This argument completely glosses over, and even outright ignores the fact that if a business model cannot generate enough income to support the minimum wage, which is arguably barely survivable incomes levels, then it is almost certainly a poor business model. Where is the mathematics which would account for this discrepancy?
increases in the minimum wgae does not increase overall unemployment rates. Thats just rediculous and the reason bussinesses pay minimum wage has nothing to do with worker productivity but everything to do with the law!! Its just another attempt by some to deny hard working people a fair wage for their work in order to maximize their profits. Its totally exploitive. They pay their top execs multi million dollar compensation packages but refuse to pay their wokers a living wage!!!
@mirandaluc You might find some small firms and labour intensive companies are not able to enjoy what might be the charity of a living wage because eventually they would go out of business. So what would be better, you get a 'living wage' then lose your job because the company was bankrupted or work on a lower wage and the company continue. And in addition does 'society' benefit from a firm that gives them goods and or services going broke ?
The grammatical correction was unnecessary. You were grammatically correct the first time with the substitution of "which" for "who." "Portion...needs" is correct.
Syntactically correct sentence: Not only does the minimum wage cause unemployment, it causes unemployment for the lowest skilled portion of our population which needs jobs the most.
I skimmed through that article,and the only negative effect the minimum wage have is a slight raise in teenage unemployment. 4.6 to 8.8% decline, which is not alot. Only teenagers, most of whom are still in high school and living off their parents Because of this teenage umeployment is not of concern, there is no reason to eliminate the minimum wage over this slight decline.
this guy's right. Fuck the minimum wage, there would be so many more jobs available if employers were allowed to compete for the massive base of potential employees currently available. Precisely because of what this guy is saying.
What these poor filthy middle-american pieces of shit don't realize is that deregulation is the solution to their unemployment/poverty problems. The instant gratification of a higher minimum salary, as mandated by the government, is not the solution in the long term.
I think you are using a oversimplistic model. Yes sometimes this will be the case. But Mcdonalds for example will probably always pay the minimum they can (which is allowed by the market). However if the minimumwage is higher than this minimum (which it is otherwise they wouldn't be payed the minimum, atleast I'm assuming they are) then you increase wellbeing without reducing employment.
Makes sense.. but i still think that not having the minimum wage is more dangerous as it can beat the sh*t out of workers. Immigrants are seeing that already... and I doubt anyone wants immigrant wages
@fearfulmatrix Minimum wage or less is not a living wage It is a wage you take when you can't get any better. This is a wage you would take while still in high school, just out of jail or just divorced or widowed. In the USA. If you keep trying to become more valuable to your employer/customer you can demand higher wages. In the USA it is very common for someone to start out in the bottom 20% right out of school and end up in the top 20% when they retire.
And this is why workers need to go to work for themselves, when workers band together and work for their own profit, they make more money, there's no middle man at the top taking your earnings and giving you back a portion as a wage, and the cost of the company is shared so it's less costly to the individual.
I've always felt bad for people from third world countries who earn $1 to $2/hr, struggling to meet their families' needs with no hope of ever getting a raise. Listening to some smug, hair-gelled comedian saying that the same fate would be good for this country is depressing to tears.
@Xiricon Dunno if you weren't paying attention, but he advocated collective bargaining... Treat labor like any other good and increase the price of your labor. Forming a global union (which right now is difficult because of the very reason that government in countries that have workers getting paid so little money are usually even more oppressive than our government) would ensure fair wages. The market can "regulate" itself.
If a company can't make a profit while paying it's employees a living wage then perhaps it should be the executive who takes the first pay cuts? Clearly he or she isn't as "essential" as they like to believe.
If lower wages decreases unemployment then why not lower the wages of CEO's? Why shouldn't those most able to absorb the impact of wage cuts be expected to make those wage cuts? What right does a human have to exploit other humans at low wages so they can be a millionaire executive?
We've seen the impact of not having a MW. It was called slavery and the impact of a free labor economy drove down wages, stifled commerce in the South and only benefited slave owners who exported cotton to Europe.
@gamenode That's a great idea. In fact why not get rid of CEO's entirely and let the workers democratically manage their own work place and take the profits that would have otherwise gone to the CEO, to divide among themselves since they did all the work?
I'm not advocating socialism but the fact remains that over the past 40 years the top incomes have gone up by almost 400% while the middle class has seen their incomes rise by just 39%. I'm all for people making a profit but the trend in income growth at the top has been a product of reducing wages at the bottom more than efficiency or superior products.
@gamenode I'm not advocating socialism either. I'm advocating worker self management. The CEO is an insulated redundancy that only devours resources. If the wealth generated by the company were distributed to the workers they would have a greater incentive to do well and a greater incentive to eliminate inefficiency.
@gamenode Good point made about difference between the 1% and the rest of us-But the ultimate cause of ALL our problems is Debt and the lnterest charged.A person in debt has to=Work longer/harder-Less $£s to socialise-Family ties are strained-Dnt see kids(What are they doing?)Business debt=Increase hrs-lower wages-Less workers-Squeeze or find Cheaper suppliers(sweatshops?)Make cheap/short lived products-ripping up the earth.Govt debt=Higher tax-Cut spending-Privatise-Start a war to pay SPONSORS?
This used to be such a blind spot for me, as I supported Blairs 's introduction of the minimum wage in the 90's.. When I left home at 16 and got myself 3 jobs, which didn't pay a lot, but was enough for me to pay the rent and buy myself food and get job skills to boot.. I now rarely if ever see 16-18 yr olds working.. I can only conclude that the minimum wage has priced them entirely out of the market. It would have meant me staying at home in a rather unpleasant family situation with no escape.
If the company i worked for were to get rid of minimum wage they would not hire more people. The company would just make more money by paying their current workers less.
There need be an amendment to the constitution that businesses may not contribute to politicians' campaigns and may not interfere with government. That is what corrupted capitalism and turned into corporatism and cronyism. The antitrust law (anti competition) should also be made into an amendment. Another amendment should state that if a fat cat approaches and buys a politician they are both thrown in prison for life.
@jaybb789 YOUR WORDS - "They also can not explain how a person earning below the minimum wage is to survive"
Now, what am I to believe that SURVIVE means? So they get paid below minimum wage, they don't SURVIVE, yet they show up for work. And they must show up, or they're not getting paid.
So, you expect me to believe that someone with such lunacy for logic would actually know anything about history?
The question is not as simple as a "Minimum wage" its about a "Living wage". How much money do you need to survive on. To afford rent, food, bills etc.. Minimum wage works in the UK after all the furore of the right, no businesses went bust or jobs lost, very funny. People wont apply for jobs that arent worth it. so perhaps an argument for the minimum wage should be "if jobs pay, people will work" Oh and the more people earn, the more they spend, money in the economy! Keynes...
@jesusisasocialist Actually you are talking about the companion to minimum wage, which is welfare/EI. If the welfare amount afforded is above minimum wage or even close to it, there's a pretty big incentive not to bother working. If you could work all day long and earn maybe a dollar more an hour vs have the entire day off, and at least be stress free, why not?
So in the UK if there was no welfare or EI do you think people would just not bother taking a job they didn't like?
@jesusisasocialist There's a bigger problem too. When someone is earning a tiny amount. Even if it's barely enough to buy food rent etc, they aren't taking tax money to survive. In fact they actually add to tax money, even if it's in minuscule amounts.
For that same person to be on welfare costs that person's wage, plus the bureaucratic supporting amounts. All which come from tax money. You need several people with decent paying jobs to support that one person properly. More job loss = worse
The minimum wage might work against a small business.
However, as a company grows the demand for higher and higher profit cause the company to do things self-defeating to not only the area as well as the company (e.g moving to a nation with less restriction, regulation, lower wages - but then still trying to sell the product to the area where they just moved out the jobs. Now that the old employees, who were previously buying the product, are now unemployed and unable to purchase said product.)
THis is not the employers fault. It is supply and demand of labor. His competitors are hiring people for cheaper and underbidding his jobs. He must pay less or go out of business and hire nobody.
it is up to every worker to demand the wage they want to be paid. In the early 2000's I quit the same job 3 times in the same year and was rewarded with a raise each time. This was in a GOOD economy. Each time the employer realized I was worth more and paid more to keep me working there.
Now I pull that shit and im out of a job. There are 10 people waiting to take my job when I leave.
So I make less now then when i was 17 years old and I have 10 years more experience. Great.
@jaybb789 I made the idiotic comment? You're the one that has dead people showing up for work.
That is what SURVIVAL means. You're the one that thinks people are so stupid that they'll agree to work for wages that will result in their death. YOU have to explain that. Such wild irrational assertions require proof.
And I don't have to explain how other people pay their bills. It's THEIR life. I don't have the arrogance that you do.
@jaybb789 You have nothing but a string of "feel good" words that fall apart under even the slightest rational examination.
I've been listening to this crap for FORTY years. It didn't solve the problem then. Neither did all the intervening raises. All you do is "kick the can down the road" and ignore the real cause of poverty.
@jaybb789 The government that inflates the money supply, siphons of the wealth, bans work, and in general wrecks havoc with the world. I'm certain they appreciate your support. I'm sure they just love that kids now have to work for free, because they're not worth minimum wage. What's that? They work for free? What the fuck do you think internships are? Why do you think they're far more prevalent than they were forty years ago?
Virusjc, if you don't understand basic economic principles, please do not attempt to discuss economics. Unemployment only counts people able to work. So the segment of the population that is unable to work is not being counted. Same with prisons. Also, if a company is offering $2/hr with no minimum wage, if there is no one willing to work for that much, the company will have to raise the wage. Very basic economics, my friend, the grasp of which you clearly do not possess.
So, basically the solution is to put an end to the minimum wage and pay 3rd world wages. We've done this before, back in the 19th century. Also, it is impossible to entirely eliminate unemployment. You will always have segment of the population that cannot work due to physical problems or mental illnesses. You also always will have some segment in prison. People can't survive off of the minimum wage as it is, as you are not factoring in the cost of living.
@virusjc1 Some people would work below the minimum wage to be trained, some people would work below to do very basic jobs to supplement their already existing income, the point is, the minimum wage destroys all of those jobs. If you raise the minimum wage to $20 as stated in the video, almost all jobs below that line will be eliminated. Not all jobs produce $20 worth of labor, so the business would operate at a loss and just fire a bunch of people.
I just came across your channel. Excellent (albeit preaching to the choir). In 3 1/2 minutes, you made the explanation of what's wrong w/ min wage laws simple.
I'm not totally opposed to a min wage. I think a floor is proper that exists below the market value, so the desperate don't naively lock themselves into $4 / hr jobs. But what's wrong w/ the $5.15 we had? Most employers paid more for entry level, but looking for $7.25/hr work (or more) is far tougher for a kid.
