The problem is, if there weren't a minimum wage, unskilled workers would be working for peanuts, and would simply not be able to have, at best, a reasonable standard of living as the employer would obviously want to pay them the very least, but just enough to entice the worker to stay on.
@LaynezWorld No. having minimum wage mandates unemployment for many unskilled workers today. Removing that barrier would give them both a way to survive and a way to acquire the necessary skills to command higher pay.
Holy crap look at all that fried food for one person. I like the stuff but my goodness that was a lot in that bowl. Higher minimum wages would decrease the amount one could buy or raise the price of that amount.
Its easy economics. Mandated raises in the minimum wages make businesses do man things. First, it rarely changes the business of large companies like WalMart, Target, and my experience Cabela's. It hurts the small business who is now forced to pay a wage that is not within their budget. How do they make it fit within their budget? Raising prices, reducing stock or product, lowering expansion, reduction of hours, or laying off workers.
This video is old and not accurate then or now. It said very little other than that restaurant type work takes can no longer hire the unskilled young people and immigrants. All one has to do is go to any restaurant and see that is not the case.
@buckyew2 That's not it! They mean that much less of these people can find jobs now thanks the the minimum wage because it's harder for new businesses even to get started not mentioning that the existing ones have to either sell their goods and services at a higher price or to employ less people.
If you really want to see the effect to to a restaurant yourself and ask some old employee for him to tell you how harder his job is becoming every year because bringing more people is so expensive.
@AlexNOSAM Thats the absolute dumbest thing I have ever heard. Businesses have overwhelmingly more assets than necessary to hire every single person looking for work. Especially the largest Corporations that are most affected by minimum wage laws (Mom & Pop shops tend to pay more in the first place). Neo-liberal globalization instituted thru Reagonomics is sucking the jobs dry. Not safety-net capitalism. Democracy begins in the workplace! Employee owned factories!
@CitizenPlusPlus You missed the point too. What they mean in the video is that the large corporations and unions support the increase of the minimum wage because it's so easy for them to pay a little more pennies - but for some small businesses even a thing like those pennies can result in great losses. They support it to force competitors out of their way.
@CitizenPlusPlus You realize assertions have to backed up by arguments.
The lines "Businesses have overwhelmingly more assets than necessary to hire every single person looking for work." and "Mom & Pop shops tend to pay more in the first place" are nothing but bare assertions.
This is the equivilant of me saying: you're wrong, I'm right and then me assuming I've won the debate.
ridiculous reasoning. who the fuck needs help or wants to expand and cant afford to train someone at the federal minimum wage which is 300$/week for 40 hours of labor? if thats is why you cant hire than youre in the wrong business
@YoungTon22 Because it's a risk. If a worker produces 5 dollars worth of product and you hire him for 8 dollars an hour, you are taking a loss in the hopes that he will one day become more productive. If there is no minimum wage, you can hire him for 5 dollars an hour, and if he does become more productive, then you can pay him more. However, in the second situation, there is no risk involved because there is no loss to take a chance.
@johnsurs22 in what real life situation is any worker producing 5 dollars worth of product an hour? and how so? how is what you said applicable to real life?
@YoungTon22 For example, those that used to work at gas stations as servicemen and that would fill your car for you would make close to 5 dollars (in today's dollars). A lot of small odd jobs and some of the smaller part time jobs command lower pay. Also, you have to consider that if a company requires a lot of assembly line work, it will not profit from paying a guy who puts together a number of the cheaper parts, so it has to find an alternative.
@johnsurs22 the gas station attendent example applies but then again it doesnt.the worker isnt producing product he is strictly a service.this isnt neccessary to the gas station and really anyone who owns a gas station can do it under the table(like they already practice with illegal immigrant workers ext..).i disagree with what youre saying about assembly line work. what worker in an assembly line produces 5$ an hour and how? again, with a real world example.
@YoungTon22 Well sorry I didn't specify, but typically in economic terms, a product can be a physical product or a service. If a worker in an assembly line assembles packages 1000 per hour and those pencils sell (to the retail store remember!) for $5 per thousand, then you would not hire him at 8 bucks per hour. Simply find any cheap product that needs to be assembled and/or packaged. BTW, there are no illegal immigrant gas station servicemen are there? Even if, Americans would like those jobs
i understand your point and how it would work but there are no workers that only produce 5$ buddy. your pencil example is a good way to explain it but isnt real. ive been a packager for several different products in my younger years and to say we got a fraction of what the company made off an hours work is a joke and that was minimum wage. what you said wasnt real but if it was it would have been a good example. lol
@YoungTon22 Well I think it's fair to say that it doesn't impact a large population in general, and maybe you got at least min. wage as a teenager. However, data from the 50s when min. wage increased drastically shows that teenage unemployment doubled. Sorry I can't come up with a hypothetical, but it's tough to imagine what would be out there if things were different. Also, notice that you make your argument from a "min. wage doesn't hurt" standpoint instead of a "min. wage helps" point of view
@YoungTon22 I guess realistically at the level that it currently is at, the min. wage doesn't have much of an effect on most people; you are right However, from a standpoint of "should there be a min. wage of any level," I don't think it makes much sense, because it clearly doesn't help to raise the wages of those that would otherwise make less. So even if it hurts slightly, it's not a good policy
@johnsurs22 we can find common ground. im just afraid to see what would happen if min. wage was erased in a situation like todays where there are basically no jobs available. supply and demand of wages is only true in an economy full of jobs. people are desperate in desperate times and would be willing to work for less/much less than normal.
@YoungTon22 I think more jobs would be available, but yes, wages would go down. Instead of one person making 10 per hour, you could have for example four people making 7 per hour.Overall, we produce more and that drives prices down, but it won't necessarily help the person currently making mw. It will, however, help those that are currently unemployed as well as the general population. I think of mw jobs as a foot in the door to gain skills and experience.With no mw, more people have that chance
@johnsurs22 agreed.but individuals making mw or less arent too worried about helping society because they will be below the poverty line.the general population would still have to pay into social security to help these low wage workers because they wouldnt be able to afford cost of living.i think paying people less than mw could work if it was situational. for insance, your gas station service man or in general,unskilled workers that dont produce or sell product. but this happens already anyway
@YoungTon22 But the cost to society will be much less because you don't have to pay as much toward unemployment. The total wage that all unemployed plus minimum wage workers make will be significantly higher. Right now, we limit opportunity for the unemployed and then have to pay them those benefits for the long period of time it takes to find a job. Notice that in my example it goes from one person make 10 dollars to 4 making 7 dollars. 28>10
@johnsurs22 well technically our employers pay unemployment but i guess it can be argued that we are paid less because of it. also, i dont know how much unemployment i pay for anyone else if any because if i were unemployed my benifits would constitute what my company put in for me working. again 28>10 doesnt help indiviuals.
@YoungTon22 Because you are thinking of the one individual making 10 dollars and not the 3 unemployed that now make 7 a piece. Also, you have to keep in mind that all individuals benefit from the fact that when productivity increases, prices go down. Supply and demand---> More productivity=higher supply=lower cost=lower price in a competitive market.
@johnsurs22 no i am thinking of the 3 making 7. an individual making 7 bucks in the US is poor. and if you start a career off making 7 than your chances of getting to middle class are slim to none
@YoungTon22 Where are they going to go with no jobs? How is making 7 dollars an hour as a start or temporarily any worse than being unemployed? There's not much we can do to improve the salaries of jobs that don't demand a high salary to begin with.
@johnsurs22 being employed at 7 bucks is better than being unemployed. my thing is why would a company like walmart pay someone minimum wage? im an hvac technician and in my field looking for jobs, companies hiring for the same jobs with the same responsibilities and tasks have offered from $10/hr-$25/hr. why such a large variation? so different jobs demanding different salaries crumbles in these real life situations. somebody took that $10 job because of lack of opportunity.
@YoungTon22 If there are a wide range of wages being offered like from 10 dollars to 25 dollars and both have the same qualifications, then why wouldn't you take the 25 dollar job? What do you mean by lack of opportunity?
@johnsurs22 when the position is filled with that company offering 25,then the position is filled.what you have left is jobs paying less.1 position open employs 1 person.lack of opportunity means there are only so many companies that pay the 25 and if you arent chosen by those companies you are forced to take whats left,even the 10 dollar job doing the same thing.so skills demanding salaries seem to be misleading in this job market.when jobs arent plentiful,companies tend to prey on desperation
@johnsurs22 well im speaking from a point of only knowing the job market with a MW.MW creates a bottom line and a sort of protection.a couple of comments back i said that without MW i would be afraid to see what would happen to wages in an economy like ours today.what are desperate people willing to work for?
to solve some of the problem though,for low/no skill jobs i wouldnt be opposed to puting an age limit on MW requirements.let teens work odd/simple jobs for less.
@johnsurs22 now if only politicians debated like me and you just did maybe they could find common ground and come up with a simple solution. but its all fucked up.smh. i have no hope that they will get anything right
This video might as well have said, "well actually, you can turn feces into gold" and then rolled straight to the credits. Seriously, wtf @ giving an argument and asking to click on a website for more info.
@EKastrioti it wasn't an insult it was a description of what you wrote. I don't think that you have provide any evidence that developed countries have more decentralized economies and therefore more economic freedom. The work of Hernando De Soto and several institutes show that in developing economies there are permits for everything. To use your example of selling a car... Its hard to obtain a legal title for the car its hard to obtain the paperwork necessary legally.
