you get out of it, your business won't last for long.
crazypants88 4 months ago
@crazypants88
>>All business pay as little as possible for as much labor as possible.
So ask yourself why our standard of living is so much better than India or China. The reason is that we force our businesses to treat our workers better. If there were no artificial bottom enforced, we would resemble Mexico, China, etc.
Sweatshops persist because there is no power on behalf of the workers. The workers cannot organize effectively, and the state doesn't side with them, so wages stay low.
kDest 4 months ago
Comment removed
kDest 4 months ago
@crazypants88
>>If the sweatshops or factories pay so little why are people going there instead of remaining at their original vocation?
Because nothing is a better wage than less-than-nothing. These people are not Americans. They aren't well-fed, most live on less than 2$ a day. They don't have labor unions in most cases who will back their demand for higher pay and better hours. When you and your community are faced with a choice between bad work and starvation, you choose bad work.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest Look, what you're really arguing is that once such an economy has been established, nobody who starts out with a low-paying factory job can improve his situation.
We agree that for these people, a job at a sweatshop enables them to eat better than they had been able to before, you're just trying to say that if they are then stuck with that greater income that makes them poorer. Well no, if that was true they would be more wealthy, and less free. So say what you mean.
eggory 4 months ago
@eggory
>>nobody who starts out with a low-paying factory job can improve his situation.
That was the case in Britain for 150 years. Over a century of sweatshops, which kept populations poor.
>>a job at a sweatshop enables them to eat better than they had been able to before
That is a platitude you work very hard to dress up. The fact is that these people are poor, and continue to be the poorest in the world, and they will stay that way unless there is government intervention and unions.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest contd.
Don't get me wrong, I realize that to us the wages they receive at the sweatshops are really low, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that sweatshop work is better paid comparatively. It might be a low wage, but it's still a better wage then they had.
They spread poverty by giving people a better wage?
crazypants88 4 months ago
@crazypants88
These factories use the lure of a little extra money to trap people into economies based on exploitative practices. These types of economies will last centuries (see Britain's industrial age) because they keep workers poor, dependent on hard work, and move financial power towards the factory owners, who often use their influence to disperse worker organization, and enforce bad work conditions through government law.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest Exploitative practices?
What counts as exploitation is subjective. To a very poor man a low paid job in a factory is a godsend. If he doesn't like the wage he's offered he has every right to deny that offer and seek employment somewhere else.
crazypants88 4 months ago
@crazypants88
>>To a very poor man a low paid job in a factory is a godsend.
To a small child, making some extra money is a godsend, he just doesn't know he'll be selling sexual favors to wealthy businessmen.
>>If he doesn't like the wage he's offered he has every right to deny that offer and seek employment somewhere else.
You mean starve. He can either work in a sweatshop or starve. Or the child can have sex with businessmen or his family will starve. You have no idea what it's like.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest I'm not advocating children go into prostitution. In fact I have argued that eliminating sweat shops results in children having no other recourse than to resort to prostitution. Since now they can't get the money they need for food, because their employer has been shutdown, they'll have to get that money some other way.
If he doesn't eat he'll starve. There are several ways to get food. You could grow it or buy it. Not having job means he doesn't have to money to buy food,...
contd
crazypants88 4 months ago
@crazypants88
>>In fact I have argued that eliminating sweat shops results in children having no other recourse than to resort to prostitution.
Which is a half-truth. You can eliminate sweatshops and child labor, but you must also mandate free education, or provide conditional vouchers like Lula did.
>>Not having job means he doesn't have to money to buy food
When you live on less than $2 a day it does, it also means that charities are overburdened so you cannot really rely on them.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest contd.
...there's still charities and such. He doesn't have to starve to death. The freer the market the more easily it will be to employ people so as long as the market is free, there would always be a demand for labor.
crazypants88 4 months ago
@crazypants88
>>there's still charities and such
"Charities" is one of the fudge words of libertarians. Every social problem, like poverty and lack of healthcare, is thrown to the mercy of charity, as if it is always there to pull up the slack when it never can fully. Charity is the last resort of poor social welfare. It is a band-aid on a deep social problem caused by poor wealth distribution.
>>demand for labor
High tariffs and universal unions and minimum wage would help fix this.
kDest 4 months ago
@crazypants88
>>Often times if these kids are pushed out of sweatshop jobs they'll end up in prostitution.