If that's what the economy requires,let it be twenty.That's a decision for fair minded people to make.We are at an impasse in this country where greed and stupidity rule.I am getting tired of looking at your ugly face and any further letters from you will be sent straight to the trash box.
You appear to be advocating for slavery....A system which does not impose a minimum wage to protect workers will most likely not require an owner to show his employee his books; Which also mean that the employee will never be able to find out how much his boss is making off his ass.So,the boss can claim that even if I worked and produced 400 dollars worth of sales,he did not earn a dime for the period and therefore did not have to pay me.Only a Jew can come up with such a crazy idea
I think that minimum wage needs to be $10 an hour as it is only survival rate. What causes the increases of minimum wage, is the cost of living. I think Union workers are the most greedy and they effect companies to go over seas for lower operating cost.
@patsaxon What if a person would take more than one below minimum wage job? Then the MW could be zero but he would still make above MW because of the lack of MW. The jobs in this hypothetical example would each require him to work only 2-3 out of the week because of the individuals jobs low pay.
Minimal wage isn't a huge influence on unemployment numbers as you make it out to be. You make it sound like if minimal wage was increased by 10 cents, thousands of people would lose their jobs overnight.
Minimal wage can be a problem if it is above acceptable standards for business owners, but these aren't usually the case. As for raising the minimal wage, it should increase each by but at very small chucks, to keep up with the inflation.
@gamingeh The minimum wage in Australia is $15 (that's just a bit over $16 USD). Australia currently has much lower unemployment, has a demand for skilled workers in a variety of fields, is doing much better economically than the US. So things are not quite as simple and black and white and this guy likes to make out.
@xexixk A higher minimal wage with good employment prospects still not be signs of a great economic engine. In the Australia example, what is the price of goods and services when you compare them to the minimal wage? What is the inflation rate? The reason why I ask is because we have a similar situation in Alberta, where working at McDonalds can get you well above the minimal wage, but the cost of that is the huge housing costs. Alberta currently has a poverty problem due to this.
Hey spinney...do some googling on Australia ...look at our minimum wage and then look at our current unemployment figures. Then tell me how your untested theory marries up with my reality
@DingoBabyEat Excellent comment. I just made a comment about Australia's minimum wage and how the economy there is doing so much better than ours here in the US and then noticed your comment. Stupidity and fantasy have taken hold of the desperate masses here in the US and Spinney has found an audience among many of them - unfortunately. People like him are utopians - but if they had their way and put of these policies in place what we would end up with would be a modern day feudal state.
@xexixk gamingeh, has some good points. Housing affordability is becoming dangerously out of reach for us. We also pay highly for imported consumer goods - but that is the economy of scale. Our higher wages must also be viewed along side our other safety nets in social security, public health care and education which help the individual cope with inflation. Unfortunately if the argument gets dumbed down to minimum wage = high unemployment then the conversation is already dead.
@xexixk Continued - With all things given equal consideration, if you fall on hard times here in Australia then your road to recovery will be much less painful than in a country that seems to pit its citizens against each other as if they were gladiators. On the up side, at least the harsh conditions in your country give rise to the kind of crime, poverty and desperation which inspire some pretty awesome TV shows...have you seen Australian TV? its fucking boring!!!
@DingoBabyEat True. Here in the US a major illness can bankrupt a person - even a person with insurance. The only Australian TV program I've seen is Crime Investigation Australia. I've been to several European countries, never been to Australia as of yet, though I'd like to one day.
So a pool of 100,000 workers who start out making $10 an hour collectively make a $1,000,000 an hour. After a 10 percent wage increase and a reduction of 1 percent of the work force, 99,000 workers earning $11 an hour collectively make $1,089,000 per hour. That's a net increase of 8.9 percent per hour.
It's no doubt true that minimum wage increases result in job losses, but it also results in profit losses, so the cost of the minimum wage increase is split between labor and business. This is a net gain for the labor sector, which is reflected in the study that you link. "A 10 percent increase in state minimum wages is consistently associated with a 1 percent reduction in retail employment and a 1 percent reduction in small business employment."
Yes, if you raised the minimum wage to $20 an hour, there would issues. However, nobody is suggesting that you raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour. And cut it out with the white background and music. Do you think that you're bringing us some profound, holy message? Well, you're not. Your propagating a set of terrible ideas that have been terrible for this country.Check out the benefits and wages that germans get. And their unemployment rates are lower and their economy is growing. Christ.
@pihingler People like this guy spout their untested theories and ignore anything that doesn't support it (like the fact that Australia's minimum wage is $15 (that's over $16 US dollars) and their unemployment rate is much lower and their economy is doing much better than the US economy. He and his ilk are utopians - there is a reason why they only spout theory and can give no real world examples - because it is imposible.
walmart has outsourced their assembly lines to sweatshops in china. But no companies have ever come along to offer better conditions for those workers who work at those sweatshops. And im pretty sure that the government is not forcing those workers to work for wal-mart.
@Rime247 Walmart, yet another wonderful example of a government created corporation. I love hearing about these evil sweatshops. People always gripe about how hard the work is, and no vacation time, and dangerous working conditions, etc. . . and the one thing they seem to always neglect is HOW MUCH THE ACTUAL WAGE IS!!! LOL. And if they ever do bring it up, they compare it to American wages, of course. The truth is that these sweatshops offer HIGHER wages than any of the other jobs in that area.
@JacobSpinney It is likely that wal mart changed its wage and treatment policy after the massive attention they were getting after the exposures of exploited sweatshop workers. It is apparent that they improved conditions to conceal abuse for political purposes otherwise it would never have been an issue. Anyway. its besides the point, that sweatshops are slavery and they are the result of companies exploiting the poor. They have happened and they still happen
@JacobSpinney Dude the kids rescued from the sweatshops in india were rescued by the GOVERNMENT. POlice intervention. Wow. They were not rescued by another private coorperation offering them better wages.
@Rime247 Which is exactly why far fewer people would agree to work for $2.50 an hour! The lower and lower you make a wage, the fewer and fewer people there are who are willing to work for you. Let's say I am paying a wage of $5 an hour and only 25 employees are stepping up to the plate whereas I need 100 employees. The only way I can get more employees is to increase the wage.
@JacobSpinney Without minimum wage established you end up with a sweatshop. An individual who will work 40 hours a week (who might have a family or is trying to start a business) will be beaten out by an individual who is willing to work 80 hours a week for 5 dollars. Resulting in a master slave relationship between employees and corporations. Business giants will further monopolize because the employed will not have the free time to start up their own companies. (continued)
@Rime247 So instead of allowing these cheap laborers to bid down the wage, you want to artificially prop wages up by forcing those cheap laborers to be unemployed? As the economy progresses, you have more and more employer competition, thus forcing wages to go up, and less and less laborers willing to work just for enough to survive on, thus forcing wages to go up.
And then you have to take into account the fact that those willing to work for food scraps aren't necessarily the most skilled laborers. In fact, they are the lowest skilled laborers. Instead of fearing that no-skilled laborers will bid down your wage, just acquire some skills so that they cannot do your job. Rather than forcing them go unemployed and starve on the streets.
@JacobSpinney Your excluding the fact that skilled laborers will also compete for low bids. Its the only way they will eat. Also economic progress should not depend on the rich alone. Companies only pay out what they have to, your scenario is fiction, because there is no such thing as a company increasing wages to buy employees from another company. Simply because there is an abundance of people. This is why sweatshops prevail in the absence of gov regulation.
@Rime247 Nonsense. This is simple logic. Let's say you have 100 employees and one company wanting to hire only 50. The leverage is on the companies side and the employees will have to underbid each other so that only half of them work for the company. Then you have two companies, each wanting 50 employees. Now the leverage is even and the employees are able to charge twice as much. This is simple supply and demand. Please read an economics book.
@JacobSpinney economics?! Your missing ONE valuable thing. That for 90% of jobs there is an unlimited pool of potential employees. Granted, Docs, astronauts, have specialized training but your talking about 1 small extreme that doesnt apply to 90% of the population. Such demand works for them. But as for the poor they are UNLIMITED. As long as there are poor there are always those willing to work for less which is why the government had to step in to prevent sweatshops from taking place!
@Rime247 You are neglecting the fact that employers need employees just as much as employees need employers. When you gain more skills, then you are able to gain more leverage in wage negotiation because there are fewer people to underbid you! If there are 10 hospitals wanting to hire 100 doctors each, but there are only 500 doctors who currently exist, then it is the hospitals that have to outbid each other, not the doctors! Once again, this is simple supply and demand.
@JacobSpinney Companies will and have always found ways to hire people for less than they are worth on principle that they hold the cards. Your example is unrealistic. your talking about less than 1 percent of the population who has had special access. That would be like using a rich person for middle class or poor examples. IT doesn't apply. 99% of people will have careers that are more attainable, such that a company could implement it's own training program to create skilled workers.
@JacobSpinney Your forgetting the point of employment. The only reason employment is valuable is because your getting paid enough to live. You might as well be unemployed if your making 2 dollars a day working 80 hours a week. Economic progress prevails in free market competition. Free market competition is dwindled when people are too busy too innovate ( slaves). Economic progress is a result of competition and should be caused by everyone not just the rich. ( continued)
@Rime247 You have this fallacious class structure in your head about a free market of there being the poor and the rich and no one can ever change places. Nonsense. The only time someone would stop working for themselves (hunting/gathering/farming) is when the employer offers a better quality of life than the alternative. This necessarily means that they will have more income to spend on investment as opposed to just consumption.
@JacobSpinney What are you talking about? I never said anything about the rich not being able to become poor and vice versa. Where did this come from? ANd another thing, What you just said is a contradiction. "The only time someone will stop working for themselves is when an employer offers a better quality of life" wtf?? Thats statement directly contradicts itself, it makes no sense, if their employed then their working for themselves. wtf? what exactly are you trying to say?
@Rime247 I don't see the contradiction at all. Let's imagine I'm on an island all alone. I have to work for myself collecting food, building a hut, etc. Then someone comes to my island and offers me a job of just fishing and he will take care of the rest. The only time I would agree to such a thing is if working for him gives me a better quality of life thank working for myself!
@JacobSpinney okay...so what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that today in the year 2010 someone is better off hunting in the woods than working at wal mart? i dont understand what the point of that example is?
@Rime247 The point is that it is logically impossible for these sweatshops to pay a wage so low that people are just barely able to afford to put food in their mouths, because if there were the case, they wouldn't have taken the job! They just would have become fishermen or farmers and worked for themselves!
@JacobSpinney ( a continuation) BEcause for example. The top car companies are at odds with electric cars, they'd rather keep the gas engine technology it makes them more money. Companies also build cartels, where they fix pricess so they all make money. Its the same thing, without gov regulation cartels will prevail. On another note, I am free to start my own business and innovate. How could me or anyone do that if we are working 100 hours a week?