@EKastrioti Wow your pretty incoherent.i don't have a clue what trying to say.. if your inferring that Eypt Tunsia etc.. have more economic freedom than the US ... I would like to see that.. .
@CarlosMarti123 Liberty Pen uses that same intro music for like half his videos. Im sure if you message him he will tell you. Whoever runs it is pretty responsive to commenters. It might be a her? Noone knows. He/She is very mysterious. lol
Ah yes, the old unskilled labor deserves less pay argument. You can't argue that accepting less than a living wage is OK EVER! If it requires a human to do the job for 40 hrs a week, that wage needs to provide food, water, shelter, and health care. A person's NEEDS are no less present because their sill/experience isn't. Not to mention, employers engineer jobs to not need skill or experience so as to increase productivity and justify lower wages.
@Iisdabest889 There is still no law against people hiring some one to do a job, not based on time. For example: I'll wash your SINK full of dishes, you say OK, I wash dishes in 1 minute, better than MW. Then someone else says the same, you say OK, it takes him 1/2 hour worse than MW, his Inexperience not your pay rate's fault. However,If you are a restaurant and you need me all night, you pay MW or + for time on premises. MW has no effect on that kind of labor.
@Iisdabest889" ...therefore more jobs" does not follow. More competition does not always equal more jobs. Many different aspects affect job creation. Trends, New technologies, Available Capitol, war, availability of commodities. Your argument is that with MW there would be more jobs, but they are shitty jobs. By abolishing MW US employers are looking to cut labor wages to compete with Chinese labor. It's a race to the bottom and you are looking to win.
supply and demand will pay a living wage after you gain a skill from having the experience of work. Only then, should a wage increase. Minimum wage is for unskilled part time work and that is all it has ever been meant for. Its not a career. Semiskilled, skilled, and professional jobs demand more money based on the product/service that is performed and the supply/demand for the job itself and background needed to do the job.
@cliffkemp MW is for unskilled PT work? Who says you get to decide what MW is and isn't for. They actually based MW on cost of living and each state that has raised MW of there state, did so based on the cost of living. You are making your argument on a false premise.
I have submitted a video response with my take on the Chicago school of economics. Overall I would like to say it isn't anything new, just a new name on classical liberal ideas.
Let's see if the "liberty and freedom" loving uploader of this video allows my response to be seen.
Very often I find these libertarians to praise free and open speech in their writing but to censor speech they dislike whenever the opportunity presents itself
Minimum wage is a question of what value we put on human life. All a human has in their life is their time. If you want to see the results of there not being a minimum wage just look to a free trade zone. the result of there being a very low minimum wage or no minimum wage is starvation wages. Just look at the wages earned in this country before the minimum wage was imposed.
People who promote this are very clearly promoting plutocracy.
by the way, my grandmother was born in 1920 and still living today and can attest to this and is actually a liberal :( she is set in her ways being 90 years old but she is in better health than many in their 60s. Even she doesnt argue the minimum wage and she lived through it.
take away minimum wage and people will hire teens and pay them little as they have no experience, as they work and gain that experience, they can market themselves more based on that experience and future education that comes with the pride of working and accomplishing something. this thinking is nearly extinct but worked so well in the....correct me if I am wrong.....ROARING 20s :) minimum wage went into effect around 1935 and not for ww2, could have been worse due to it.
@neonaction Yes but are you willing to pay more for products? Also greed has been around for century's and it cannot be stopped. Also who are you to say they can afford work at a higher price you are not in control of their balance sheets.
Its not greed at all. If you provide a service that is marketable meaning individuals have incentive to buy or consume your product, you consume it not for the altruistic nature of how good it feels to sell it but to make a living yourself so that you can consume products of your interest in which another profits from. Its mutually benifical. Thats how things work. Wages are set based on your profit margins and the type of skilled work one can provide.
@neonaction yea, just like you CAN afford to give all of your extra money to charity, and own nothing but 2 pairs of clothes. but it's greed that stops you from giving away all of your wealth.
@neonaction You would deprive those poor, poor Waltons of the new Lamboghini or Rolls Royce they each get every Christmas? Or the vacation cottage on Bora Bora? Or the platinum plated shark tank bar by their swimming pool? Yeah, God forbid that the Waltons should have to settle for a Porsche, Mercedes, or BMW instead!
@Pbirv Your retarded, the Waltons are a very frugal family. That's how the built the biggest retailer in the world out of scratch. The Waltons are as frugal as they come.
@UncommonThinker It's called "sarcasm". WalMart could certainly afford to pay their workers enough to live on without having to go on public assistance, which comes out of our taxes.
Missed this foolishness. The oft repeated nonsense that Wal-Mart employees (even a significant number of them) must rely on public assistance has been long and extensively debunked. Wal-Mart is paying what the market will bear. The result is that many more opportunites are created for people to work than would otherwise have existed and Wal-Mart's provision of goods at lower prices have been a boon not only to the economy as a whole but those who can afford the least.
From PBS: "A November 2004 New York Times article cites a study in GA that found 10,000 children of WM employees were in the state's healthcare program at a cost to taxpayers of $10 million a year. The same article describes a hospital in NC that found that 31% of its 1,900 patients were Wal-Mart employees on Medicaid, and an additional 16% were Wal-Mart employees with no insurance at all. "
Yes, thoroughly debunked union-funded drivel designed to sway the economically ignorant. The problems with your assertions are legion. Wal-Mart offers health insurance to all of its employees and by law, of course, each must be paid the legal minimum, but that’s beside the point. Just how much would those people have cost the taxpayers if they WEREN’T employed by Wal-Mart and weren't getting health insurance OR wages from elsewhere?!?!?
@FletchforFreedom Yes, WM offers health insurance, but the premiums are so high(40%) that very few of their employees can afford it. And how much would those people cost the taxpayers if WalMart actually paid them enough to live on without having to apply for welfare? It's cost us taxpayers a lot less for sure.
@Pbirv 40% of what? wages? I dont think so as I have a few friends that work at walmart. Their coverage is decent for what it is and is not as high as you make it to be. Somehow you think the average cashier job at walmart should be a full time job. It is not and requires little skill and therefore, little pay. quit feeling sorry for people and get to the point. I have lots of examples for you if you wish to persue the BS side as you are doing. not rocket sciense by any means
@cliffkemp "According to the Center for a Changing Workforce, in 2003, Wal-Mart employees paid 41% of insurance premium costs. At the time of the report, Costco employees paid about 10% of premium costs. Nationally, workers today pay an average of 16% of premiums for single coverage and 26% of premiums for family coverage. "
@Pbirv insurance cost premiums are not the same. You are solely talking about the people who are having bad health or accident prone ouside the job and not including the people that are healthy and dont even go to the doc when they sneeze. You are trying to make a point with apples and oranges and it still doesnt work try again
@Pbirv Where would you get that assumption? tell me what that has to do with minimum wage. all you read about are the bad things and people using medical services. For everyone of them, many dont go to the doctor or do very rarely and they dont keep data on that unless you work for the company itself. they can only go by people who use it andin some cases, excessively. still have not done apples to apples yet and you still jump from subject to subject.
But then that is NOT 40% of their pay; that is 40% of the cost of the insurance which means that Wal-Mart is STILL picking up 60% of the tab. But, again, SO WHAT?!?!? The fact remains that the employee has a job that pays as much as they could get in the marketplace or else they would have gotten a job elsewhere and the alternative is no job at all. Wal-Mart has provided them with an opportunity and attempts to artificially increase wages ALWAYS simply reduce employment. Every single time.
@FletchforFreedom I never said it was 40% of their wages. I meant that was the percentage of the premium costs paid by WalMart employees. Costco employees are only paying 10% of those costs, while the national average is 16%.
You said "WM offers health insurance, but the premiums are so high(40%) that very few of their employees can afford it." If you MEANT 40% of the premiums must be paid by the employees, then you should have been more clear. It was only upon seeing the reply to cliffkemp, that your meaning and source were revealed.
It makes little difference. The clarification does not undermine anything I said or support the (factually inaccurate) assertion that "very few of their employees can afford it."
@cliffkemp CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT From [Employer Health Benefits 2005 Annual Survey, The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust; Wal-Mart and Healthcare: Condition Critical, Center for a Changing Workforce, 10/26/05]
They'd cost the taxpayers MUCH more. Most Wal-Mart employees (who, as a group, overwhelmingly HAVE health insurance) are secondary earners and young people. The alternatives are not Wal-Mart pays them peanuts or Wal-Mart pays them a "living wage". The alternatives are Wal-Mart pays them a MARKET wage or Wal-Mart employs hundreds of thousands FEWER of them (and charges higher prices so that everyone's cost of living is higher). And the 40% figure is utter nonsense.
The actual figure is, on average, 33% (WM pays a bit more than two-thirds of the cost) which is comparable to other retailers not cherry-picked to make WM look bad. It still doesn't change the fact that Wal-Mart offers competitive compensation packages (including benefits) without which people would not work there.
"And in California, a study released in August 2004 by researchers at the U of CA Berkeley determined that the healthcare expenses of uninsured Wal-Mart employees were costing the already economically-strapped state $32 million a year in taxpayer funds."
Wal-Mart employs more than a million people. The alternative is that these people would NOT otherwise be employed or else they would have found better paying jobs elsewhere. Artificial attempts to increase wages (i.e., minimum wages) serve only to reduce employment and always fail to reduce poverty.