Again, if you study the industrial revolutions of developed nations, like the United States, you would know that child labor ended only when we banned it and mandated school attendance at public schools. Child labor will last for literally centuries unless the state intervenes and provides free education.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest Actually According to the stats I've found, child labour was decreasing long before child labour was made illegal on a federal level. The only place they had an increase in child workers was agriculture. This is just speculation on my part but where I'm from it's expected that the kids help out on a farm, so maybe that was the case in the US. Child labor is only used when the parents are poor to the degree that not sending the kid to work will result in them starving.
crazypants88 4 months ago
@crazypants88
>>child labour was decreasing long before child labour was made illegal on a federal level.
It still existed though, and specifically there were groups that formed who protested it and sought to abolish the practice. They found that the best way to end it was to mandate education. A simple ban wouldn't be enforced well enough. This was also the case in Britain. The laws existed but were not enforced.
kDest 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ravengaurd6
>>BECAUSE they are rich
Many developing nations and poor nations have minimum wage. It all has to do with how much power worker advocacy groups have in these nations.
>>because their markets need the flexibility to grow
Nations without minimum wage keep this way because they wish to draw foreign money. The governments sell their citizens out for personal gain.
>>and only help those that get jobs
It raises the standard of living higher than it would otherwise be.
kDest 4 months ago
This anti-minimum wage rhetoric is simply pro-business propaganda. The full picture is that minimum wage raises the standard of living for workers beyond their developing nation counterparts who can hardly afford anything. However, because we do not impose strict policies of high tariffs on imported goods, businesses simply move our jobs overseas where they can pay a dollar a day for labor. If you want our standard of living to be like developing nation, then by all means end minimum wage.
kDest 6 months ago
If minimum wage is reduced or eliminated, more people will have to go on welfare at the taxpayers' expense. Michele Bachmann wants to end minimum wage. That's bad enough, but exactly what are people supposed to do when there aren't enough jobs to go around so that we can pick up second and third jobs?
cincyblows 7 months ago
BOO FUCKING HOO!! Cry me a fucking river! Can't live on what you're paid? Get a 2nd job. Get a 3rd job. Move to where the better jobs are. Get an education and upgrade your skills and make yourself smarter and more valuable. Start your own business. Why should I pay for your shitty choices?
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@DarrelfromZeeland What an ignorant respionse. In some areas there aren't enough jobs to go around, jackass. I'm well-educated, btw, so don't go there with me. God you're a moron.
cincyblows 7 months ago
@cincyblows So move to where the jobs are. There's always an overflow of work somewhere. Plenty of farm jobs picking fruit. Or ENLIST. Uncle Sam needs you on the front lines against the muzzies. Well educated? In what? Probably some useless libturd arts degree like theater, modern dance or gay feminist studies.
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@DarrelfromZeeland Um yeah -moving costs money. Clearly you've never been in the workforce, so to you it all seems so cut-and-dry. One day when you grow up and join the rest of your 50-something cohorts, let me know. Until then I'm ignoring your stupidity. By the way, I'm more highly educated than you'll ever be, and a bachelor's in business admin is an easy walk-through. I bet even you can do it. Good luck little man.
cincyblows 7 months ago
@nfwvideo2011 He's not saying blacks aren't worth the minimum wage, he's saying low skill, aren't worth the minimum wage. Unfortunately many with in the black community are exactly that, low skill workers. He also stresses even if it isn't a lot of money, they're busing working, getting skills, work experience, lessons, and some cash. Instead of turning to crime and the welfare state.
ShamanMcLamie 7 months ago
When you look at it, Unions are just businesses. They provide a service: represent the workers, or so they claim. They have a source of income: dues. And like large corporations they send lobbyist to Washington to create rules, laws, regulations, loopholes, and etc. to improve profits.
ShamanMcLamie 7 months ago
I AM ABOUT TO RAGE! WE GOTTA STAND UP DESTROY ALL OBSTACLES TO OUR DIGNITY! WE MUST DESTROY OUR OWN WEAKNESS!
Ravengaurd6 7 months ago
@nfwvideo1 Send them off to work as soon as they're old enough to walk. Universal education is a total failure. Some kids aren't meant for school.