@Rime247 The more you work, the skilled you become. The more skilled you become, the hire of a wage you are able to demand for your labor. The hire wage you make, the less hours you need to work. If you only have the mental capacity to hammer nails, let's say, then you will be stuck doing hard labor. But then again, if you don't have the mental capacity to increase your skill level, then how can you have the mental capacity to innovate and create a product that is cheaper and better?
@JacobSpinney Wrong. The more you work the more skilled you become the more you work thats it. Companies hold the cards when they bargain for employee pricess, NOT the employee. If you dont accept their terms I assure you they will find a skilled worker who will. It has happened over and over in history. You can only make demands if you have extreme incentive (such as a technological breakthrough) You can not make these demands as some skilled guy looking for employment.
@Rime247 Then how come everyone is not making $7.25 an hour? How come doctors make $100,000 a year easily? Lawyers? Computer technicians? Entertainers? The list goes on and on. If your proposal that skill level has no impact on wage, then how come it is a blatant fact for all of us to see that the higher skill level people have, the higher wage they make?!?!?
@Rime247 Also this isnt always true. How are you gonna become skilled at opening doors for 2 dollars an hour working 80 hours a week? you gonna become skilled at holding a sign in the hot sun for 80 hours a week?
@JacobSpinney this example is unrealistic. Theres no such thing as a human being that only has the capacity to hammer nails unless your talking about a three year old or someone with a severe handicap which would make up for an extremely small percentage of our population. this is rediculous.
@Rime247 EXACTLY MY POINT! Which is why this kind of hard labor is only temporary for the great majority of people! it's simply the first job you have as you enter the job market. And as you work, you gain more skills. And as you gain more skills, you are able to demand a higher wage! I find it amazing that you wish to dispute this reality as it stares you in the face!
@JacobSpinney No. What you are leaving out is just because you have skills doesnt mean you have negotiating power. What happens when more people become more skilled? then the people in that field get paid less. What ends up happening if there are no minimum wage set is that the base of the pyramid grows larger and larger and the top of the pyramid becomes smaller. You get a society where more and more people are the "have nots".
@JacobSpinney There is something seriously wrong with this statement. your over generalizing and completely excluding individuality. For example someone with autism might not be able to work at mcdonald's but could work for a recording label as a musician. Peoples potentials and special circumstances vary. Someone who couldnt pass college because they couldnt sit through class might actually be a scientific genius. ( continued)
@JacobSpinney Its true that the more skills you have the less accessible you become. But the minimum wage sweatshop principle applies to the base of the pyramind, Your talking about the tip of a pyramid ( people at the top) Your completely ignoring the fact that there must always be a BASE of the pyramid. And this base must not extend so low that the people that make up the base are slaves.
@Rime247 Free market cartels are nonsense. It is true that in a free market, some companies would gain large market shares. But they would only be able to do it by offering a cheaper price and/or higher quality. The moment they stop doing that is the moment they lose their market share. It is only government created cartels that are able to overcharge you and maintain their market share.
@JacobSpinney Oh really? Ever heard of price fixing? As long as all companies who dominate a particular field agree not to lower the price of something in demand. People will pay for it. AS long as their getting enough money from this set price they will leave it as such. This is price fixing. What is to stop companies from doing this when they hire employees? If there is nothing, you get people working unreasonably..you get slaves, sweatshops.
@Rime247 Like I said, such practices can only occur when the cartels are propped up and maintained by the government. Let's say we form a milk cartel and decide to push the price up by double. That means more people would just go and buy soy milk instead. That also means that if I decide to secretly sell my milk lower than the fixed price, EVERYONE will jump to buy my milk. Thus I make a lot more money by undercutting the cartel than by maintaining its price fix.
@JacobSpinney OKay Your theorizing that cartels will defeat themselves because of some rogue seller. But cartels have prevailed without gov regulation. So the facts contradict your suggestion. I agree that you could make more money by undercutting the fix. But you could be bought out be the others. Also, what if the the soymilk company joins the cartel? What then? I'll tell you what, then the same thing will happen that has constantly happened in history...price fixing.
@Rime247 Please . . . point me to an example of a cartel NOT formed and maintained by the government that is blatantly overcharging for the product it's selling and has been able to maintain such a racket for any good length of time before the market broke them up.
@JacobSpinney The Lysine price-fixing conspiracy in the 1990s. A cartel allegedly raised lysine prices to over 70% within the first 9 months of cooperation. So Here is your error - Your assuming that just because a company can join a market and undercut prices, that it will happen. But it doesn't always happen. Just like it doesn't always happen for a company to " save" a sweatshop by offering a charitable wage
@Rime247 I can only begin to imagine the amount of regulations the government imposes upon lysine. LOL. Government regulations which have the effect of barriers to entry, which allow the current businesses to gain a large market share and thus charge higher prices. You cannot point to government created monster corporations and say "AHA! Free market failure!" When corporations themselves ARE GOVERNMENT CREATED! LOL!
@JacobSpinney Please explain to me what type of government regulation on agriculture can serve as barrier to entry??? there are licenses to agricultural supply that ANYONE can obtain. The only barrier to entry, like many business, is monetary and material resources So you tell me specifically what the government had to do with the prevalence of a large agricultural company like ADM!?
@Rime247 I would think it's quite obvious that agricultural products are quite heavily regulated and that the government is the entity that created corporations with their legal shields and horrible incentive structure of private gains and bailed-out losses. But since I'm lazy, allow me to concede that the higher of a market share a company has over a market, the higher of a price they are able to charge for that product.
@Rime247 HOWEVER, the higher and higher they charge, the more and more they incentivize competition to come around and underbid them. And there is only a certain point at which you can over charge, otherwise you will actually begin to LOSE money due to the number of people simply refusing to buy from you anymore. It's smarter to sell 10 widgets at $100 a piece than 1 widget at $500.
@JacobSpinney Once again, your oversimplifying. Your using an unrealisic extreme to justify your flawed point. Fixing a price too high is counter productive because demand will go down. The key to price fixing is to raise prices in such a way that companies mutually receive maximal profit over a long period of time..milking their customers. IT works and it has worked which is why governments made it illegal to begin with. " Just google Hitachi pleads guilty to price-fixing " for LCD screens
@Rime247 This notion of price fixing is a misnomer in the first place. It goes off of the false premise that there is an objective price to begin with, which is false. Prices are determined by supply and demand. Not by some magical theorem that a bureaucrat came up with. It is true that a company can manipulate supply, to some extent, so as to get higher profits. But such an action can only be temporary because wherever there are profits to be made, there will be competition that comes along.
@JacobSpinney What? Price fixing has absolutely nothign to do with an objective price. at all. I just explained that even fixed prices fluctuate with demand. And no! companies can set much higher prices than necessary and STILL make large revenue from sells! This is a FACT. Especially for a cartel! I think you need to learn more about price fixing and consumer exploitation carried out by private companies.
@Rime247 You implied it again! You were saying how companies set prices higher than necessary. WHAT IS NECESSARY? You seem to be asserting that there is an objective profit level by which is acceptable, but anything above that is exploitative price-fixing. Nonsense! There is no such thing as "overcharging" in the first place!
@JacobSpinney When I said " higher than necessary" I meant whatever is necessary to make a profit. There is a price you must set in order to make a profit, and then there is a price you can set to make maximum profit. there is nothing wrong with setting a price " higher than necessary" if it meets demand. The problem with cartels is that it discourages free market competition. So unnecessarily high prices is fine, but conspiracies are the enemy of the free market.
@Rime247 No it doesn't! Cartels ENCOURAGE competition, because by the big boys creating a huge gap in profit, it incentivizes competition to come along and undercut. It also incentivizes the members of the cartel to secretly undercut while apparently still being members. The only time a cartel is discourages competition is when that cartel bribes a board of regulators to create barriers to entry and/or legally fix the price so it's illegal to sell below it.
@JacobSpinney It doesn't work that way IN reality The incentive that a TEAM of giants has to offer will almost certainly BUY OUT any new competitors. SO you have two options. 1. You can sell out to the cartel and make huge profits immediately And in the long run. 2. you can choose to undercut them and make large profits for a very short amount of time before they lower their prices and everyone loses. If your after big money your more likely to sell out., eliminating their competition.
@Rime247 And guess what happens if you decide to sell out? The profit gap remains leaving the door wide open for more people to come in. Your cartel is now having to constantly buy off any new competitors and your cartel ends up making less money trying to maintain the price fix (because of all the new competitors they have to continually buy off) than if they simply competed against each other.
@JacobSpinney Again, it does not work like that. First, there is no limit to how large a cartel can be. New competitors joining will be faced with the same irresistible temptation to join the cartel. It would be like a franchise. Secondly , there is not always a constant barrage of competitors to fight off. It takes a million to make a million. Someone might aspire to compete, but it might take this potential competitor a decade to get off the ground. also, a payout isn't a loss, its a gain.
@JacobSpinney When I said " higher than necessary" I meant whatever is necessary to make a profit. There is a price you must set in order to make a profit, and then there is a price you can set to make maximum profit. there is nothing wrong with setting a price " higher than necessary" if it meets demand. The problem with cartels is that it discourages free market competition. So unnecessarily high prices is fine, but conspiracies are the enemy of the free market.
@Rime247 A business seeks to price things at the level by which they obtain the highest profits. If you think they're being too greedy and taking too much profits, then that's all the more incentive for you to get a capital investor and create a competing business and make a ton of money undercutting them!
@Rime247 If the government does not put these companies out of business, the market will inevitably do it all on its own, as profits in a free market inevitably veer toward zero. This is why there are huge profits to be made in emerging markets, but profits in well established markets are razor thin.
@JacobSpinney The market will inevitably do it all on its on? NO. what. after a DECADE of profiting from price fixing some company might decide to violate the cartel and sell at low prices. Then the cartel will just lower there prices and fix prices wherever there is no rogue competitor if they cant buy out this rogue ( the rogue has incentive to join cartel for long term) but giving you the benefit of the doubt that cartel still profited for a decade.ALOT of money there. Think!.
@JacobSpinney ( a continuation) You know what.. Im convinced that you dont know what price fixing actually is. Its not ' to fix a price' per se. It is to adjust a price according to demand, in cooperation with your comeptition. Your still adjusting prices to exploit demand, but your conspiring with your competitors to set a price that milks the demand.
@Rime247 Which is otherwise known as seeking profit. This is why I have a problem with the term "price-fixing." First of all, it's a misnomer as that price fluctuates to consumer demand. They are merely putting together their market share so that they can, together, charge a higher price. Once again, I see nothing wrong with this, as it only incentivizes more competitors to come along which will inevitably end up in profits becoming razor thin.