Wal-Mart INCREASES the standard of living. Living standards are increased by economic efficiencies. Creating jobs and offering consumers products at lower prices benefits everyone.
@FletchforFreedom dont believe I could have said it better myself. In the end, Pbirv needs to understand that forcing people to pay other people a set amount and not let it be based on merit and still only destroys the whole system. Politicians just use this as sympathy to get votes argueing that they are helping the 'poorer' people make money when it is the opposite.
@cliffkemp If we got rid of minimum wage, there would be nothing to keep employers from dropping their pay to $1 an hour or less, and people would still take those jobs because they have to eat, even if that $1 an hour wasn't enough to enable one to be able to afford to live indoors with some kind of dignity, as opposed to a carboard box or improvised shanty, or sharing a 1 bedroom apartment or trailer with 10-30 other people.
@Pbirv sad that you would believe this. Getting rid of minimum wage would make pay more fair to people that are worth the money. They would not do what you just said and never did that in the history of man. people would be paid what they are worth and companies would not pay based on force. Economics would take over on supply and demand and would fix itself in a small amount of time.
@cliffkemp Getting rid of minimum wage would also start people underbidding each other in a race to the bottom. Eventually some crackhead would be willing to work for 5 cents an hour and an employer could very well decide that's all the job is worth.
@Pbirv You are looking at it from a poor point of view. people are not going to work for nothing and companies cannot be in business if people wont work for them so they will have to pay them a fair wage or not be in business. this held true before minimum wage even existed. Please read a little history and understand more about economics before you make false statements.
@cliffkemp People will work for next to nothing when the only alternative is starving. Not only would getting rid of minimum wage start a race to the bottom in those jobs as people seek to underbid each other in order to get employment, it would also start wages and salaries crashing down in higher paying fields. One employer drops wages and everyone else has to follow suit to remain able to compete. Pretty soon we end up like Haiti or Thailand or Honduras or El Salvador or Bangladesh.
You keep repeating this economic and historical ignorance as if it hasn't already been thoroughly discredited. There are two mutually exclusive possibilities: either you are correct and there is no middle class in this country and workers are paid the legal minimum and rarely move beyond that or you're wrong and businesses frequently offer entry level jobs throughout the country (even during times like these) at more than the legal minimum to compete for workers (which is observable fact).
You apparently do not know the history of the period you have been discussing. Knowledge of ancient SUmeria or the War of the Roses or even exploration of the Northwest Passage, while fabulously interesting, will not serve you here.
The facts, as usual, are entirely against you. More than 95% of the workforce makes more than the legal minimum (that is, they are paid more WITHOUT intervention by the state rather than "as little as possible") and most are secondary wage earners and young people. Minimum wage laws have NEVER done ANYTHING but decrease employment and have never workes to fight poverty. This is borne out by literally EVERY study that bears scrutiny (so don't bring up - debunked - Card & Krueger).
Just as a caution. Be careful not to cite any information from the Economic (sic) Policy Institute. Literally everyone knows that the information that they provide isn;t worth the paper (or ether in the case of their website) its printed on - particularly since they got Kerry in troble with that "insourced jobs pay $9,000 less" BS that they got caught manipulating the BLS numbers to say.
@FletchforFreedom For every 2 jobs that WalMart creates, 3 jobs at the mom and pop stores disappear. That's kinda like investing $3 into something to get $2 back. So in effect WM shortchanges the communities there. And those low prices are at least offset, if not more than offset, by the taxes we have to pay for the public assistance that so many of their workers have to rely on to make ends meet.
What dimwit gave you THAT imbecilic idea. Again, jobs are created by economic efficiencies. If Wal-Mart can compete for customers better than the mom and pops that frees up resources to be spent elsewhere. Even in the exteremely unlikely event that there is a net loss in jobs in retail, it means that more resources are available to create jobs elsewhere in the economy. The notion that the creation of Wal-Mart jobs reduces employment is pure economic ignorance.
And the (now repeated) economic ignorance that Wal-Mart "shortchanges" communities and increases public assistance costs remains no less nonsensical than the first time you mentioned it. The ONLY source of jobs, prosperity and higher living standards is economic efficiency. EVERY time that competition in the marketplace (rather than governmnet intervention) reallocates resources, the net economic benefit is always positive - regardless of ehether it's at Wal-Mart or China.
@FletchforFreedom WalMart has made it virtually impossible for those wanting to start their own grocery store, hardware store, etc, to be successful, because few small business owners can afford to absorb losses in order to match WalMart's low prices. In many small towns, WM has effectively run their competitors out of business, creating basically a monopoly in those places unless one is able and willing to drive 20+ miles to the next town.
Perhaps that's true in small towns, but it is a meaningless point. The fact is that many small towns could not support more than one mom-and-pop organization. That is not monopoly (and, as you say, shoppers can go to the next town). Still, with the savings that consumers receive from shopping at Wal-Mart (a lower cost of living), they can patronize OTHER businesses ultimately INCREASING jobs even in the small town.
@FletchforFreedom In many towns, WHAT other businesses? WM's got their hands in groceries, clothing, toys, electronics, jewelry, automotive parts, eyeglasses, etc- they recently tried getting into banking. In many places, the only other businesses left are an occaisonal barber shop or tavern. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if WalMart got into those businesses as well.
Not many people can afford the $3 per gallon gas to drive 20+ miles to the next town to go somewhere other than WalMart.
You're just digging yourself deeper. The notion that WM has so coopted all business that people cannot find jobs elsewhere is not merely wrong - it's monumentally stupid. Wal-Mart is a retailer; there are far more jobs available in other areas. Surely you can grasp that salses do not make up the entirety of American economic activity (or even the primary part of it).
Your anti-Wal-Mart hysteria has caused you to go off the deep end.
@Pbirv so I guess you need to go to Franklin GA and have a word with PIGGLY WIGGLY as they are the only grocery store in the whole county. Yes, the WHOLE county. Guess add PIGGLY WIGGLY to the list with walmart as Franklin is 20+ miles from the next town with a grocery store. think about what you are saying. Use some common sense and stop feeling sorry for people all the time like they cannot fend for themselves.
@FletchforFreedom Better paying jobs elsewhere? Where? When so many decent paying jobs have been, and are being eliminated, shipped overseas, or given to foreign guest workers willing to do those jobs for a fraction of what Americans can afford to live on(because the countries the guest workers are from pay 100% of their citizens' college tuition so they don't have to worry about paying back student loans)? In many cases, Americans are being required to train their foriegn replacements.
I am not resp[onsible for your factually inaccurate beliefs. Outsourcing has not been a source of job loss, the US being a huge net INsourcer of jobs (and the insourced jobs tend to pay more) and pre-recession unemployment (during the greatest periods of outsourcing) was low. Of even smaller real consequence is the guest worker issue. You have no facts to support your belief that the American worker is getting screwed by these things because those pesky facts tell the exact opposite story.
@FletchforFreedom "Outsourcing has not been a source of job loss" Then why do I keep hearing of whole communities being devastated by a factory deciding to move overseas? Why is it that practically every time I pick up a paper or watch the news, I hear about yet more tech workers whose jobs went to guest workers or were simply sent to India or China? FACT- There is absolutely NO WAY an American making say, $15+ an hour can hope to compete with a Chinese or Indian making 5
You apparently can't grasp the concept of NET job loss. Again, for every factory job lost (and, despite your religious belief to the contrary, the chief cause of those job losses is automation) more and higher paying jobs are created here. And it is a FACT that American workers successfully compete for those jobs every single day. If they can't then the jobs are not worth $15/hr and when they are outsourced, to the economic benefit of the country, more and better jobs are created elsewhere.
@Pbirv For once, put yourself in the shoes of the company. we are overtaxing companies cause we are greedy. we use class warfare to justify it and give money to the poor who dont earn it and dont appreciate it. History is crystal clear that if we continue to do this, WE WILL COLLAPSE, PERIOD. there is no if, ands, or buts about it. Minimum wage is part of the problem of and always has been as are unions.
FACT- There is absolutely NO WAY an American making say, $15+ an hour can hope to compete with a Chinese or Indian making 15 cents an hour, unless of course we lower our wages to 5-10 cents an hour- a wage that not even illegals could hope to survive on in this country.
Since, of course, in the real world, literally NO ONE ismaking 5-10 cents an hour (the lowest Chinese wage for example is somewhere above 80 cents an hour) and the cost of building new factories, shipping materials to and from overseas, training a workforce with fewer base skills, etc. add such costs that such competition will continue without the massive job losses that you dream are inevitable. Your position is flatly refuted by ACTUAL REALITY.
@Pbirv doesnt matter about piggly wiggly and that they dont deal with other products. also, its the value of the dollar. forcing companies to pay more for unskilled work never works and never has. they pass the cost to the customer and this creates inflation. the reason companies are doing business overseas more is for this very reason. What do you not get about this?
Shopping at Walmart contributes to the decline in our standard of living.
It encourages opening new stores that pay lower wages. It destroys mom and pop stores, most of whom can't match WalMart's buying power. It also encourages the export of relatively well-paying manufacturing jobs: Walmart pressured their vendors to move their manufacturing to China. They have a lot of influence; they can simply stop buying from an uncooperative vendor.
Mom and pop shops fail because CONSUMERS decide that they BENEFIT more from taking their business elsewhere; not because of Wal-Mart.
That, as the economy evolves, fewer jobs exist in manufacturing (even though US manufacturing output has increased dramatically) is not harmful, particularly since manufacturing jobs have been among the LOWEST paying for the last century. And more and HIGHER PAYING jobs are Insourced into the US than are outsourced.