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@DarrelfromZeeland If I have children they're not going to work 20 hours a day in a sweat shop while all our money goes to Israel or to cover the tax credits for churches.
MatthewCVR 7 months ago
@MatthewCVR Why don't you just fucking admit you're a Nazi?
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@DarrelfromZeeland You're the one who would kill a child if that child refused to go to Sunday School. You want to lock people up for listening to music you don't like. You make it clear on your channel you want to kill gay people and anyone who's into pornography. You've got it backwards you're the fascist.
MatthewCVR 7 months ago
@MatthewCVR The fascists were ATHEIST LIBERALS. Mussolini and Hitler were both fucking SOCIALISTS. Mussolini was a fan of Marx and Lenin.
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@DarrelfromZeeland What about Ziofascists like Doctor Michael Savage and Doctor Laura Schlessinger? They want kids to be put in school uniforms 24/7. They want to tell us what music we can and cannot listen to. Well let me tell you fourth of July is coming up and I'll stand for what the founding fathers wanted. I won't get on my knees for the demands of radical Zionism.
MatthewCVR 7 months ago
And what's wrong with school uniforms? I wore a uniform all though school. It's better than looking like a fucking Barnum and Bailey reject with baggy clothes, dyed hair, tattoos and piercings. Somebody needs to set their foot down and tell these punks they can't listen to their hip hop and rock music, their dipshit parents aren't doing it.
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@DarrelfromZeeland It's the fourth of July and today we honor our founding fathers. Our founding fathers gave us a nation where we're free to listen to rock and rap music. They gave us a nation where we are NOT forced to go to church. Oh and it's Monday and that's Lord Satan's Day. I love the Constitution. I'm NOT sorry for being a Satanist. I love the Stars and Stripes.
MatthewCVR 7 months ago
@MatthewCVR Your choice of god does not offend me, but your love of mondays shows clear opposition to the philosophy of Garfield the cat.This simply must not be tolerated, heretic!
ShadowSandy 6 months ago
@DarrelfromZeeland Hey Darrel did you notice in this video the economics professor in this video is a well known and outstanding man of the black race? Oh I even saw another black guy in a suit and tie in that video. You said to me "look what's happened since we freed them!" Oh hey did you hear about the late Johnny Cochran and his Law Firm that expanded throughout the nation? He made more money in a month than you or I made in 10 years.
MatthewCVR 7 months ago
@nfwvideo1 It's called homeschooling. Otherwise they can get vouchers and scholarships. For the poorest of the poor, there would be charity schools funded by donations and staffed by volunteers.
RobTheHuntingMan 7 months ago
@nfwvideo1 The workweek and safety standards should be set by the free market, not by law. A business owner has a better knowledge of what his company's safety needs are than the government ever will. As for the 40 hour workweek, because obesity is such a huge problem, extending the workweek to at least 70 hours would help in reducing it by having workers spend more time working off their calories. It'll also enable them to buy that gallon of milk without having to use their credit card.
RobTheHuntingMan 7 months ago
@RobTheHuntingMan Extending the work week to to at least 70 hours would make us slaves to inflation.
karnzkeltic 7 months ago
@RobTheHuntingMan Too bad that Republican Nixon signed OSHA into law. So much for there being a dimes worth of difference between the two main parties.
MatthewCVR 7 months ago
I love the clean production values of 80s news programs. They're so soothing with their lack of music and rapid-fire edits.
jakeharvey 9 months ago 17
DelMonte still has the same design on their canned foods! LOL
Toddzilla1337 9 months ago
@nfwvideo1 After doing my own homework, yes, I would have been against the entire labor movment. Unions present the idea that they fight for everyone, when in fact, they look out for their members and no one else.
heavym3tal 10 months ago
@heavym3tal So you'd rather do without safer standards or having weekends and holidays off or family leave or workmen's comp or anything else that unions brought us? You'd rather go back to 12-19 hour workdays with no safety protections, no bathroom breaks, for less than half the cost of living indoors WITH DIGNITY, as opposed to sharing a 1 bedroom apartment or trailer with 10-30 other people, child labor, and the boss being able to fire you simply because he doesn't like you personally?