@JacobSpinney These rules are put in place to promote free market competition. It is also illegal for companies to fix a prices at a lower cost because this may kill any chance of competition. it IS legal to " fix prices" as long as companies don't actually conspire to do it, but they can "scope out" each others prices. IBut if cartels became legal, the cost of living goes up. Nothing would stop them from offering new competition lucrative incentives to comply with the cartels set price.
@JacobSpinney regardless of that there are more examples that has nothing to do with government regulated FDA approval of foods. Google, "Hitachi Settles Price-Fixing Case for $31 Million " and " Samsung's plea accepted, price fixing case ends"
@JacobSpinney and one more thing. the reason why companies wont be eager to undercut price fixing is because in the long run they make more money. If they undercut the fix, sure they will make money in the short term but then the other companies will lower their prices too. So everyone has only to gain by joining a cartel.
@Rime247 This goes under the assumption that demand for that product would not fall if the prices were raised. This is simply not so. There are alternatives to everything. If a milk cartel is charging $20/lb for milk while soy milk or almond milk or hemp milk or rice milk are $5/lb, then guess what's going to happen. Ultimately the only way this cartel could possibly maintain its existence is if it had a resource monopoly of all liquids on earth, something I simply cannot see being possible.
@Rime247 It's like saying, "Well if company X owned the entire earth, then it would be able to charge monopoly rates." . . . AS IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR COMPANY X TO OWN THE ENTIRE EARTH! It's as ridiculous as me proposing to the world that I will buy the earth from them for $100 octillion dollars and then sell it back to you all for $100 octillion to the 100th power dollars. How do I get the $100 octillion dollars in the first place and how do I sell such a racket to the public?
@JacobSpinney This is Obsurd. You do not have to own all of the earth in order to successfully earn a fortune from price fixing. ALL you need is to conspire with other companies to fix a price! AND that no other company comes in to lower the price. Thats all you need. ITs much easier than your making it out to be. Sure a company can come in with lower prices but it doesnt mean they will ALSO price fixing isnt something they just pull out of their ass. They set a price that exploits demand.
@JacobSpinney This means a cartel will set a price, that will keep them getting paid if this negatively effects their revenue they will lower it. But the principle of price fixing is milking the customers for what companies will profit the most from. IF here are no competitors to suit lower prices the price fixing will prevail. Your working off of the assumption that business dont conspire for long term gain. sometimes all competitors in a field will.
..( this is a continuation) and so you might say, " no one is willing to work every day all day for almost no money like a slave" but this isn't true. Sweatshops still exist and has existed as a form of slavery throughout history and no corporation has ever come along to save the abused workers by offering them better conditions. People literally work to eat and eat to work. To prevent this type of abuse, government had to step in.
@Rime247 THE GOVERNMENT IS WHAT CREATED THESE CONDITIONS! The corporation bribes the third world government to make it so that only that corporation can hire people. Thanks to the government eliminating their competition, they are able to pay less and not care about working conditions. In a free market where the government cannot create these barriers to entry, other businesses would look at this pool of cheap labor and jump in, forcing more employer competition and thus higher wages.
@JacobSpinney yeah? What about the sweatshops INSIDE of America? Your telling me cooperations bribed the American government into making it so that that American people can only get jobs with an industrial or sewing factory? Sweatshops existed in America before the implementation of minimum wage. At the begging of the century and before, these slave relationships existed IN AMERICA. Companies have only to gain by hiring those who will accept the smaller wages. (continued)...
@JacobSpinney ( this is a continuation )... therefore, minimum wage protects people from being slaves. It also provides for free market competition. If you set minimum wage too high,it creates unnecessary unemployment. The game is to balance out minimum wage standards in order to get the best results economically and principally. U.S gov was not bribed into forcing people to work in factories. Sweatshops were the result of companies hiring people,who desperately needed jobs, at lowest bidder.
@Rime247 And like I said before, as the economy progresses, wages continually go up as you have more employer competition and fewer workers willing to work for pennies. The industrial revolution led to the highest increase in the standard of living among the average and poor, EVER.
I do not understand how you can hold such a contradictory position. You agree that if the minimum wage is too high, it causes unemployment. But when it is at a level you prefer, it somehow magically doesn't. WHY NOT?
@JacobSpinney During the industrial revolution sweatshops still existed. You have no acknowledged this. Its not about technology, its about companies only paying out what they have to pay, and poor people willing to make less will always outnumber those who are better off ( skilled or unskilled) not to mention, a company will train an unskilled worker who will take less money rather than take a skilled worker who will take more. ( continued)
@Rime247 I acknowledge that sweatshops existed in America, BUT those sweatshops offered higher wages than people were able to obtain without them. Once again, you ignore that the industrial revolution led to the highest increase in the standard of living . . . EVER. If those evil employers were able to dictate wages as you say, why did we experience this massive increase in the standard of living?
@JacobSpinney ( thsi is a continuation) I am not contradicting myself, because in anything worth doing balance is the key for optimal results. Taxes are necessary to keep a society safe, but if the gov is taxing people 90% of what they make then that is counterproductive. Its the same for minimum wage, it works as long as it is balanced we will get optimal results. If you set minimum wage at 0 or at 50 dollars an hour it is counter productive.
@Rime247 You never explained why it wouldn't cause unemployment. If you have 10 unskilled workers and one employer with a budget of $50, either those 10 workers will work for $5 an hour OR, thanks to the minimum wage, 5 of those workers will work for $10 an hour and the other 5 workers will be unemployed. Once again, if the minimum wage causes unemployment if it were $20/hr, WHY does it not cause unemployment if it's $7.25/hr?
@Rime247 Unless you can explain exactly why the minimum wage would not cause unemployment, then all you are really arguing is that 5 workers should get $10/hr and the other 5 workers starve to death rather than all 10 workers get $5/hr.
@JacobSpinney if that 5 dollars is not enough to live off of, then they will starve to death one way or the other. No matter what there will always be unemployed. The difference is that the unemployed in my eyes should have a way out, provided by government to give them opportunities for some sort of employment. But one cannot take part in these opportunities if they are employed or if they are involved in slave labor. How would anyone have the time to advance themselves if their a slave?
Minimum wage is just like anything else. If you increase it too much of an extreme it will hurt us. If people are paid too little, they cant live off of it.
Nice video. Such basic elementary information. It's strange to see people having such a difficult time understanding it. They must be clueless and brainwashed because making a sandwich is more difficult than understanding free-market economics.
It seems to be foolish fantasy in the form of well-intended, justified fallacies. Like kids make-believing they're not leaving the amusement park while walking out the exit sign.
Nice video. Such basic elementary information. It's strange to see people having such a difficult time understanding it. They must be clueless and brainwashed because making a sandwich is more difficult than understanding free-market economics.
It seems to be foolish fantasy in the form of well-intended, justified fallacies. Like kids make-believing they're not leaving the amusement park while walking out the exit sign.
Minimum wage forces working class people to work harder, because if they don't work at the rate of $7-$9 dollars an hour, they won't be able to find a job. It's a "Work hard or die" policy that the corporate state shoves down our throats.
You, and astonishingly Freidman in the video you attach to, ignore the fact that investors can & do override "free market" & can fix things like wages, prices, etc. through sheer domination (collusion, monopoly).
A min wage might effectively minimize these anti-free market practices to get to a more ideal result.
Probably, there's better solution than min wage, but you have to say what it is!.. Otherwise you either think full employment w/ exploitation is okay, or deny that exploitation exists
Exploitation doesn't exist in free markets, only in government created corporatized markets like the one we're in now. Monopolies can't exist in free markets, because it is simply impossible to maintain a monopoly if you are overcharging for goods or under paying for labor. You will simply be outbid by a competing business who thinks they can still make a profit and give higher wages and/or charge lower prices. Monopolies only exist when governments keep them propped up through biased regulation
You're right, but the things you say are merely tautologies within the fairy tale version of free market. In that version, the conditions that actually exist are not taken proper account of.
-human nature/greed,
-finite resources, externalities
-varying values (eg. concept of property rights) & intelligence among individuals
-Unjustly acquired assets & their distibution existing at this moment.
Monopolies would likely exist (and not by means of best prices/wages), certainly collusion.
I'm just saying that one could paint a picture of exploitation under laissez faire enforecement (it would be there no doubt & actually is to some extent as much as laissez faire is operating) & then present the "government" in an ideal fashion ignoring all of its obvious evils.
What about natural resources? If someone owns a monopoly on a resource, they can dictate prices. Or secret ideas. People still keep secrets. Important ones, like how to make fertilizer from air and even better ones, like how to make corn into plastic. The only solution is for every community to do everything itself. Our government should set this as it's end goal, and begin capitalizing the citizens until itself can be dismantled. Reward self-reliance. The government should be as a placeholder.
@ElDukerino1 Define free-market. I don't mean to be mean but how can you say that the government imposing a price control is a free market policy. You obviously hav
This argument completely glosses over, and even outright ignores the fact that if a business model cannot generate enough income to support the minimum wage, which is arguably barely survivable incomes levels, then it is almost certainly a poor business model. Where is the mathematics which would account for this discrepancy?
frankleeseaux 3 days ago
Why the don't we just mechanize everything that can be and just get rid of money?
reevolutionable 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
here in the phil, the wage is so small
fivequotes 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
here in the phil, the wage is so small
fivequotes 1 month ago
first question is what is in denmark and it works, the rest is outsourced
Bamma1985 1 month ago
increases in the minimum wgae does not increase overall unemployment rates. Thats just rediculous and the reason bussinesses pay minimum wage has nothing to do with worker productivity but everything to do with the law!! Its just another attempt by some to deny hard working people a fair wage for their work in order to maximize their profits. Its totally exploitive. They pay their top execs multi million dollar compensation packages but refuse to pay their wokers a living wage!!!
mirandaluc 2 months ago
@mirandaluc You might find some small firms and labour intensive companies are not able to enjoy what might be the charity of a living wage because eventually they would go out of business. So what would be better, you get a 'living wage' then lose your job because the company was bankrupted or work on a lower wage and the company continue. And in addition does 'society' benefit from a firm that gives them goods and or services going broke ?
FrankiePoker 1 month ago
The grammatical correction was unnecessary. You were grammatically correct the first time with the substitution of "which" for "who." "Portion...needs" is correct.
Syntactically correct sentence: Not only does the minimum wage cause unemployment, it causes unemployment for the lowest skilled portion of our population which needs jobs the most.
wallstreetatheist 2 months ago
I skimmed through that article,and the only negative effect the minimum wage have is a slight raise in teenage unemployment. 4.6 to 8.8% decline, which is not alot. Only teenagers, most of whom are still in high school and living off their parents Because of this teenage umeployment is not of concern, there is no reason to eliminate the minimum wage over this slight decline.
ironmantis25 2 months ago
this guy's right. Fuck the minimum wage, there would be so many more jobs available if employers were allowed to compete for the massive base of potential employees currently available. Precisely because of what this guy is saying.