@Pbirv If walmart started overpaying for low skilled labor, honest hard working people would shop else where. You have to work smart and hard in the 21 century.
Kroger and Costco also employ far fewer people not only in ordinal terms but in relation to the amount of business they do. Those are the alternatives - employ people at the lower MARKET wage (it is impossible for any business to employ people for less than that - the "race to the bottom" myth is pure ignorance) or employ many FEWER people at a higher wage.
The facts are entirely against you. The fact is that wages are determined by the marketplace and competition for labor. Attempts to interfere with that process (a la the minimum wage) serve only to decrease employment - an established historical fact.
Coming from some16 year old boy with NO scientific background and NO world perspective I have to say who cares. Al Gore is a FRAUD and his followers and brain dead drones.
Global warming is a globalist progressive ideology based off of junk science and manipulated data.
The so called climate experts have been PROVEN to have an agenda, its about wealth distribution and grants to fraud scientists and ITS ALL BEEN DEBUNKED!
As I said, the day that unions are gone & business no longer has any fear or worry about workers organizing, how long does anyone think it'll be before corporate lobbyists & their rightwing buds in Congress and state legislatures start working to get our labor laws rolled back, if not repealed altogether, or at least watered down and neutered so far they won't matter? I guess many here won't care until their pay starts getting cut & their work hours get extended to 10, 12, 14-18 hours a day.
There is way too much croneism on both sides. Its is a problem. European standard of living? I love that. Standard of living is a phantom statistic that means nothing. It basically just means people are happy. Our per capita wealth is higher on average (even excluding our rich) than europe.
"There is way too much croneism on both sides. Its is a problem."
There we agree.
"Standard of living is a phantom statistic that means nothing. It basically just means people are happy. Our per capita wealth is higher on average (even excluding our rich) than europe."
There's a lot to be said for a country like Iceland or Sweden that treats their people better even in the worst of times than we do ours in the best. Note that there's no slums or poverty in Stockholm.
Again, tjhe 8-hour day was implemented by the PRIVATE SECTOR. In fact, in the late 19th century, the ONLY steel mills in the country with an 8-hour day (plus, BTW, a hospital maintained by the company for employees and families and college courses for employees in metallurgy, engineering, etc.) were NON-union shops in johnstown, Pennsylvania.
The notion that the 8-hour day would come to an end in the absence of unions is imbecilic.
Labor was pushing for the 8 hour workday well before employers adopted it. In fact the Haymarket Riot of 1886 erupted over the Knights of Labor demonstrating for an 8 hour workday.
The sattement is again factually WRONG. The 8-hour day (and the 40-hour week and better working conditions) were all FIRST provided by the private sector. The Haymarket riot erupted because was an example of labor's propensity for violence during the period because SOME companies didn't move to the 8-hour day with the speed that others already had. Labor was too impatient to wait for market forces already underway.
Again, your assertion is factually wrong (and contrary to history. Again, at the time when MOST of the steel industry was unionized the ONLY steel mills with an an 8-hour day were NON-union shops EXPRESSLY to attract the best workers. Further, the US adopted 8-hour days in non-union businesses FASTER than in unuon businesses or in more unionized Europe.
Kepping workers happy makes them more productive (even when, as was the case, no likelihood of unionization existed).
It was unions & the labor laws they fought for, along with the New Deal that built America's middle class, made us a world leader and made our standard of living possible. W/out those, we end up a 3rd World country, with 2-5% obscenely rich, a very insecure 5% to MAYBE 10-15% middle class, & everyone else desperately poor- like Mexico or Brazil. W/out unions, your boss could fire you simply because he didn't like you, or you had to leave/be late to work to take your sick kid to a doctor.
Keep spouting this historically inaccurate nonsense; it will never make it remotely credible. The greatest economic growth in the US was during the period between the end of the Civil War and WWI - BEFORE unionization. The New Deal (including the Wagner Act), according to the overwhelming and stuill growing economic evidence, was an economic disaster that helped turn a recession into the Great Depression.
The economy was already in a Depression before the New Deal got enacted. Maybe FDR should've done nothing? If not for the New Deal, the communists or fascists very likely would've taken over- people were that desperate. Like it or not, the New Deal Saved capitalism. I suppose you think the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the GI Bill, a logical extension of the New Deal, were also mistakes? Maybe Social Security, minumum wage, and laws banning child labor too?
Your historical ignorance is showing. Yes, the recession had already begun and was exacerbated by the interventionist policies of Hoover. FDR just made matters much worse (there NEVER having been any chance of either communist or fascist rise - albeit FDR's policies were in some ways modeled on the latter). Like it or not the notion that the New Deal saved capitalism has been completely debunked by actual research.
@Pbirv simple, they should have done nothing except have the federal reseve pump money to the banks that didnt have cash on hand to cover the peoples withdrawal. THAT WAS THE RESERVES JOB and they did nothing. People paniced due to local banks not having money on hand. they still dont to this day but, if they need the actual cash, the reserve ships it to them to cover. all could have been avoided had the reserve done its job after the market crash.
Short of getting in a time machine and preventing the Fed from expanding the money supply or having legislators repeal unit banking laws about a decade before, the best course of action for them was to do ... nothing. No Smoot-Hawley, no Wagner Act, no minimum wage or, in Hoover's case, convioncing companies to keep wages up, no CCC, no NRA ... these are the things that turned a Fed caused recession into the economic disaster that it was.
@FletchforFreedom "no CCC, no NRA ... " So there should've been no public works programs? No Hoover Dam, Golden Gate Bridge, or Tennessee Valley Dam built? No bringing electricity to rural areas(most rural areas didn't have electricity until the Rural Electrification Act)?
You're right and wrong. Public works programs serve only to make recessions/depressions longer and deeper (as current "stimulus" programs have demonstrated). The private sector is much better at creating jobs and meeting consumer needs. Your assessment of electrification is factually wrong and, in fact, private sector electricity companies were expanding rapidly into ever more remote areas before government intervened.
@FletchforFreedom amen to that. recent raising the minimum wage to 7.25 when it was 5.75 is a huge jump and inflation is starting to show although, some jobs can be paid the old 4.25 depending on the job classification. Minimum wage and entitlements are what is driving this country down. I would gladly work for nearly nothing to learn about working on cars but, I cannot and no one is going to hire me being forced to pay me minimum wage as I was trying to educate Pvirv
what about the tax cuts?? You have a job because of them. 'If you squeeze the nobility, the common people feel the pain" The above is about minimum wage. Unfunded wars are due to overspending on both parts under many congresses. I never said it was right but, spending too much money on entitlements and raising minimum wage could have helped paid for the 2 wars you speak of.
@FletchforFreedom Would private enterprise alone have created those projects? Would they have created the Interstate highway system? Government investment in infrastructure benefits everybody.
Would private enterprise have created those projects? Absolutely. Unequivocally. Without even the slightest chance of question. The only projects that could not have been created by private enterprise are those that cannot ultimately generate a return (that is, cannot generate sufficient wealth to society to be economically justified). That government has monopolized road building and prevents competition does not support your case at all.
Obviously, because government took to itself monopoly power. Government had already accorded to itself sole right and responsibility to engage in roadbuilding. By having the ability to throw money at any road project they chose, the governmnet effectively eliminated private road construction at that level. Prior to its doing so, private enterprise had already been accomplishing such projects. the turnpike system began as private roads funded at turn-pikes.
@FletchforFreedom Imagine if our interstate highway system had been developed and owned by corporations; vast portions would never have been built (unless compensated by a giant give-away, as with territorial land grants to the railroads), while on those segments that were, corporate owners would be in a position to extract via tolls from motorists many billions of dollars more every year than is currently paid in fuel taxes.
@Pbirv To the contrary, the notion of private highways has been extensively researched and evaluated extensively (see Walter Block’s work, for example). The net result is not merely LOWER costs but better maintenance of the roads (as opposed to stimulus payments that result in highways being repaved constantly while others have potholes. The facts, as usual, are entirely against you.
No one ever said the gvt did everything bad, just saying that many things, they need to leave alone. I will pay some tax for being able to drive on I-20, but since they didnt pave it like the autobahn, they keep wasting my tax money on paving it over and over. I have personally seen it paved 4 different times in my lifetime. funny how the autobahn is starting to wear out some at nearly 75 years old. Just an example and yes I have been on the autobahn several times.
@FletchforFreedom Would private enterprise alone have created those projects? Would they have created the Interstate highway system? Government investment in infrastructure benefits everybody.
In fact, efforts by utilities to expand into the very regions covered by the REA were HINDERED by the administration because key members in it believed that, regardless of the state of the economy, utilities should be a government-provided service (Chase, in particular, pushed for a Soviet model).
These projects would have been done at some point in time anyway and could have been done better. still not sticking to the point of minimum wage as it was not even in existance til after hoover dam was complete. Back on point, people chose who lives and dies in economics and should never be the gvt. Where I live, we have mom/pop still open despite having 4 walmarts within 25 miles of one another. People have the power and gvt needs to be reminded of that.
You must understand that depressions/recessions are never caused by stock market crashes or asset bubbles or investments in derivatives. They are caused by manipulation of the money supply by governments that, in tirn, CAUSE asset bubbles, etc. They are then made worse by further government action that increases uncertainty in the market. The pro-union Wagner Act precipitated the Roosevelt Recession in '37 that prolongedthe Great Depression still further.