Pbirv 10 months ago
@Pbirv What you have said is total nonsense. Although I would like to ask if you have ever been fired from a job that you did well? In my experience (I have never been in a union), I never been fired from a job before. In fact, it makes no good business sense to fire trained employees, unless they consistently do something wrong (it costs too much).
heavym3tal 10 months ago
@heavym3tal Your assumption only works when there's more jobs to be filled than there are workers available to fill them. It's definitely not the case when an employer can count on at least a dozen people outside the gate willing to take the job.
Pbirv 10 months ago
@Pbirv Look what happened recently when they started drilling for oil shale in Montana/N. Dakota. There are not enough employees in the surrounding area to fill the positions. Clearly more people can move and get a decent job. But you dodged the question of $50 or $100/hr minimum wage and what justifies full time employment.
heavym3tal 10 months ago
@heavym3tal "What you have said is total nonsense." Actually what I said was a fact of life for most working Americans before workers started organizing into what became unions.
"Although I would like to ask if you have ever been fired from a job that you did well? In my experience (I have never been in a union), I never been fired from a job before."
Companies have been firing good workers to bring in cheaper ones, mostly foreign, simply to boost their bottom line.
Pbirv 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pbirv " Actually what I said was a fact of life for most working Americans before workers started organizing into what became unions." So what? At least they had jobs.
"Companies have been firing good workers to bring in cheaper ones, mostly foreign, simply to boost their bottom line." So they should've offered to work for less. Chinese, Indians, and Mexicans are willing to do the same jobs as us, and do them better, cheaper, and faster.
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@Pbirv Are you in a Union? If you are, I can understand your POV. Regardless, Unions do not care about the poor in society. Unions lookout for one group, Union members (as they should). What they do is intimidate people looking for work and employers offering jobs, often with violence. It is clear that you have no idea how to run a company in the real world. If you have invested so much time into training your present workforce, you would not fire good workers.
heavym3tal 7 months ago
@heavym3tal Unions need to be outlawed and declared to be terrorist groups, then hammered with both the Patriot Act and RICO, all their members and supporters need to be rounded up and executed or sent to Gitmo, and all their assets and property seized.
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@heavym3tal Companies have had 40,000 complaints against them with the Labor Board. Unions have only had about 40.
Pbirv 7 months ago
If it wasn't for unions;
You might get 1, MAYBE 2 days off work a year, depending on the employer.
You'd be working 12-19 hours a a day, in horrid, unsafe conditions, with few or no safety protections.
If you're hurt on the job, your "compensation" would be to get fired and replaced with an uninjured worker.
You'd be working for a fraction of what you get paid now.
If you're hurt or killed on the job, tough shit. To your surviving family, more of the same.
Pbirv 7 months ago
@Pbirv The list of statements you made for "If it wasn't for unions:" is factually untrue. That said, it is the role of government to protect its citizens from harm from other citizens. Clearly if a worker is injured due to the employer's fault, then the worker has a legal claim that can be settled in court, but that doesn't require legislation, its merely common sense. Even now with standards like OSHA, why does anyone need unions?
heavym3tal 7 months ago
I agree that unions, like all large organizations, have their problems and are long overdue for a good overhaul, but overall do more good than harm. At the very least they give the worker a measure of balance and recourse against overly arbitrary, greedy, and abusive employers.
Pbirv 7 months ago
@Pbirv Your statement that unions protect the individual worker is absolutely untrue. Unions look out for the good of the whole, not the few. They also use violence and intimidation with both their members and the employers that have to use them. Is it right to take away a person's right to choose to be or not be a member of a union? In many states the worker has no choice but to join a union. The cost of Union collective bargaining always gets passed on to the consumer.
heavym3tal 7 months ago
And yes, there may be labor laws, but the day that unions are gone and employers no longer have to fear or worry about workers organizing, how long do you think it'd be before corporate lobbyists and their right wing buddies in Congress and state legislatures start working to get those laws rolled back if not altogether repealed, or at the very least watered down and neutered so far that they won't make any difference or simply no longer enforced?
Pbirv 7 months ago
For example, George W Bush's picks for the Labor Board reclassified hourly workers as "managers" to avoid paying them for overtime, so they might work 70-80+ hours a week but only get paid for 40. If the pro-corporate people could get that passed with unions in existence, imagine what they could do to the labor laws once unions are no longer around to see that they're enforced?