What these poor filthy middle-american pieces of shit don't realize is that deregulation is the solution to their unemployment/poverty problems. The instant gratification of a higher minimum salary, as mandated by the government, is not the solution in the long term.
MassimoDiIorio 2 months ago
fuck business you right wing filth.
fringeailments 2 months ago
I think you are using a oversimplistic model. Yes sometimes this will be the case. But Mcdonalds for example will probably always pay the minimum they can (which is allowed by the market). However if the minimumwage is higher than this minimum (which it is otherwise they wouldn't be payed the minimum, atleast I'm assuming they are) then you increase wellbeing without reducing employment.
ForYeensSake 2 months ago
Makes sense.. but i still think that not having the minimum wage is more dangerous as it can beat the sh*t out of workers. Immigrants are seeing that already... and I doubt anyone wants immigrant wages
fearfulmatrix 3 months ago
@fearfulmatrix Minimum wage or less is not a living wage It is a wage you take when you can't get any better. This is a wage you would take while still in high school, just out of jail or just divorced or widowed. In the USA. If you keep trying to become more valuable to your employer/customer you can demand higher wages. In the USA it is very common for someone to start out in the bottom 20% right out of school and end up in the top 20% when they retire.
wwhit2001 3 months ago
And this is why workers need to go to work for themselves, when workers band together and work for their own profit, they make more money, there's no middle man at the top taking your earnings and giving you back a portion as a wage, and the cost of the company is shared so it's less costly to the individual.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
I've always felt bad for people from third world countries who earn $1 to $2/hr, struggling to meet their families' needs with no hope of ever getting a raise. Listening to some smug, hair-gelled comedian saying that the same fate would be good for this country is depressing to tears.
Xiricon 4 months ago
@Xiricon Dunno if you weren't paying attention, but he advocated collective bargaining... Treat labor like any other good and increase the price of your labor. Forming a global union (which right now is difficult because of the very reason that government in countries that have workers getting paid so little money are usually even more oppressive than our government) would ensure fair wages. The market can "regulate" itself.
ruddelsticks 4 months ago
If a company can't make a profit while paying it's employees a living wage then perhaps it should be the executive who takes the first pay cuts? Clearly he or she isn't as "essential" as they like to believe.
gamenode 4 months ago
If lower wages decreases unemployment then why not lower the wages of CEO's? Why shouldn't those most able to absorb the impact of wage cuts be expected to make those wage cuts? What right does a human have to exploit other humans at low wages so they can be a millionaire executive?
We've seen the impact of not having a MW. It was called slavery and the impact of a free labor economy drove down wages, stifled commerce in the South and only benefited slave owners who exported cotton to Europe.
gamenode 4 months ago
@gamenode That's a great idea. In fact why not get rid of CEO's entirely and let the workers democratically manage their own work place and take the profits that would have otherwise gone to the CEO, to divide among themselves since they did all the work?
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@FreeTheWorker
I'm not advocating socialism but the fact remains that over the past 40 years the top incomes have gone up by almost 400% while the middle class has seen their incomes rise by just 39%. I'm all for people making a profit but the trend in income growth at the top has been a product of reducing wages at the bottom more than efficiency or superior products.
gamenode 4 months ago
@gamenode I'm not advocating socialism either. I'm advocating worker self management. The CEO is an insulated redundancy that only devours resources. If the wealth generated by the company were distributed to the workers they would have a greater incentive to do well and a greater incentive to eliminate inefficiency.
Here this video explains better than I could.
watch?v=neNwAZSBMb0
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@gamenode Good point made about difference between the 1% and the rest of us-But the ultimate cause of ALL our problems is Debt and the lnterest charged.A person in debt has to=Work longer/harder-Less $£s to socialise-Family ties are strained-Dnt see kids(What are they doing?)Business debt=Increase hrs-lower wages-Less workers-Squeeze or find Cheaper suppliers(sweatshops?)Make cheap/short lived products-ripping up the earth.Govt debt=Higher tax-Cut spending-Privatise-Start a war to pay SPONSORS?
Slave2PaperWithInkOn 3 months ago
This used to be such a blind spot for me, as I supported Blairs 's introduction of the minimum wage in the 90's.. When I left home at 16 and got myself 3 jobs, which didn't pay a lot, but was enough for me to pay the rent and buy myself food and get job skills to boot.. I now rarely if ever see 16-18 yr olds working.. I can only conclude that the minimum wage has priced them entirely out of the market. It would have meant me staying at home in a rather unpleasant family situation with no escape.
xelenty 4 months ago
If the company i worked for were to get rid of minimum wage they would not hire more people. The company would just make more money by paying their current workers less.
1251bmn 5 months ago
There need be an amendment to the constitution that businesses may not contribute to politicians' campaigns and may not interfere with government. That is what corrupted capitalism and turned into corporatism and cronyism. The antitrust law (anti competition) should also be made into an amendment. Another amendment should state that if a fat cat approaches and buys a politician they are both thrown in prison for life.
Otzmatron 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jaybb789 I suppose my response to virusjc1 was to far away for you to see ( it was only the next one ), so I'll repeat it.
"We've done this before, back in the 19th century."
You mean the Industrial Revolution, when standards of living increased at a phenomenal rate?
WITHOUT MINIMUM WAGE LAWS.
(the first was in 1894 - New Zealand)
Sucks when reality isn't on your side, doesn't it.
jeffiek 6 months ago
@jaybb789 YOUR WORDS - "They also can not explain how a person earning below the minimum wage is to survive"
Now, what am I to believe that SURVIVE means? So they get paid below minimum wage, they don't SURVIVE, yet they show up for work. And they must show up, or they're not getting paid.
So, you expect me to believe that someone with such lunacy for logic would actually know anything about history?
Get real.
jeffiek 6 months ago
The question is not as simple as a "Minimum wage" its about a "Living wage". How much money do you need to survive on. To afford rent, food, bills etc.. Minimum wage works in the UK after all the furore of the right, no businesses went bust or jobs lost, very funny. People wont apply for jobs that arent worth it. so perhaps an argument for the minimum wage should be "if jobs pay, people will work" Oh and the more people earn, the more they spend, money in the economy! Keynes...
jesusisasocialist 6 months ago
@jesusisasocialist Actually you are talking about the companion to minimum wage, which is welfare/EI. If the welfare amount afforded is above minimum wage or even close to it, there's a pretty big incentive not to bother working. If you could work all day long and earn maybe a dollar more an hour vs have the entire day off, and at least be stress free, why not?
So in the UK if there was no welfare or EI do you think people would just not bother taking a job they didn't like?
sirellyn 5 months ago
@jesusisasocialist There's a bigger problem too. When someone is earning a tiny amount. Even if it's barely enough to buy food rent etc, they aren't taking tax money to survive. In fact they actually add to tax money, even if it's in minuscule amounts.
For that same person to be on welfare costs that person's wage, plus the bureaucratic supporting amounts. All which come from tax money. You need several people with decent paying jobs to support that one person properly. More job loss = worse
sirellyn 5 months ago
Comment removed
stewie1974 6 months ago
Comment removed
stewie1974 6 months ago
This is like a tutorial for dummies and teens. Still good info. Keep it up.
ernesdee2o916 7 months ago
The minimum wage might work against a small business.
However, as a company grows the demand for higher and higher profit cause the company to do things self-defeating to not only the area as well as the company (e.g moving to a nation with less restriction, regulation, lower wages - but then still trying to sell the product to the area where they just moved out the jobs. Now that the old employees, who were previously buying the product, are now unemployed and unable to purchase said product.)
DarkScience0 7 months ago
THis is not the employers fault. It is supply and demand of labor. His competitors are hiring people for cheaper and underbidding his jobs. He must pay less or go out of business and hire nobody.
rustyscrapper 8 months ago
it is up to every worker to demand the wage they want to be paid. In the early 2000's I quit the same job 3 times in the same year and was rewarded with a raise each time. This was in a GOOD economy. Each time the employer realized I was worth more and paid more to keep me working there.
Now I pull that shit and im out of a job. There are 10 people waiting to take my job when I leave.
So I make less now then when i was 17 years old and I have 10 years more experience. Great.
rustyscrapper 8 months ago
@jaybb789 I made the idiotic comment? You're the one that has dead people showing up for work.
That is what SURVIVAL means. You're the one that thinks people are so stupid that they'll agree to work for wages that will result in their death. YOU have to explain that. Such wild irrational assertions require proof.
And I don't have to explain how other people pay their bills. It's THEIR life. I don't have the arrogance that you do.
jeffiek 8 months ago
@jaybb789 You have nothing but a string of "feel good" words that fall apart under even the slightest rational examination.
I've been listening to this crap for FORTY years. It didn't solve the problem then. Neither did all the intervening raises. All you do is "kick the can down the road" and ignore the real cause of poverty.
jeffiek 8 months ago
@jaybb789 The government that inflates the money supply, siphons of the wealth, bans work, and in general wrecks havoc with the world. I'm certain they appreciate your support. I'm sure they just love that kids now have to work for free, because they're not worth minimum wage. What's that? They work for free? What the fuck do you think internships are? Why do you think they're far more prevalent than they were forty years ago?
Get a clue.
jeffiek 8 months ago
@jaybb789 "They also can not explain how a person earning below the minimum wage is to survive"
You cannot explain how people that can't survive can show up for work.
jeffiek 8 months ago
@jaybb789 "compete for labor by offering better wages .... is a myth"
Then explain the existence of people making more than the minimum wage.
jeffiek 8 months ago
i couldn't concentrate on your words because of the distracting music
Andybaby 9 months ago
Virusjc, if you don't understand basic economic principles, please do not attempt to discuss economics. Unemployment only counts people able to work. So the segment of the population that is unable to work is not being counted. Same with prisons. Also, if a company is offering $2/hr with no minimum wage, if there is no one willing to work for that much, the company will have to raise the wage. Very basic economics, my friend, the grasp of which you clearly do not possess.
zangief44 9 months ago
So, basically the solution is to put an end to the minimum wage and pay 3rd world wages. We've done this before, back in the 19th century. Also, it is impossible to entirely eliminate unemployment. You will always have segment of the population that cannot work due to physical problems or mental illnesses. You also always will have some segment in prison. People can't survive off of the minimum wage as it is, as you are not factoring in the cost of living.
virusjc1 9 months ago
@virusjc1 Some people would work below the minimum wage to be trained, some people would work below to do very basic jobs to supplement their already existing income, the point is, the minimum wage destroys all of those jobs. If you raise the minimum wage to $20 as stated in the video, almost all jobs below that line will be eliminated. Not all jobs produce $20 worth of labor, so the business would operate at a loss and just fire a bunch of people.
s0beit 8 months ago
@virusjc1 "We've done this before, back in the 19th century."