@FletchforFreedom that is true as they are caused by people that dont understand how the economy works. I believe that the gvt should have done nothing as well if we had a time machine and let it work itself out. doing this would have not been the popular thing but it would have worked best.
Well, if we had a time machine, we could have gotten the same people to do "nothing" earlier. Had the Fed not manipulated the money supply a few years earlier that particular bubble would not have appeared. And had unit banking laws not been passed, a more diversified banking system would have made it less painful (albeit would not have prevented it). Had Hoover not worked to keep up wages, it might have ended before FDR took office (and removed his justifications).
No and yes. Unit banking laws prevented banks often from having more than a single branch and they could not diversify. The larger banks in states without such laws or pre-dating them nearly all survived without depositor loss.
Glass-Steagal was a disaster for other reasons, creating artificial distinctions between certain banking activities (that exist nowhere else). It facilitated the S&L crisis and its partial repeal had not a damn thing to do with the current crisis.
Since a) Glass-Steagal was not a "unit banking law", b) repealing the unit banking laws was a huge economic benefit, c) repealing Glass-Steagal contributed not in the slightest to the current economic crisis (which was caused by the Fed, Fannie and Freddie), d) there never was a company that was "too big to fail" (including banks), e) bailouts were never justified and f) bail outs of the 'too big to fail" only made things worse, that's a pretty silly statement on your part.
@cliffkemp So those who the Depression had put out of work should've just been allowed to lose their homes and go hungry. One thing that history teaches is that revolutions happen when that many people are hungry and desperate. Bob Marley said it best "a hungry man is an angry man". You get millions of people who've lost their jobs, their homes, and are now starving and have nothing left to lose- they'll listen to anybody who promises to make things better. A sure recipe for revolution.
The best explanation of how wages work.
watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40
TheCapitalistdog 1 month ago
The problem is, if there weren't a minimum wage, unskilled workers would be working for peanuts, and would simply not be able to have, at best, a reasonable standard of living as the employer would obviously want to pay them the very least, but just enough to entice the worker to stay on.
LaynezWorld 1 month ago
@LaynezWorld No. having minimum wage mandates unemployment for many unskilled workers today. Removing that barrier would give them both a way to survive and a way to acquire the necessary skills to command higher pay.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
Holy crap look at all that fried food for one person. I like the stuff but my goodness that was a lot in that bowl. Higher minimum wages would decrease the amount one could buy or raise the price of that amount.
THERepublic1971 1 month ago
Its easy economics. Mandated raises in the minimum wages make businesses do man things. First, it rarely changes the business of large companies like WalMart, Target, and my experience Cabela's. It hurts the small business who is now forced to pay a wage that is not within their budget. How do they make it fit within their budget? Raising prices, reducing stock or product, lowering expansion, reduction of hours, or laying off workers.
I don't understand the confusion on this.
THERepublic1971 1 month ago
This video is old and not accurate then or now. It said very little other than that restaurant type work takes can no longer hire the unskilled young people and immigrants. All one has to do is go to any restaurant and see that is not the case.
buckyew2 3 months ago
@buckyew2 That's not it! They mean that much less of these people can find jobs now thanks the the minimum wage because it's harder for new businesses even to get started not mentioning that the existing ones have to either sell their goods and services at a higher price or to employ less people.
If you really want to see the effect to to a restaurant yourself and ask some old employee for him to tell you how harder his job is becoming every year because bringing more people is so expensive.
AlexNOSAM 2 months ago
@AlexNOSAM Thats the absolute dumbest thing I have ever heard. Businesses have overwhelmingly more assets than necessary to hire every single person looking for work. Especially the largest Corporations that are most affected by minimum wage laws (Mom & Pop shops tend to pay more in the first place). Neo-liberal globalization instituted thru Reagonomics is sucking the jobs dry. Not safety-net capitalism. Democracy begins in the workplace! Employee owned factories!
CitizenPlusPlus 2 months ago
@CitizenPlusPlus You missed the point too. What they mean in the video is that the large corporations and unions support the increase of the minimum wage because it's so easy for them to pay a little more pennies - but for some small businesses even a thing like those pennies can result in great losses. They support it to force competitors out of their way.
AlexNOSAM 2 months ago
@CitizenPlusPlus You realize assertions have to backed up by arguments.
The lines "Businesses have overwhelmingly more assets than necessary to hire every single person looking for work." and "Mom & Pop shops tend to pay more in the first place" are nothing but bare assertions.
This is the equivilant of me saying: you're wrong, I'm right and then me assuming I've won the debate.
crazypants88 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To live a peaceful life instead of holding grudges -
Disassociate from people with apathetic and indifferent lifestyles.
Associate with those who care for the well being of humanity and other beings.
lamourlupus 4 months ago
ridiculous reasoning. who the fuck needs help or wants to expand and cant afford to train someone at the federal minimum wage which is 300$/week for 40 hours of labor? if thats is why you cant hire than youre in the wrong business
YoungTon22 5 months ago
@YoungTon22 Because it's a risk. If a worker produces 5 dollars worth of product and you hire him for 8 dollars an hour, you are taking a loss in the hopes that he will one day become more productive. If there is no minimum wage, you can hire him for 5 dollars an hour, and if he does become more productive, then you can pay him more. However, in the second situation, there is no risk involved because there is no loss to take a chance.
johnsurs22 4 months ago
@johnsurs22 in what real life situation is any worker producing 5 dollars worth of product an hour? and how so? how is what you said applicable to real life?
YoungTon22 4 months ago
@YoungTon22 For example, those that used to work at gas stations as servicemen and that would fill your car for you would make close to 5 dollars (in today's dollars). A lot of small odd jobs and some of the smaller part time jobs command lower pay. Also, you have to consider that if a company requires a lot of assembly line work, it will not profit from paying a guy who puts together a number of the cheaper parts, so it has to find an alternative.
johnsurs22 4 months ago
@johnsurs22 the gas station attendent example applies but then again it doesnt.the worker isnt producing product he is strictly a service.this isnt neccessary to the gas station and really anyone who owns a gas station can do it under the table(like they already practice with illegal immigrant workers ext..).i disagree with what youre saying about assembly line work. what worker in an assembly line produces 5$ an hour and how? again, with a real world example.
YoungTon22 4 months ago
@YoungTon22 Well sorry I didn't specify, but typically in economic terms, a product can be a physical product or a service. If a worker in an assembly line assembles packages 1000 per hour and those pencils sell (to the retail store remember!) for $5 per thousand, then you would not hire him at 8 bucks per hour. Simply find any cheap product that needs to be assembled and/or packaged. BTW, there are no illegal immigrant gas station servicemen are there? Even if, Americans would like those jobs
johnsurs22 4 months ago
@johnsurs22 around my house there is.
i understand your point and how it would work but there are no workers that only produce 5$ buddy. your pencil example is a good way to explain it but isnt real. ive been a packager for several different products in my younger years and to say we got a fraction of what the company made off an hours work is a joke and that was minimum wage. what you said wasnt real but if it was it would have been a good example. lol
YoungTon22 4 months ago
@YoungTon22 Well I think it's fair to say that it doesn't impact a large population in general, and maybe you got at least min. wage as a teenager. However, data from the 50s when min. wage increased drastically shows that teenage unemployment doubled. Sorry I can't come up with a hypothetical, but it's tough to imagine what would be out there if things were different. Also, notice that you make your argument from a "min. wage doesn't hurt" standpoint instead of a "min. wage helps" point of view
johnsurs22 4 months ago
@YoungTon22 I guess realistically at the level that it currently is at, the min. wage doesn't have much of an effect on most people; you are right However, from a standpoint of "should there be a min. wage of any level," I don't think it makes much sense, because it clearly doesn't help to raise the wages of those that would otherwise make less. So even if it hurts slightly, it's not a good policy
johnsurs22 4 months ago
@johnsurs22 we can find common ground. im just afraid to see what would happen if min. wage was erased in a situation like todays where there are basically no jobs available. supply and demand of wages is only true in an economy full of jobs. people are desperate in desperate times and would be willing to work for less/much less than normal.
YoungTon22 4 months ago
@YoungTon22 I think more jobs would be available, but yes, wages would go down. Instead of one person making 10 per hour, you could have for example four people making 7 per hour.Overall, we produce more and that drives prices down, but it won't necessarily help the person currently making mw. It will, however, help those that are currently unemployed as well as the general population. I think of mw jobs as a foot in the door to gain skills and experience.With no mw, more people have that chance
johnsurs22 4 months ago
@johnsurs22 agreed.but individuals making mw or less arent too worried about helping society because they will be below the poverty line.the general population would still have to pay into social security to help these low wage workers because they wouldnt be able to afford cost of living.i think paying people less than mw could work if it was situational. for insance, your gas station service man or in general,unskilled workers that dont produce or sell product. but this happens already anyway
YoungTon22 4 months ago
@YoungTon22 But the cost to society will be much less because you don't have to pay as much toward unemployment. The total wage that all unemployed plus minimum wage workers make will be significantly higher. Right now, we limit opportunity for the unemployed and then have to pay them those benefits for the long period of time it takes to find a job. Notice that in my example it goes from one person make 10 dollars to 4 making 7 dollars. 28>10
johnsurs22 4 months ago
@johnsurs22 well technically our employers pay unemployment but i guess it can be argued that we are paid less because of it. also, i dont know how much unemployment i pay for anyone else if any because if i were unemployed my benifits would constitute what my company put in for me working. again 28>10 doesnt help indiviuals.