Pbirv 7 months ago
@Pbirv Those labor laws never should've been passed. OSHA, EPA, labor standards, workmen's comp, unemployment, etc, are all Marxist fascist entitlements that drive the cost of doing business thru the roof. They, the commie union thugs, and the taxes to support the socialist welfare state are why we're losing jobs to the Chinese and Indians.
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@Pbirv Where does all this corporate power come from? Senators and representatives are elected by the people they serve, not by corporations. It is the fault of the people living in the states for not holding their representatives responsible for the problems inherent in large business. But all the wage, subsidy, and import quota legislation decreases competition in the market, and thus the worker suffers. The worker is well protected in a competitive free market.
heavym3tal 7 months ago
@Pbirv What your last sentence shows is your ignorance. The reason a company would shift their labor force to overseas is because unions in the U.S. prevent the company from competing in the U.S. marketplace, since they use collective bargaining to bankrupt the company. In fact, if you watched the above video, minimum wage laws hurt inner city and teenage workers. I'll leave you with some words of wisdom, "The fundamental principle to a free society is voluntary cooperation."
heavym3tal 7 months ago
@heavym3tal Not only unions, but communist minimum wage, workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, fascist safety and environmental laws, child labor laws, and business regulations and taxes to support the Marxist welfare state.
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
Unions are the cause? Then why are so many NON UNION jobs, like customer service and IT leaving? In fact, pretty much any job that can be put on software or digitalized can be outsourced and any job that can be done cheaper overseas is being outsourced whether they're union or not. That includes, but isn't limited to, architects, engineers, chemists, radiologists, journalists, etc. Just so the CEO can give himself another pay raise or bigger bonus.
Pbirv 7 months ago
@Pbirv If it was just cheap labor, then you would have software and customer service jobs in countries like Liberia, Samoa, and Grenada. So your argument makes little sense. Besides what is "cheap"? For example, if a U.S. company pays overseas workers (Let's say China) in $1 U.S. Bills, that would be incredibly great, since they would accept pieces of green cloth for the work they do. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Chinese can not build a house from $1 dollar bills, so what happens?
heavym3tal 7 months ago
@Pbirv The Chinese currency is the "Yuan." The Chinese worker then exchanges their Dollars for Yauns. When they do this, the exchange rate changes, and eventually gets to the point where the Yaun is fairly strong versus the dollar, and suddenly Chinese labor is not cheap anymore. Now all that manufacturing goes back to the United States. Please look up how currency exchanges work on youtube from the user: KhanAcademy, it will help.
heavym3tal 7 months ago
@Pbirv But lets look at your questions to me. If you have no minimum wage, you can hire so many employees that people can take days off, or 4 hour work shifts. If you like what unions have done so far, why not strike for $50 to $100 per hour minimum wage? Why not strike for 8 hrs a week as full time? You should really investigate what conditions were like before people worked in factories, or explain how unions are the largest special interest group (lobbyists) in the country.
heavym3tal 10 months ago
Going by your assertion, unemployment should be a lot lower than it is in places like India, which have no minimum wage laws. And without a minimum wage, there's nothing to keep unscrupulous or greedy employers from lowering their workers' wages to less than $1 an hour.
Pbirv 10 months ago
@Pbirv India has maintained laws that prevent modernizing of many industries, one such example is cotton. In order to "protect" old ways of making cotton fabric, the country actually keeps people from modernizing and uplifting the poorest of the country. Pay of <$1/hr is bad by our standards, however, people in India work for rupees (dollars have no value unless they can exchange them). But they choose to work in those companies because it is better wages than the other job(s) they were working.
heavym3tal 10 months ago
@heavym3tal You have to pardon pbirv. He probably went to a Marxist brainwashing camp that passes for a government public school.
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@DarrelfromZeeland Lol, he also doesn't understand free market economics and trade.
heavym3tal 7 months ago
@heavym3tal They don't teach those in public schools. They only thing they teach is Marxism, gay sex, self esteem, the global warming scam, the evolution hoax, how to put a rubber on a banana, ebonics, gangbanging, and how to do drugs. No wonder we're losing jobs to China and India.
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@heavym3tal He's living proof that libs can't even run a toaster, let alone an economy!