You mean the Industrial Revolution, when standards of living increased at a phenomenal rate?
WITHOUT MINIMUM WAGE LAWS.
(the first was in 1894 - New Zealand)
Sucks when reality isn't on your side, doesn't it.
jeffiek 8 months ago
I just came across your channel. Excellent (albeit preaching to the choir). In 3 1/2 minutes, you made the explanation of what's wrong w/ min wage laws simple.
I'm not totally opposed to a min wage. I think a floor is proper that exists below the market value, so the desperate don't naively lock themselves into $4 / hr jobs. But what's wrong w/ the $5.15 we had? Most employers paid more for entry level, but looking for $7.25/hr work (or more) is far tougher for a kid.
jrsub3 1 year ago
If that's what the economy requires,let it be twenty.That's a decision for fair minded people to make.We are at an impasse in this country where greed and stupidity rule.I am getting tired of looking at your ugly face and any further letters from you will be sent straight to the trash box.
eoriol1955 1 year ago
You appear to be advocating for slavery....A system which does not impose a minimum wage to protect workers will most likely not require an owner to show his employee his books; Which also mean that the employee will never be able to find out how much his boss is making off his ass.So,the boss can claim that even if I worked and produced 400 dollars worth of sales,he did not earn a dime for the period and therefore did not have to pay me.Only a Jew can come up with such a crazy idea
eoriol1955 1 year ago
@eoriol1955 Like Jacob said, if the governments really want to protect workers why don't they raise the MW to $20/hour?
antiacido2 1 year ago
Have you ever read the Card and Krueger study on the effect of New Jersey's increase in the minimum wage?
00maharum00ma 1 year ago
I think that minimum wage needs to be $10 an hour as it is only survival rate. What causes the increases of minimum wage, is the cost of living. I think Union workers are the most greedy and they effect companies to go over seas for lower operating cost.
patsaxon 1 year ago
@patsaxon What if a person would take more than one below minimum wage job? Then the MW could be zero but he would still make above MW because of the lack of MW. The jobs in this hypothetical example would each require him to work only 2-3 out of the week because of the individuals jobs low pay.
crazypants88 1 year ago
Minimal wage isn't a huge influence on unemployment numbers as you make it out to be. You make it sound like if minimal wage was increased by 10 cents, thousands of people would lose their jobs overnight.
Minimal wage can be a problem if it is above acceptable standards for business owners, but these aren't usually the case. As for raising the minimal wage, it should increase each by but at very small chucks, to keep up with the inflation.
gamingeh 1 year ago
@gamingeh The minimum wage in Australia is $15 (that's just a bit over $16 USD). Australia currently has much lower unemployment, has a demand for skilled workers in a variety of fields, is doing much better economically than the US. So things are not quite as simple and black and white and this guy likes to make out.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk A higher minimal wage with good employment prospects still not be signs of a great economic engine. In the Australia example, what is the price of goods and services when you compare them to the minimal wage? What is the inflation rate? The reason why I ask is because we have a similar situation in Alberta, where working at McDonalds can get you well above the minimal wage, but the cost of that is the huge housing costs. Alberta currently has a poverty problem due to this.
gamingeh 9 months ago
Comment removed
xexixk 9 months ago
Hey spinney...do some googling on Australia ...look at our minimum wage and then look at our current unemployment figures. Then tell me how your untested theory marries up with my reality
DingoBabyEat 1 year ago
Comment removed
xexixk 9 months ago
@DingoBabyEat Excellent comment. I just made a comment about Australia's minimum wage and how the economy there is doing so much better than ours here in the US and then noticed your comment. Stupidity and fantasy have taken hold of the desperate masses here in the US and Spinney has found an audience among many of them - unfortunately. People like him are utopians - but if they had their way and put of these policies in place what we would end up with would be a modern day feudal state.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk gamingeh, has some good points. Housing affordability is becoming dangerously out of reach for us. We also pay highly for imported consumer goods - but that is the economy of scale. Our higher wages must also be viewed along side our other safety nets in social security, public health care and education which help the individual cope with inflation. Unfortunately if the argument gets dumbed down to minimum wage = high unemployment then the conversation is already dead.
DingoBabyEat 9 months ago
@DingoBabyEat Yes, what such people do is make very simplistic black and white arguments w/o taking all of the relevant factors into consideration.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk Continued - With all things given equal consideration, if you fall on hard times here in Australia then your road to recovery will be much less painful than in a country that seems to pit its citizens against each other as if they were gladiators. On the up side, at least the harsh conditions in your country give rise to the kind of crime, poverty and desperation which inspire some pretty awesome TV shows...have you seen Australian TV? its fucking boring!!!
DingoBabyEat 9 months ago
@DingoBabyEat True. Here in the US a major illness can bankrupt a person - even a person with insurance. The only Australian TV program I've seen is Crime Investigation Australia. I've been to several European countries, never been to Australia as of yet, though I'd like to one day.
xexixk 9 months ago
So a pool of 100,000 workers who start out making $10 an hour collectively make a $1,000,000 an hour. After a 10 percent wage increase and a reduction of 1 percent of the work force, 99,000 workers earning $11 an hour collectively make $1,089,000 per hour. That's a net increase of 8.9 percent per hour.
windowpain1 1 year ago
It's no doubt true that minimum wage increases result in job losses, but it also results in profit losses, so the cost of the minimum wage increase is split between labor and business. This is a net gain for the labor sector, which is reflected in the study that you link. "A 10 percent increase in state minimum wages is consistently associated with a 1 percent reduction in retail employment and a 1 percent reduction in small business employment."
windowpain1 1 year ago
Yes, if you raised the minimum wage to $20 an hour, there would issues. However, nobody is suggesting that you raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour. And cut it out with the white background and music. Do you think that you're bringing us some profound, holy message? Well, you're not. Your propagating a set of terrible ideas that have been terrible for this country.Check out the benefits and wages that germans get. And their unemployment rates are lower and their economy is growing. Christ.
pihingler 1 year ago
@pihingler People like this guy spout their untested theories and ignore anything that doesn't support it (like the fact that Australia's minimum wage is $15 (that's over $16 US dollars) and their unemployment rate is much lower and their economy is doing much better than the US economy. He and his ilk are utopians - there is a reason why they only spout theory and can give no real world examples - because it is imposible.
xexixk 9 months ago
walmart has outsourced their assembly lines to sweatshops in china. But no companies have ever come along to offer better conditions for those workers who work at those sweatshops. And im pretty sure that the government is not forcing those workers to work for wal-mart.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 Walmart, yet another wonderful example of a government created corporation. I love hearing about these evil sweatshops. People always gripe about how hard the work is, and no vacation time, and dangerous working conditions, etc. . . and the one thing they seem to always neglect is HOW MUCH THE ACTUAL WAGE IS!!! LOL. And if they ever do bring it up, they compare it to American wages, of course. The truth is that these sweatshops offer HIGHER wages than any of the other jobs in that area.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney It is likely that wal mart changed its wage and treatment policy after the massive attention they were getting after the exposures of exploited sweatshop workers. It is apparent that they improved conditions to conceal abuse for political purposes otherwise it would never have been an issue. Anyway. its besides the point, that sweatshops are slavery and they are the result of companies exploiting the poor. They have happened and they still happen
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 As far as wages and conditions never improving . . . I have one word for you . . . India.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Dude the kids rescued from the sweatshops in india were rescued by the GOVERNMENT. POlice intervention. Wow. They were not rescued by another private coorperation offering them better wages.
Rime247 1 year ago
Its pointless to be employed if your only making 2 .50 an hour
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 Which is exactly why far fewer people would agree to work for $2.50 an hour! The lower and lower you make a wage, the fewer and fewer people there are who are willing to work for you. Let's say I am paying a wage of $5 an hour and only 25 employees are stepping up to the plate whereas I need 100 employees. The only way I can get more employees is to increase the wage.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Without minimum wage established you end up with a sweatshop. An individual who will work 40 hours a week (who might have a family or is trying to start a business) will be beaten out by an individual who is willing to work 80 hours a week for 5 dollars. Resulting in a master slave relationship between employees and corporations. Business giants will further monopolize because the employed will not have the free time to start up their own companies. (continued)
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 So instead of allowing these cheap laborers to bid down the wage, you want to artificially prop wages up by forcing those cheap laborers to be unemployed? As the economy progresses, you have more and more employer competition, thus forcing wages to go up, and less and less laborers willing to work just for enough to survive on, thus forcing wages to go up.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
And then you have to take into account the fact that those willing to work for food scraps aren't necessarily the most skilled laborers. In fact, they are the lowest skilled laborers. Instead of fearing that no-skilled laborers will bid down your wage, just acquire some skills so that they cannot do your job. Rather than forcing them go unemployed and starve on the streets.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Your excluding the fact that skilled laborers will also compete for low bids. Its the only way they will eat. Also economic progress should not depend on the rich alone. Companies only pay out what they have to, your scenario is fiction, because there is no such thing as a company increasing wages to buy employees from another company. Simply because there is an abundance of people. This is why sweatshops prevail in the absence of gov regulation.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 Nonsense. This is simple logic. Let's say you have 100 employees and one company wanting to hire only 50. The leverage is on the companies side and the employees will have to underbid each other so that only half of them work for the company. Then you have two companies, each wanting 50 employees. Now the leverage is even and the employees are able to charge twice as much. This is simple supply and demand. Please read an economics book.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney economics?! Your missing ONE valuable thing. That for 90% of jobs there is an unlimited pool of potential employees. Granted, Docs, astronauts, have specialized training but your talking about 1 small extreme that doesnt apply to 90% of the population. Such demand works for them. But as for the poor they are UNLIMITED. As long as there are poor there are always those willing to work for less which is why the government had to step in to prevent sweatshops from taking place!
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 You are neglecting the fact that employers need employees just as much as employees need employers. When you gain more skills, then you are able to gain more leverage in wage negotiation because there are fewer people to underbid you! If there are 10 hospitals wanting to hire 100 doctors each, but there are only 500 doctors who currently exist, then it is the hospitals that have to outbid each other, not the doctors! Once again, this is simple supply and demand.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Companies will and have always found ways to hire people for less than they are worth on principle that they hold the cards. Your example is unrealistic. your talking about less than 1 percent of the population who has had special access. That would be like using a rich person for middle class or poor examples. IT doesn't apply. 99% of people will have careers that are more attainable, such that a company could implement it's own training program to create skilled workers.
Rime247 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney your grossly oversimplifying reality.