YoungTon22 4 months ago
@YoungTon22 Because you are thinking of the one individual making 10 dollars and not the 3 unemployed that now make 7 a piece. Also, you have to keep in mind that all individuals benefit from the fact that when productivity increases, prices go down. Supply and demand---> More productivity=higher supply=lower cost=lower price in a competitive market.
johnsurs22 4 months ago
@johnsurs22 no i am thinking of the 3 making 7. an individual making 7 bucks in the US is poor. and if you start a career off making 7 than your chances of getting to middle class are slim to none
YoungTon22 4 months ago
@YoungTon22 Where are they going to go with no jobs? How is making 7 dollars an hour as a start or temporarily any worse than being unemployed? There's not much we can do to improve the salaries of jobs that don't demand a high salary to begin with.
johnsurs22 4 months ago
@johnsurs22 being employed at 7 bucks is better than being unemployed. my thing is why would a company like walmart pay someone minimum wage? im an hvac technician and in my field looking for jobs, companies hiring for the same jobs with the same responsibilities and tasks have offered from $10/hr-$25/hr. why such a large variation? so different jobs demanding different salaries crumbles in these real life situations. somebody took that $10 job because of lack of opportunity.
YoungTon22 4 months ago
@YoungTon22 If there are a wide range of wages being offered like from 10 dollars to 25 dollars and both have the same qualifications, then why wouldn't you take the 25 dollar job? What do you mean by lack of opportunity?
johnsurs22 4 months ago
@johnsurs22 when the position is filled with that company offering 25,then the position is filled.what you have left is jobs paying less.1 position open employs 1 person.lack of opportunity means there are only so many companies that pay the 25 and if you arent chosen by those companies you are forced to take whats left,even the 10 dollar job doing the same thing.so skills demanding salaries seem to be misleading in this job market.when jobs arent plentiful,companies tend to prey on desperation
YoungTon22 4 months ago
@YoungTon22 But how would that change with a minimum wage?
johnsurs22 4 months ago
@johnsurs22 well im speaking from a point of only knowing the job market with a MW.MW creates a bottom line and a sort of protection.a couple of comments back i said that without MW i would be afraid to see what would happen to wages in an economy like ours today.what are desperate people willing to work for?
to solve some of the problem though,for low/no skill jobs i wouldnt be opposed to puting an age limit on MW requirements.let teens work odd/simple jobs for less.
YoungTon22 4 months ago
@YoungTon22 I guess that makes sense. Of course we will probably never know what effect eliminating the minimum wage will actually have
johnsurs22 4 months ago
@johnsurs22 now if only politicians debated like me and you just did maybe they could find common ground and come up with a simple solution. but its all fucked up.smh. i have no hope that they will get anything right
YoungTon22 4 months ago
@YoungTon22 amen
johnsurs22 4 months ago
Now I know why I cant find a fucking job as a student. Thanks Milton.
TheMarksmenCat 5 months ago
Very interesting video. Thanks.
Otzmatron 5 months ago
This video might as well have said, "well actually, you can turn feces into gold" and then rolled straight to the credits. Seriously, wtf @ giving an argument and asking to click on a website for more info.
GambitFox79 5 months ago
@EKastrioti it wasn't an insult it was a description of what you wrote. I don't think that you have provide any evidence that developed countries have more decentralized economies and therefore more economic freedom. The work of Hernando De Soto and several institutes show that in developing economies there are permits for everything. To use your example of selling a car... Its hard to obtain a legal title for the car its hard to obtain the paperwork necessary legally.
davidmesaaz 7 months ago
@EKastrioti Wow your pretty incoherent.i don't have a clue what trying to say.. if your inferring that Eypt Tunsia etc.. have more economic freedom than the US ... I would like to see that.. .
davidmesaaz 8 months ago
DOES ANYONE KNOW THE MUSIC AT THE BEGINNING?
Please!
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Liberty Pen uses that same intro music for like half his videos. Im sure if you message him he will tell you. Whoever runs it is pretty responsive to commenters. It might be a her? Noone knows. He/She is very mysterious. lol
adulby 8 months ago
Ah yes, the old unskilled labor deserves less pay argument. You can't argue that accepting less than a living wage is OK EVER! If it requires a human to do the job for 40 hrs a week, that wage needs to provide food, water, shelter, and health care. A person's NEEDS are no less present because their sill/experience isn't. Not to mention, employers engineer jobs to not need skill or experience so as to increase productivity and justify lower wages.
jimmyj37 1 year ago
@jimmyj37 The system that advocates no minimum wage is the same that advocates competition and therefore more jobs (many expanding businesses).
That way you wouldn't have to shoot someone if they paid too little because the worker can easily find a higher paying job.
Iisdabest889 1 year ago
@Iisdabest889 There is still no law against people hiring some one to do a job, not based on time. For example: I'll wash your SINK full of dishes, you say OK, I wash dishes in 1 minute, better than MW. Then someone else says the same, you say OK, it takes him 1/2 hour worse than MW, his Inexperience not your pay rate's fault. However,If you are a restaurant and you need me all night, you pay MW or + for time on premises. MW has no effect on that kind of labor.
jimmyj37 1 year ago
@Iisdabest889" ...therefore more jobs" does not follow. More competition does not always equal more jobs. Many different aspects affect job creation. Trends, New technologies, Available Capitol, war, availability of commodities. Your argument is that with MW there would be more jobs, but they are shitty jobs. By abolishing MW US employers are looking to cut labor wages to compete with Chinese labor. It's a race to the bottom and you are looking to win.
jimmyj37 1 year ago
supply and demand will pay a living wage after you gain a skill from having the experience of work. Only then, should a wage increase. Minimum wage is for unskilled part time work and that is all it has ever been meant for. Its not a career. Semiskilled, skilled, and professional jobs demand more money based on the product/service that is performed and the supply/demand for the job itself and background needed to do the job.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@cliffkemp MW is for unskilled PT work? Who says you get to decide what MW is and isn't for. They actually based MW on cost of living and each state that has raised MW of there state, did so based on the cost of living. You are making your argument on a false premise.
jimmyj37 1 year ago
he is so right
unfad1ng 1 year ago
I have submitted a video response with my take on the Chicago school of economics. Overall I would like to say it isn't anything new, just a new name on classical liberal ideas.
Let's see if the "liberty and freedom" loving uploader of this video allows my response to be seen.
Very often I find these libertarians to praise free and open speech in their writing but to censor speech they dislike whenever the opportunity presents itself
poleske 1 year ago
Minimum wage is a question of what value we put on human life. All a human has in their life is their time. If you want to see the results of there not being a minimum wage just look to a free trade zone. the result of there being a very low minimum wage or no minimum wage is starvation wages. Just look at the wages earned in this country before the minimum wage was imposed.
People who promote this are very clearly promoting plutocracy.
poleske 1 year ago
@poleske did you even understand milton friedmans arguement.
dude, if you either hate the poor or just don't get it, you would support the minimum wage.
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@poleske otherwise you are saying you would rather someone be completely out of work, than just working for peanuts.
becasue a minimum wage ISN'T going to force a company to increase wages, it will just lead them to fire that person.
i don't think you understand economics at all.
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx You claim my argument isn't based on economic theory or fact when I site very obvious physical evidence while you site nothing.
Just look at wages given for identical labor in areas with and without wage regulation. That is why I previously mentioned free trade zones.
Yes I believe that unemployment is better than slavery. To argue against regulation of the labor market is to argue for slavery.
Would you argue for chattel slavery because those slaves would have starved otherwise?
poleske 1 year ago
by the way, my grandmother was born in 1920 and still living today and can attest to this and is actually a liberal :( she is set in her ways being 90 years old but she is in better health than many in their 60s. Even she doesnt argue the minimum wage and she lived through it.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
take away minimum wage and people will hire teens and pay them little as they have no experience, as they work and gain that experience, they can market themselves more based on that experience and future education that comes with the pride of working and accomplishing something. this thinking is nearly extinct but worked so well in the....correct me if I am wrong.....ROARING 20s :) minimum wage went into effect around 1935 and not for ww2, could have been worse due to it.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
*sigh* Miss you, Milton.
bisek 1 year ago
the fact is majority of businesses CAN afford the workers at a higher wage, it's greed that stops them from doing so.
neonaction 1 year ago
@neonaction Yes but are you willing to pay more for products? Also greed has been around for century's and it cannot be stopped. Also who are you to say they can afford work at a higher price you are not in control of their balance sheets.
dukee155 1 year ago
@neonaction It's greed that makes you want to be paid more than someone is willing to pay you voluntarily.
DackBev 1 year ago
Its not greed at all. If you provide a service that is marketable meaning individuals have incentive to buy or consume your product, you consume it not for the altruistic nature of how good it feels to sell it but to make a living yourself so that you can consume products of your interest in which another profits from. Its mutually benifical. Thats how things work. Wages are set based on your profit margins and the type of skilled work one can provide.
Bigturns33 1 year ago
@neonaction yea, just like you CAN afford to give all of your extra money to charity, and own nothing but 2 pairs of clothes. but it's greed that stops you from giving away all of your wealth.
MrBWB 1 year ago
@neonaction You would deprive those poor, poor Waltons of the new Lamboghini or Rolls Royce they each get every Christmas? Or the vacation cottage on Bora Bora? Or the platinum plated shark tank bar by their swimming pool? Yeah, God forbid that the Waltons should have to settle for a Porsche, Mercedes, or BMW instead!