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@Pbirv India has minimum wage laws.
crazypants88 8 months ago
@Pbirv Actually India HAS minimum wage. And it is only slowly transforming from its former socialist self which began in 1991. You can compare the standard of living now, to the then and judge for yourself if it has been for the better.
And employment like anything else in the market is based on supply and demand. If greeeeeeeedy employer wants to pay only $1 then you can get a job elsewhere. And if there are no jobs elsewhere, then its more of a reason for you to have a job than NOT
tjohn1986 7 months ago
@tjohn1986 It doesn't do much good for a worker to go elsewhere when all the employers are doing pretty much the same thing. If one employer lowers their workers' wages to less than $1 an hour, the others have to do likewise to stay competitive.
Pbirv 7 months ago
@Pbirv Lol the OTHER way around. If one employer lowers wages, it will LOSE workers.
tjohn1986 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tjohn1986 You have to pardon pbirv. He probably went to a Marxist brainwashing camp that passes for a government "public school".
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@tjohn1986 Even if your assertion was true, that would only happen in an economy where there's more employers hiring and jobs to be filled than there are workers available to fill them. It would never happen when employers can count on dozens, if not hundreds of applicants for each available opening, much like we have now. And workers would accept their wages being cut because they have to eat and being paid no more than $1 an hour is better than having no income at all.
Pbirv 7 months ago
@Pbirv Well at least you got half right. That's some progress I guess. Exactly you need employers to hire. Not the other way around. Employers create jobs, not the employees. And all the laws in the world CAN'T create jobs. You can raise the minimum wage to infinity, that won't make everyone rich, but instead everyone will be poor. Jobs are created by businesses and they should be allowed to operate freely. ...contd...
tjohn1986 7 months ago
Comment removed
tjohn1986 7 months ago
.....contd....
And when markets are free, both employer and employee will compete amongst each other. An employee will be paid what he is valued by the employer. 90% of American workers are paid ABOVE the minimum wage. Your bs govt regulations CAN'T cure poverty. WHAT PART OF THIS IS TOO DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND? Like Williams himself says, if that was the case we should go tell Bangladesh and other poor countries to start unions and raise the minimum wage to cure away the poverty
tjohn1986 7 months ago
From Yahoo Answers; "India's minimum wage law, the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, recognised the argument for minimum protections, but has since fallen significantly behind. The law itself is now nearly 60 years old - a time during which inflation has raised costs several hundred percent - and does not set a specific minimum wage for all provisions, instead leaving it to the states to set occupation-specific wages.
CONTINUED ON NEXT POST
Pbirv 7 months ago
CONTINUED
"But, the states have largely had an anti-poor record in setting minimum wage levels; witness the massive variation in wages across the nation from Rs.25 a day - a ridiculously low figure - to a high of Rs.134, itself still questionable. While some revisions in specific areas have been made apart from this Act, there has been no revision of this law on an all-encompassing scale."
Pbirv 7 months ago
@Pbirv That's what the unionized company Kroger puts their employees through. Don't trust OSHA or unions.
MatthewCVR 7 months ago
Finally, @ 6:51 a fantastic argument against collective bargaining!
heavym3tal 10 months ago
@nfwvideo1 Are you aware that Uncle Tom was a heroic character in the book? I doubt you read much.
shamgar001 10 months ago
Walter Williams makes a thoughtful, rational argument on the failure of "the War on Poverty". The vicious, profane and racist reaction of some on this thread to his presentation supports his position..."the War on Poverty" is a complete failure.
davisch51 10 months ago 8
@davisch51 If I was president, I would abolish all welfare, minimum wage, social security, medicare, medicaid, all educational aid, workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, osha, epa, all other labor and environmental laws and business regulations, end all taxes on business, abolish the IRS and replace all taxes with a flat tax, close all public schools or turn them over to Bible believing churches.
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@DarrelfromZeeland Yes those bible believing churches have done everything else so well. Let's see here witch burnings over trumped up accusations. Church preachers who were always found to live by the motto "do as I say not as I do." They swindle the elderly and their ideas of spanking aren't just a few hits with a paddle. We're talking brutal beatings by pastors just like old Fred Phelps. Oh yes the churches will save the nation. HA HA HA HA
MatthewCVR 7 months ago
@MatthewCVR If we still had those "brutal beatings", we wouldn't have kids gangbanging, doing drugs, fornicating, or disrespecting elders.