Rime247 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Your forgetting the point of employment. The only reason employment is valuable is because your getting paid enough to live. You might as well be unemployed if your making 2 dollars a day working 80 hours a week. Economic progress prevails in free market competition. Free market competition is dwindled when people are too busy too innovate ( slaves). Economic progress is a result of competition and should be caused by everyone not just the rich. ( continued)
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 You have this fallacious class structure in your head about a free market of there being the poor and the rich and no one can ever change places. Nonsense. The only time someone would stop working for themselves (hunting/gathering/farming) is when the employer offers a better quality of life than the alternative. This necessarily means that they will have more income to spend on investment as opposed to just consumption.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney What are you talking about? I never said anything about the rich not being able to become poor and vice versa. Where did this come from? ANd another thing, What you just said is a contradiction. "The only time someone will stop working for themselves is when an employer offers a better quality of life" wtf?? Thats statement directly contradicts itself, it makes no sense, if their employed then their working for themselves. wtf? what exactly are you trying to say?
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 I don't see the contradiction at all. Let's imagine I'm on an island all alone. I have to work for myself collecting food, building a hut, etc. Then someone comes to my island and offers me a job of just fishing and he will take care of the rest. The only time I would agree to such a thing is if working for him gives me a better quality of life thank working for myself!
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney okay...so what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that today in the year 2010 someone is better off hunting in the woods than working at wal mart? i dont understand what the point of that example is?
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 The point is that it is logically impossible for these sweatshops to pay a wage so low that people are just barely able to afford to put food in their mouths, because if there were the case, they wouldn't have taken the job! They just would have become fishermen or farmers and worked for themselves!
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney ( a continuation) BEcause for example. The top car companies are at odds with electric cars, they'd rather keep the gas engine technology it makes them more money. Companies also build cartels, where they fix pricess so they all make money. Its the same thing, without gov regulation cartels will prevail. On another note, I am free to start my own business and innovate. How could me or anyone do that if we are working 100 hours a week?
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 The more you work, the skilled you become. The more skilled you become, the hire of a wage you are able to demand for your labor. The hire wage you make, the less hours you need to work. If you only have the mental capacity to hammer nails, let's say, then you will be stuck doing hard labor. But then again, if you don't have the mental capacity to increase your skill level, then how can you have the mental capacity to innovate and create a product that is cheaper and better?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Wrong. The more you work the more skilled you become the more you work thats it. Companies hold the cards when they bargain for employee pricess, NOT the employee. If you dont accept their terms I assure you they will find a skilled worker who will. It has happened over and over in history. You can only make demands if you have extreme incentive (such as a technological breakthrough) You can not make these demands as some skilled guy looking for employment.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 Then how come everyone is not making $7.25 an hour? How come doctors make $100,000 a year easily? Lawyers? Computer technicians? Entertainers? The list goes on and on. If your proposal that skill level has no impact on wage, then how come it is a blatant fact for all of us to see that the higher skill level people have, the higher wage they make?!?!?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@Rime247 Also this isnt always true. How are you gonna become skilled at opening doors for 2 dollars an hour working 80 hours a week? you gonna become skilled at holding a sign in the hot sun for 80 hours a week?
Rime247 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney this example is unrealistic. Theres no such thing as a human being that only has the capacity to hammer nails unless your talking about a three year old or someone with a severe handicap which would make up for an extremely small percentage of our population. this is rediculous.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 EXACTLY MY POINT! Which is why this kind of hard labor is only temporary for the great majority of people! it's simply the first job you have as you enter the job market. And as you work, you gain more skills. And as you gain more skills, you are able to demand a higher wage! I find it amazing that you wish to dispute this reality as it stares you in the face!
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney No. What you are leaving out is just because you have skills doesnt mean you have negotiating power. What happens when more people become more skilled? then the people in that field get paid less. What ends up happening if there are no minimum wage set is that the base of the pyramid grows larger and larger and the top of the pyramid becomes smaller. You get a society where more and more people are the "have nots".
Rime247 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney There is something seriously wrong with this statement. your over generalizing and completely excluding individuality. For example someone with autism might not be able to work at mcdonald's but could work for a recording label as a musician. Peoples potentials and special circumstances vary. Someone who couldnt pass college because they couldnt sit through class might actually be a scientific genius. ( continued)
Rime247 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Its true that the more skills you have the less accessible you become. But the minimum wage sweatshop principle applies to the base of the pyramind, Your talking about the tip of a pyramid ( people at the top) Your completely ignoring the fact that there must always be a BASE of the pyramid. And this base must not extend so low that the people that make up the base are slaves.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 Free market cartels are nonsense. It is true that in a free market, some companies would gain large market shares. But they would only be able to do it by offering a cheaper price and/or higher quality. The moment they stop doing that is the moment they lose their market share. It is only government created cartels that are able to overcharge you and maintain their market share.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Oh really? Ever heard of price fixing? As long as all companies who dominate a particular field agree not to lower the price of something in demand. People will pay for it. AS long as their getting enough money from this set price they will leave it as such. This is price fixing. What is to stop companies from doing this when they hire employees? If there is nothing, you get people working unreasonably..you get slaves, sweatshops.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 Like I said, such practices can only occur when the cartels are propped up and maintained by the government. Let's say we form a milk cartel and decide to push the price up by double. That means more people would just go and buy soy milk instead. That also means that if I decide to secretly sell my milk lower than the fixed price, EVERYONE will jump to buy my milk. Thus I make a lot more money by undercutting the cartel than by maintaining its price fix.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney OKay Your theorizing that cartels will defeat themselves because of some rogue seller. But cartels have prevailed without gov regulation. So the facts contradict your suggestion. I agree that you could make more money by undercutting the fix. But you could be bought out be the others. Also, what if the the soymilk company joins the cartel? What then? I'll tell you what, then the same thing will happen that has constantly happened in history...price fixing.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 Please . . . point me to an example of a cartel NOT formed and maintained by the government that is blatantly overcharging for the product it's selling and has been able to maintain such a racket for any good length of time before the market broke them up.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney The Lysine price-fixing conspiracy in the 1990s. A cartel allegedly raised lysine prices to over 70% within the first 9 months of cooperation. So Here is your error - Your assuming that just because a company can join a market and undercut prices, that it will happen. But it doesn't always happen. Just like it doesn't always happen for a company to " save" a sweatshop by offering a charitable wage
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 I can only begin to imagine the amount of regulations the government imposes upon lysine. LOL. Government regulations which have the effect of barriers to entry, which allow the current businesses to gain a large market share and thus charge higher prices. You cannot point to government created monster corporations and say "AHA! Free market failure!" When corporations themselves ARE GOVERNMENT CREATED! LOL!
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Please explain to me what type of government regulation on agriculture can serve as barrier to entry??? there are licenses to agricultural supply that ANYONE can obtain. The only barrier to entry, like many business, is monetary and material resources So you tell me specifically what the government had to do with the prevalence of a large agricultural company like ADM!?
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 I would think it's quite obvious that agricultural products are quite heavily regulated and that the government is the entity that created corporations with their legal shields and horrible incentive structure of private gains and bailed-out losses. But since I'm lazy, allow me to concede that the higher of a market share a company has over a market, the higher of a price they are able to charge for that product.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@Rime247 HOWEVER, the higher and higher they charge, the more and more they incentivize competition to come around and underbid them. And there is only a certain point at which you can over charge, otherwise you will actually begin to LOSE money due to the number of people simply refusing to buy from you anymore. It's smarter to sell 10 widgets at $100 a piece than 1 widget at $500.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Once again, your oversimplifying. Your using an unrealisic extreme to justify your flawed point. Fixing a price too high is counter productive because demand will go down. The key to price fixing is to raise prices in such a way that companies mutually receive maximal profit over a long period of time..milking their customers. IT works and it has worked which is why governments made it illegal to begin with. " Just google Hitachi pleads guilty to price-fixing " for LCD screens
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 This notion of price fixing is a misnomer in the first place. It goes off of the false premise that there is an objective price to begin with, which is false. Prices are determined by supply and demand. Not by some magical theorem that a bureaucrat came up with. It is true that a company can manipulate supply, to some extent, so as to get higher profits. But such an action can only be temporary because wherever there are profits to be made, there will be competition that comes along.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney What? Price fixing has absolutely nothign to do with an objective price. at all. I just explained that even fixed prices fluctuate with demand. And no! companies can set much higher prices than necessary and STILL make large revenue from sells! This is a FACT. Especially for a cartel! I think you need to learn more about price fixing and consumer exploitation carried out by private companies.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 You implied it again! You were saying how companies set prices higher than necessary. WHAT IS NECESSARY? You seem to be asserting that there is an objective profit level by which is acceptable, but anything above that is exploitative price-fixing. Nonsense! There is no such thing as "overcharging" in the first place!
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney When I said " higher than necessary" I meant whatever is necessary to make a profit. There is a price you must set in order to make a profit, and then there is a price you can set to make maximum profit. there is nothing wrong with setting a price " higher than necessary" if it meets demand. The problem with cartels is that it discourages free market competition. So unnecessarily high prices is fine, but conspiracies are the enemy of the free market.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 No it doesn't! Cartels ENCOURAGE competition, because by the big boys creating a huge gap in profit, it incentivizes competition to come along and undercut. It also incentivizes the members of the cartel to secretly undercut while apparently still being members. The only time a cartel is discourages competition is when that cartel bribes a board of regulators to create barriers to entry and/or legally fix the price so it's illegal to sell below it.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney It doesn't work that way IN reality The incentive that a TEAM of giants has to offer will almost certainly BUY OUT any new competitors. SO you have two options. 1. You can sell out to the cartel and make huge profits immediately And in the long run. 2. you can choose to undercut them and make large profits for a very short amount of time before they lower their prices and everyone loses. If your after big money your more likely to sell out., eliminating their competition.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 And guess what happens if you decide to sell out? The profit gap remains leaving the door wide open for more people to come in. Your cartel is now having to constantly buy off any new competitors and your cartel ends up making less money trying to maintain the price fix (because of all the new competitors they have to continually buy off) than if they simply competed against each other.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Again, it does not work like that. First, there is no limit to how large a cartel can be. New competitors joining will be faced with the same irresistible temptation to join the cartel. It would be like a franchise. Secondly , there is not always a constant barrage of competitors to fight off. It takes a million to make a million. Someone might aspire to compete, but it might take this potential competitor a decade to get off the ground. also, a payout isn't a loss, its a gain.
Rime247 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JacobSpinney When I said " higher than necessary" I meant whatever is necessary to make a profit. There is a price you must set in order to make a profit, and then there is a price you can set to make maximum profit. there is nothing wrong with setting a price " higher than necessary" if it meets demand. The problem with cartels is that it discourages free market competition. So unnecessarily high prices is fine, but conspiracies are the enemy of the free market.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 A business seeks to price things at the level by which they obtain the highest profits. If you think they're being too greedy and taking too much profits, then that's all the more incentive for you to get a capital investor and create a competing business and make a ton of money undercutting them!