Pbirv 1 year ago
@Pbirv Your retarded, the Waltons are a very frugal family. That's how the built the biggest retailer in the world out of scratch. The Waltons are as frugal as they come.
UncommonThinker 1 year ago
@UncommonThinker It's called "sarcasm". WalMart could certainly afford to pay their workers enough to live on without having to go on public assistance, which comes out of our taxes.
Pbirv 1 year ago
Missed this foolishness. The oft repeated nonsense that Wal-Mart employees (even a significant number of them) must rely on public assistance has been long and extensively debunked. Wal-Mart is paying what the market will bear. The result is that many more opportunites are created for people to work than would otherwise have existed and Wal-Mart's provision of goods at lower prices have been a boon not only to the economy as a whole but those who can afford the least.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Where has it been debunked?
From PBS: "A November 2004 New York Times article cites a study in GA that found 10,000 children of WM employees were in the state's healthcare program at a cost to taxpayers of $10 million a year. The same article describes a hospital in NC that found that 31% of its 1,900 patients were Wal-Mart employees on Medicaid, and an additional 16% were Wal-Mart employees with no insurance at all. "
CONTINUED ON NEXT POST
Pbirv 1 year ago
Yes, thoroughly debunked union-funded drivel designed to sway the economically ignorant. The problems with your assertions are legion. Wal-Mart offers health insurance to all of its employees and by law, of course, each must be paid the legal minimum, but that’s beside the point. Just how much would those people have cost the taxpayers if they WEREN’T employed by Wal-Mart and weren't getting health insurance OR wages from elsewhere?!?!?
Cont.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Yes, WM offers health insurance, but the premiums are so high(40%) that very few of their employees can afford it. And how much would those people cost the taxpayers if WalMart actually paid them enough to live on without having to apply for welfare? It's cost us taxpayers a lot less for sure.
Pbirv 1 year ago
@Pbirv 40% of what? wages? I dont think so as I have a few friends that work at walmart. Their coverage is decent for what it is and is not as high as you make it to be. Somehow you think the average cashier job at walmart should be a full time job. It is not and requires little skill and therefore, little pay. quit feeling sorry for people and get to the point. I have lots of examples for you if you wish to persue the BS side as you are doing. not rocket sciense by any means
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@cliffkemp "According to the Center for a Changing Workforce, in 2003, Wal-Mart employees paid 41% of insurance premium costs. At the time of the report, Costco employees paid about 10% of premium costs. Nationally, workers today pay an average of 16% of premiums for single coverage and 26% of premiums for family coverage. "
CONTINUED ON NEXT COMMENT
Pbirv 1 year ago
@Pbirv insurance cost premiums are not the same. You are solely talking about the people who are having bad health or accident prone ouside the job and not including the people that are healthy and dont even go to the doc when they sneeze. You are trying to make a point with apples and oranges and it still doesnt work try again
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@cliffkemp Are you saying that Costco workers are healthier and less accident prone than WalMart ones?
Pbirv 1 year ago
@Pbirv Where would you get that assumption? tell me what that has to do with minimum wage. all you read about are the bad things and people using medical services. For everyone of them, many dont go to the doctor or do very rarely and they dont keep data on that unless you work for the company itself. they can only go by people who use it andin some cases, excessively. still have not done apples to apples yet and you still jump from subject to subject.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
But then that is NOT 40% of their pay; that is 40% of the cost of the insurance which means that Wal-Mart is STILL picking up 60% of the tab. But, again, SO WHAT?!?!? The fact remains that the employee has a job that pays as much as they could get in the marketplace or else they would have gotten a job elsewhere and the alternative is no job at all. Wal-Mart has provided them with an opportunity and attempts to artificially increase wages ALWAYS simply reduce employment. Every single time.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom I never said it was 40% of their wages. I meant that was the percentage of the premium costs paid by WalMart employees. Costco employees are only paying 10% of those costs, while the national average is 16%.
Pbirv 1 year ago
You said "WM offers health insurance, but the premiums are so high(40%) that very few of their employees can afford it." If you MEANT 40% of the premiums must be paid by the employees, then you should have been more clear. It was only upon seeing the reply to cliffkemp, that your meaning and source were revealed.
It makes little difference. The clarification does not undermine anything I said or support the (factually inaccurate) assertion that "very few of their employees can afford it."
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@cliffkemp CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT From [Employer Health Benefits 2005 Annual Survey, The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust; Wal-Mart and Healthcare: Condition Critical, Center for a Changing Workforce, 10/26/05]
Pbirv 1 year ago
@Pbirv "It's cost us taxpayers a lot less for sure."
That's "It'd cost us taxpayers a lot less for sure."
Pbirv 1 year ago
They'd cost the taxpayers MUCH more. Most Wal-Mart employees (who, as a group, overwhelmingly HAVE health insurance) are secondary earners and young people. The alternatives are not Wal-Mart pays them peanuts or Wal-Mart pays them a "living wage". The alternatives are Wal-Mart pays them a MARKET wage or Wal-Mart employs hundreds of thousands FEWER of them (and charges higher prices so that everyone's cost of living is higher). And the 40% figure is utter nonsense.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom If the 40% figure is utter nonsense, then what is the actual percentage WM workers are paying?
Pbirv 1 year ago
The actual figure is, on average, 33% (WM pays a bit more than two-thirds of the cost) which is comparable to other retailers not cherry-picked to make WM look bad. It still doesn't change the fact that Wal-Mart offers competitive compensation packages (including benefits) without which people would not work there.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
CONTINUED
"And in California, a study released in August 2004 by researchers at the U of CA Berkeley determined that the healthcare expenses of uninsured Wal-Mart employees were costing the already economically-strapped state $32 million a year in taxpayer funds."
Pbirv 1 year ago
Wal-Mart employs more than a million people. The alternative is that these people would NOT otherwise be employed or else they would have found better paying jobs elsewhere. Artificial attempts to increase wages (i.e., minimum wages) serve only to reduce employment and always fail to reduce poverty.
Wal-Mart INCREASES the standard of living. Living standards are increased by economic efficiencies. Creating jobs and offering consumers products at lower prices benefits everyone.
Cont.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom dont believe I could have said it better myself. In the end, Pbirv needs to understand that forcing people to pay other people a set amount and not let it be based on merit and still only destroys the whole system. Politicians just use this as sympathy to get votes argueing that they are helping the 'poorer' people make money when it is the opposite.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@cliffkemp If we got rid of minimum wage, there would be nothing to keep employers from dropping their pay to $1 an hour or less, and people would still take those jobs because they have to eat, even if that $1 an hour wasn't enough to enable one to be able to afford to live indoors with some kind of dignity, as opposed to a carboard box or improvised shanty, or sharing a 1 bedroom apartment or trailer with 10-30 other people.
Pbirv 1 year ago
@Pbirv sad that you would believe this. Getting rid of minimum wage would make pay more fair to people that are worth the money. They would not do what you just said and never did that in the history of man. people would be paid what they are worth and companies would not pay based on force. Economics would take over on supply and demand and would fix itself in a small amount of time.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@cliffkemp Getting rid of minimum wage would also start people underbidding each other in a race to the bottom. Eventually some crackhead would be willing to work for 5 cents an hour and an employer could very well decide that's all the job is worth.
Pbirv 1 year ago
@Pbirv You are looking at it from a poor point of view. people are not going to work for nothing and companies cannot be in business if people wont work for them so they will have to pay them a fair wage or not be in business. this held true before minimum wage even existed. Please read a little history and understand more about economics before you make false statements.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@cliffkemp People will work for next to nothing when the only alternative is starving. Not only would getting rid of minimum wage start a race to the bottom in those jobs as people seek to underbid each other in order to get employment, it would also start wages and salaries crashing down in higher paying fields. One employer drops wages and everyone else has to follow suit to remain able to compete. Pretty soon we end up like Haiti or Thailand or Honduras or El Salvador or Bangladesh.
Pbirv 1 year ago
You keep repeating this economic and historical ignorance as if it hasn't already been thoroughly discredited. There are two mutually exclusive possibilities: either you are correct and there is no middle class in this country and workers are paid the legal minimum and rarely move beyond that or you're wrong and businesses frequently offer entry level jobs throughout the country (even during times like these) at more than the legal minimum to compete for workers (which is observable fact).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@cliffkemp I know my history. In fact I have a Bachelor's Degree in it.
Pbirv 1 year ago
You apparently do not know the history of the period you have been discussing. Knowledge of ancient SUmeria or the War of the Roses or even exploration of the Northwest Passage, while fabulously interesting, will not serve you here.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
The facts, as usual, are entirely against you. More than 95% of the workforce makes more than the legal minimum (that is, they are paid more WITHOUT intervention by the state rather than "as little as possible") and most are secondary wage earners and young people. Minimum wage laws have NEVER done ANYTHING but decrease employment and have never workes to fight poverty. This is borne out by literally EVERY study that bears scrutiny (so don't bring up - debunked - Card & Krueger).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Just as a caution. Be careful not to cite any information from the Economic (sic) Policy Institute. Literally everyone knows that the information that they provide isn;t worth the paper (or ether in the case of their website) its printed on - particularly since they got Kerry in troble with that "insourced jobs pay $9,000 less" BS that they got caught manipulating the BLS numbers to say.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom For every 2 jobs that WalMart creates, 3 jobs at the mom and pop stores disappear. That's kinda like investing $3 into something to get $2 back. So in effect WM shortchanges the communities there. And those low prices are at least offset, if not more than offset, by the taxes we have to pay for the public assistance that so many of their workers have to rely on to make ends meet.