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@nfwvideo1 You're fucking retarded. Look you tard if you are just starting out in the workforce(white or black) you have no value. Labor is a good, like any commodity you pay for what you feel a product is worth and if you feel a product is too expensive you will of course not purchase it. I would rather get a shitty pay check then not get one at all. Go fuck yourself you racist asshole. Its because of people like you over 10 percent of this country is unemployed.
RollingToeHold 10 months ago
@nfwvideo1 The way I see it, it's the video of "How white people and their minimum wage law took our jobs"..."They tuukkk our jobbsss".. But honestly, the racial discrimination was so strong back then the black has had to struggle to live. First you have higher wages due to the law, which pushes up the production cost (or labour cost), Then, employers would start cutting off employees and to make those who stayed worked for those who made redundant. Thus, black has no place to stand back then.
wookie5689 10 months ago
This is total bullshit, I remember when I was in college the managers at this retail store would try to force people to work off the clock, not pay overtime and so much other bullshit.
attemptingtobehumble 11 months ago
I believe this video is all about minimum wage, which is a huge problem in all western societies.I encourage you all to go to South Africa to experience how they deal with no minimum wage and minimum welfare. Check out the service stations where people still pump your gas, check your tyres, oil etc. They rely totally on tips, as do the people watching your cars in the shopping ,malls, helping you load up your car and backing out. Not only blacks, but whites also.
albie071 11 months ago 2
@nfwvideo1
May the Lord bless us with more Uncle Tom's like Walter Williams.
A handful of Blacks have the courage to speak out about disastrous government policies and the rest of the stick their heads farther up each other's butts.
Biggest tragedy of out time.
lakeeriejew 11 months ago
@nfwvideo1 i dont argue that rain is wet with dumbfucks like you...you cant understand the simple concepts, so whats the point...go ahead and pretend its because obama is in office, i dont give a fuck, retard
longfootbuddy 11 months ago
@longfootbuddy nfwvideo is obviously smash drunk on the Democrat party's Kool Aid.
RobTheHuntingMan 7 months ago
@nfwvideo1 your a moran...clearly brainwashed and stupid
longfootbuddy 11 months ago
@longfootbuddy A classic case of your public education dollars at work.
RobTheHuntingMan 7 months ago
@longfootbuddy Have you ever met a libturd who wasn't brainwashed and stupid? You never will.
DarrelfromZeeland 7 months ago
@nfwvideo1 by forcing me at gunpoint to hand over the product of my labors , and charging me for owning property, you jackass.. thats how im being robbed
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Latin wives waiting **busizz4me.info**
Acacialatrice 1 year ago
@nfwvideo1 oh, you think i have to stop funding everything because i dont want to fund a school? idiot
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
what happens to kids who leave 3rd rate public schools to the job market? In 2011, there are no jobs for people with college degrees, so if you have just a high school diploma....
YoungDreezee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
close all public schools.. its wrong to rob people to fund the education of someone else's kid
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi brother needs to chat a, latin women busizz4me.info
MoniRokse 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Кредит 17%. М МО. Без справок и поручителей. Консалтинг 25%. Другие варианты. (495)2200660 2200660@mail.ru
tiblon1 1 year ago
The corporations would replace the comintern in a system about identical to the soviet tyranny, except it would be the fat cats instead of Stalin cracking the whip.
I'm left Libertarian, I guess. I see the world as a common treasury created for all, and every man and woman in it deserves to live a life not of drudgery, existing to create wealth for the powerful, but with advances in science and technology a better system is possible than one where success and happiness is measured in dollars.
freddo27 1 year ago
This is ALL very one sided..
RCK502 1 year ago
Sorry I meant to say the policy of a minimum wage have made minorities stupid...
ckondiah 1 year ago
I have to ask one question where are the "Blacks" who question their government? They are two busy going to Church on Sunday praising the Lord. The lack of a Minimum wage has also made minorities stupid, because a job instill the emotion of purpose, without jobs they seek purpose where there is none, and thats religion. Religion then make them emotional slaves to a book, so currently we have a minority class who has no critical thinking skills and also with no labor skills. Feeding off the sys.
ckondiah 1 year ago