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@Rime247 If the government does not put these companies out of business, the market will inevitably do it all on its own, as profits in a free market inevitably veer toward zero. This is why there are huge profits to be made in emerging markets, but profits in well established markets are razor thin.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney The market will inevitably do it all on its on? NO. what. after a DECADE of profiting from price fixing some company might decide to violate the cartel and sell at low prices. Then the cartel will just lower there prices and fix prices wherever there is no rogue competitor if they cant buy out this rogue ( the rogue has incentive to join cartel for long term) but giving you the benefit of the doubt that cartel still profited for a decade.ALOT of money there. Think!.
Rime247 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney ( a continuation) You know what.. Im convinced that you dont know what price fixing actually is. Its not ' to fix a price' per se. It is to adjust a price according to demand, in cooperation with your comeptition. Your still adjusting prices to exploit demand, but your conspiring with your competitors to set a price that milks the demand.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 Which is otherwise known as seeking profit. This is why I have a problem with the term "price-fixing." First of all, it's a misnomer as that price fluctuates to consumer demand. They are merely putting together their market share so that they can, together, charge a higher price. Once again, I see nothing wrong with this, as it only incentivizes more competitors to come along which will inevitably end up in profits becoming razor thin.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney These rules are put in place to promote free market competition. It is also illegal for companies to fix a prices at a lower cost because this may kill any chance of competition. it IS legal to " fix prices" as long as companies don't actually conspire to do it, but they can "scope out" each others prices. IBut if cartels became legal, the cost of living goes up. Nothing would stop them from offering new competition lucrative incentives to comply with the cartels set price.
Rime247 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney regardless of that there are more examples that has nothing to do with government regulated FDA approval of foods. Google, "Hitachi Settles Price-Fixing Case for $31 Million " and " Samsung's plea accepted, price fixing case ends"
Rime247 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney so, with that said. governments do cause monopolies to take place. But they also prevent them from taking place.
Rime247 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney also, just google " price fixing cases"
Rime247 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney and one more thing. the reason why companies wont be eager to undercut price fixing is because in the long run they make more money. If they undercut the fix, sure they will make money in the short term but then the other companies will lower their prices too. So everyone has only to gain by joining a cartel.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 This goes under the assumption that demand for that product would not fall if the prices were raised. This is simply not so. There are alternatives to everything. If a milk cartel is charging $20/lb for milk while soy milk or almond milk or hemp milk or rice milk are $5/lb, then guess what's going to happen. Ultimately the only way this cartel could possibly maintain its existence is if it had a resource monopoly of all liquids on earth, something I simply cannot see being possible.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@Rime247 It's like saying, "Well if company X owned the entire earth, then it would be able to charge monopoly rates." . . . AS IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR COMPANY X TO OWN THE ENTIRE EARTH! It's as ridiculous as me proposing to the world that I will buy the earth from them for $100 octillion dollars and then sell it back to you all for $100 octillion to the 100th power dollars. How do I get the $100 octillion dollars in the first place and how do I sell such a racket to the public?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney This is Obsurd. You do not have to own all of the earth in order to successfully earn a fortune from price fixing. ALL you need is to conspire with other companies to fix a price! AND that no other company comes in to lower the price. Thats all you need. ITs much easier than your making it out to be. Sure a company can come in with lower prices but it doesnt mean they will ALSO price fixing isnt something they just pull out of their ass. They set a price that exploits demand.
Rime247 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney This means a cartel will set a price, that will keep them getting paid if this negatively effects their revenue they will lower it. But the principle of price fixing is milking the customers for what companies will profit the most from. IF here are no competitors to suit lower prices the price fixing will prevail. Your working off of the assumption that business dont conspire for long term gain. sometimes all competitors in a field will.
Rime247 1 year ago
Comment removed
Rime247 1 year ago
..( this is a continuation) and so you might say, " no one is willing to work every day all day for almost no money like a slave" but this isn't true. Sweatshops still exist and has existed as a form of slavery throughout history and no corporation has ever come along to save the abused workers by offering them better conditions. People literally work to eat and eat to work. To prevent this type of abuse, government had to step in.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 THE GOVERNMENT IS WHAT CREATED THESE CONDITIONS! The corporation bribes the third world government to make it so that only that corporation can hire people. Thanks to the government eliminating their competition, they are able to pay less and not care about working conditions. In a free market where the government cannot create these barriers to entry, other businesses would look at this pool of cheap labor and jump in, forcing more employer competition and thus higher wages.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney yeah? What about the sweatshops INSIDE of America? Your telling me cooperations bribed the American government into making it so that that American people can only get jobs with an industrial or sewing factory? Sweatshops existed in America before the implementation of minimum wage. At the begging of the century and before, these slave relationships existed IN AMERICA. Companies have only to gain by hiring those who will accept the smaller wages. (continued)...
Rime247 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney ( this is a continuation )... therefore, minimum wage protects people from being slaves. It also provides for free market competition. If you set minimum wage too high,it creates unnecessary unemployment. The game is to balance out minimum wage standards in order to get the best results economically and principally. U.S gov was not bribed into forcing people to work in factories. Sweatshops were the result of companies hiring people,who desperately needed jobs, at lowest bidder.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 And like I said before, as the economy progresses, wages continually go up as you have more employer competition and fewer workers willing to work for pennies. The industrial revolution led to the highest increase in the standard of living among the average and poor, EVER.
I do not understand how you can hold such a contradictory position. You agree that if the minimum wage is too high, it causes unemployment. But when it is at a level you prefer, it somehow magically doesn't. WHY NOT?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney During the industrial revolution sweatshops still existed. You have no acknowledged this. Its not about technology, its about companies only paying out what they have to pay, and poor people willing to make less will always outnumber those who are better off ( skilled or unskilled) not to mention, a company will train an unskilled worker who will take less money rather than take a skilled worker who will take more. ( continued)
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 I acknowledge that sweatshops existed in America, BUT those sweatshops offered higher wages than people were able to obtain without them. Once again, you ignore that the industrial revolution led to the highest increase in the standard of living . . . EVER. If those evil employers were able to dictate wages as you say, why did we experience this massive increase in the standard of living?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney ( thsi is a continuation) I am not contradicting myself, because in anything worth doing balance is the key for optimal results. Taxes are necessary to keep a society safe, but if the gov is taxing people 90% of what they make then that is counterproductive. Its the same for minimum wage, it works as long as it is balanced we will get optimal results. If you set minimum wage at 0 or at 50 dollars an hour it is counter productive.
Rime247 1 year ago
@Rime247 You never explained why it wouldn't cause unemployment. If you have 10 unskilled workers and one employer with a budget of $50, either those 10 workers will work for $5 an hour OR, thanks to the minimum wage, 5 of those workers will work for $10 an hour and the other 5 workers will be unemployed. Once again, if the minimum wage causes unemployment if it were $20/hr, WHY does it not cause unemployment if it's $7.25/hr?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@Rime247 Unless you can explain exactly why the minimum wage would not cause unemployment, then all you are really arguing is that 5 workers should get $10/hr and the other 5 workers starve to death rather than all 10 workers get $5/hr.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney if that 5 dollars is not enough to live off of, then they will starve to death one way or the other. No matter what there will always be unemployed. The difference is that the unemployed in my eyes should have a way out, provided by government to give them opportunities for some sort of employment. But one cannot take part in these opportunities if they are employed or if they are involved in slave labor. How would anyone have the time to advance themselves if their a slave?
Rime247 1 year ago
Minimum wage is just like anything else. If you increase it too much of an extreme it will hurt us. If people are paid too little, they cant live off of it.
Rime247 1 year ago
Nice video. Such basic elementary information. It's strange to see people having such a difficult time understanding it. They must be clueless and brainwashed because making a sandwich is more difficult than understanding free-market economics.
It seems to be foolish fantasy in the form of well-intended, justified fallacies. Like kids make-believing they're not leaving the amusement park while walking out the exit sign.
realguy420 1 year ago
Nice video. Such basic elementary information. It's strange to see people having such a difficult time understanding it. They must be clueless and brainwashed because making a sandwich is more difficult than understanding free-market economics.
It seems to be foolish fantasy in the form of well-intended, justified fallacies. Like kids make-believing they're not leaving the amusement park while walking out the exit sign.
realguy420 1 year ago
Minimum wage forces working class people to work harder, because if they don't work at the rate of $7-$9 dollars an hour, they won't be able to find a job. It's a "Work hard or die" policy that the corporate state shoves down our throats.
adjohnson916 1 year ago
you need to be paid minimum wage. i bet you haven't even gone to college or studied a lick of economics, what an asshat.
debisis 1 year ago
Capitalism is full of Bull Shite!!! its nothing but slavery! what you want ppl to live on making 50cents a hour?
x1600meterman 1 year ago
You, and astonishingly Freidman in the video you attach to, ignore the fact that investors can & do override "free market" & can fix things like wages, prices, etc. through sheer domination (collusion, monopoly).
A min wage might effectively minimize these anti-free market practices to get to a more ideal result.
Probably, there's better solution than min wage, but you have to say what it is!.. Otherwise you either think full employment w/ exploitation is okay, or deny that exploitation exists
ElDukerino1 2 years ago
Exploitation doesn't exist in free markets, only in government created corporatized markets like the one we're in now. Monopolies can't exist in free markets, because it is simply impossible to maintain a monopoly if you are overcharging for goods or under paying for labor. You will simply be outbid by a competing business who thinks they can still make a profit and give higher wages and/or charge lower prices. Monopolies only exist when governments keep them propped up through biased regulation
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
You're right, but the things you say are merely tautologies within the fairy tale version of free market. In that version, the conditions that actually exist are not taken proper account of.
-human nature/greed,
-finite resources, externalities
-varying values (eg. concept of property rights) & intelligence among individuals
-Unjustly acquired assets & their distibution existing at this moment.
Monopolies would likely exist (and not by means of best prices/wages), certainly collusion.
ElDukerino1 2 years ago
I'm just saying that one could paint a picture of exploitation under laissez faire enforecement (it would be there no doubt & actually is to some extent as much as laissez faire is operating) & then present the "government" in an ideal fashion ignoring all of its obvious evils.
I would be equally harsh on that version!
ElDukerino1 2 years ago
@JacobSpinney Wow. Well said my man. What is your background in?
asleeperj 1 year ago
What about natural resources? If someone owns a monopoly on a resource, they can dictate prices. Or secret ideas. People still keep secrets. Important ones, like how to make fertilizer from air and even better ones, like how to make corn into plastic. The only solution is for every community to do everything itself. Our government should set this as it's end goal, and begin capitalizing the citizens until itself can be dismantled. Reward self-reliance. The government should be as a placeholder.
MotesTV 1 year ago
@ElDukerino1 Define free-market. I don't mean to be mean but how can you say that the government imposing a price control is a free market policy. You obviously hav