Pbirv 1 year ago
What dimwit gave you THAT imbecilic idea. Again, jobs are created by economic efficiencies. If Wal-Mart can compete for customers better than the mom and pops that frees up resources to be spent elsewhere. Even in the exteremely unlikely event that there is a net loss in jobs in retail, it means that more resources are available to create jobs elsewhere in the economy. The notion that the creation of Wal-Mart jobs reduces employment is pure economic ignorance.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
And the (now repeated) economic ignorance that Wal-Mart "shortchanges" communities and increases public assistance costs remains no less nonsensical than the first time you mentioned it. The ONLY source of jobs, prosperity and higher living standards is economic efficiency. EVERY time that competition in the marketplace (rather than governmnet intervention) reallocates resources, the net economic benefit is always positive - regardless of ehether it's at Wal-Mart or China.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom WalMart has made it virtually impossible for those wanting to start their own grocery store, hardware store, etc, to be successful, because few small business owners can afford to absorb losses in order to match WalMart's low prices. In many small towns, WM has effectively run their competitors out of business, creating basically a monopoly in those places unless one is able and willing to drive 20+ miles to the next town.
Pbirv 1 year ago
Perhaps that's true in small towns, but it is a meaningless point. The fact is that many small towns could not support more than one mom-and-pop organization. That is not monopoly (and, as you say, shoppers can go to the next town). Still, with the savings that consumers receive from shopping at Wal-Mart (a lower cost of living), they can patronize OTHER businesses ultimately INCREASING jobs even in the small town.
This is Econ 101 (and basic reality).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom In many towns, WHAT other businesses? WM's got their hands in groceries, clothing, toys, electronics, jewelry, automotive parts, eyeglasses, etc- they recently tried getting into banking. In many places, the only other businesses left are an occaisonal barber shop or tavern. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if WalMart got into those businesses as well.
Not many people can afford the $3 per gallon gas to drive 20+ miles to the next town to go somewhere other than WalMart.
Pbirv 1 year ago
You're just digging yourself deeper. The notion that WM has so coopted all business that people cannot find jobs elsewhere is not merely wrong - it's monumentally stupid. Wal-Mart is a retailer; there are far more jobs available in other areas. Surely you can grasp that salses do not make up the entirety of American economic activity (or even the primary part of it).
Your anti-Wal-Mart hysteria has caused you to go off the deep end.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@Pbirv so I guess you need to go to Franklin GA and have a word with PIGGLY WIGGLY as they are the only grocery store in the whole county. Yes, the WHOLE county. Guess add PIGGLY WIGGLY to the list with walmart as Franklin is 20+ miles from the next town with a grocery store. think about what you are saying. Use some common sense and stop feeling sorry for people all the time like they cannot fend for themselves.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@cliffkemp Piggly Wiggly doesn't have its hands in other areas like clothing, hardware, electronics, jewelry, automotive parts, etc, like WM does.
Pbirv 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Better paying jobs elsewhere? Where? When so many decent paying jobs have been, and are being eliminated, shipped overseas, or given to foreign guest workers willing to do those jobs for a fraction of what Americans can afford to live on(because the countries the guest workers are from pay 100% of their citizens' college tuition so they don't have to worry about paying back student loans)? In many cases, Americans are being required to train their foriegn replacements.
Pbirv 1 year ago
I am not resp[onsible for your factually inaccurate beliefs. Outsourcing has not been a source of job loss, the US being a huge net INsourcer of jobs (and the insourced jobs tend to pay more) and pre-recession unemployment (during the greatest periods of outsourcing) was low. Of even smaller real consequence is the guest worker issue. You have no facts to support your belief that the American worker is getting screwed by these things because those pesky facts tell the exact opposite story.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "Outsourcing has not been a source of job loss" Then why do I keep hearing of whole communities being devastated by a factory deciding to move overseas? Why is it that practically every time I pick up a paper or watch the news, I hear about yet more tech workers whose jobs went to guest workers or were simply sent to India or China? FACT- There is absolutely NO WAY an American making say, $15+ an hour can hope to compete with a Chinese or Indian making 5
Pbirv 1 year ago
You apparently can't grasp the concept of NET job loss. Again, for every factory job lost (and, despite your religious belief to the contrary, the chief cause of those job losses is automation) more and higher paying jobs are created here. And it is a FACT that American workers successfully compete for those jobs every single day. If they can't then the jobs are not worth $15/hr and when they are outsourced, to the economic benefit of the country, more and better jobs are created elsewhere.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@Pbirv For once, put yourself in the shoes of the company. we are overtaxing companies cause we are greedy. we use class warfare to justify it and give money to the poor who dont earn it and dont appreciate it. History is crystal clear that if we continue to do this, WE WILL COLLAPSE, PERIOD. there is no if, ands, or buts about it. Minimum wage is part of the problem of and always has been as are unions.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
FACT- There is absolutely NO WAY an American making say, $15+ an hour can hope to compete with a Chinese or Indian making 15 cents an hour, unless of course we lower our wages to 5-10 cents an hour- a wage that not even illegals could hope to survive on in this country.
Pbirv 1 year ago
Since, of course, in the real world, literally NO ONE ismaking 5-10 cents an hour (the lowest Chinese wage for example is somewhere above 80 cents an hour) and the cost of building new factories, shipping materials to and from overseas, training a workforce with fewer base skills, etc. add such costs that such competition will continue without the massive job losses that you dream are inevitable. Your position is flatly refuted by ACTUAL REALITY.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@Pbirv doesnt matter about piggly wiggly and that they dont deal with other products. also, its the value of the dollar. forcing companies to pay more for unskilled work never works and never has. they pass the cost to the customer and this creates inflation. the reason companies are doing business overseas more is for this very reason. What do you not get about this?
cliffkemp 1 year ago
Shopping at Walmart contributes to the decline in our standard of living.
It encourages opening new stores that pay lower wages. It destroys mom and pop stores, most of whom can't match WalMart's buying power. It also encourages the export of relatively well-paying manufacturing jobs: Walmart pressured their vendors to move their manufacturing to China. They have a lot of influence; they can simply stop buying from an uncooperative vendor.
Pbirv 1 year ago
Mom and pop shops fail because CONSUMERS decide that they BENEFIT more from taking their business elsewhere; not because of Wal-Mart.
That, as the economy evolves, fewer jobs exist in manufacturing (even though US manufacturing output has increased dramatically) is not harmful, particularly since manufacturing jobs have been among the LOWEST paying for the last century. And more and HIGHER PAYING jobs are Insourced into the US than are outsourced.
The facts remain entirely against you.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@Pbirv If walmart started overpaying for low skilled labor, honest hard working people would shop else where. You have to work smart and hard in the 21 century.
UncommonThinker 1 year ago
@UncommonThinker Kroger pays their workers well and isn't hurting for business. Same with Costco.
Pbirv 1 year ago
Comment removed
UncommonThinker 1 year ago
Kroger and Costco also employ far fewer people not only in ordinal terms but in relation to the amount of business they do. Those are the alternatives - employ people at the lower MARKET wage (it is impossible for any business to employ people for less than that - the "race to the bottom" myth is pure ignorance) or employ many FEWER people at a higher wage.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
The facts are entirely against you. The fact is that wages are determined by the marketplace and competition for labor. Attempts to interfere with that process (a la the minimum wage) serve only to decrease employment - an established historical fact.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Minimum wages create deadweight loss in the society.
tidisC 1 year ago 5
Coming from some16 year old boy with NO scientific background and NO world perspective I have to say who cares. Al Gore is a FRAUD and his followers and brain dead drones.
Global warming is a globalist progressive ideology based off of junk science and manipulated data.
The so called climate experts have been PROVEN to have an agenda, its about wealth distribution and grants to fraud scientists and ITS ALL BEEN DEBUNKED!
espada9 2 years ago
As I said, the day that unions are gone & business no longer has any fear or worry about workers organizing, how long does anyone think it'll be before corporate lobbyists & their rightwing buds in Congress and state legislatures start working to get our labor laws rolled back, if not repealed altogether, or at least watered down and neutered so far they won't matter? I guess many here won't care until their pay starts getting cut & their work hours get extended to 10, 12, 14-18 hours a day.
Pbirv 2 years ago
There is way too much croneism on both sides. Its is a problem. European standard of living? I love that. Standard of living is a phantom statistic that means nothing. It basically just means people are happy. Our per capita wealth is higher on average (even excluding our rich) than europe.
UncommonThinker 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is way too much croneism on both sides. Its is a problem."
There we agree.
"Standard of living is a phantom statistic that means nothing. It basically just means people are happy. Our per capita wealth is higher on average (even excluding our rich) than europe."
There's a lot to be said for a country like Iceland or Sweden that treats their people better even in the worst of times than we do ours in the best. Note that there's no slums or poverty in Stockholm.
Pbirv 2 years ago 2
Again, tjhe 8-hour day was implemented by the PRIVATE SECTOR. In fact, in the late 19th century, the ONLY steel mills in the country with an 8-hour day (plus, BTW, a hospital maintained by the company for employees and families and college courses for employees in metallurgy, engineering, etc.) were NON-union shops in johnstown, Pennsylvania.
The notion that the 8-hour day would come to an end in the absence of unions is imbecilic.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Labor was pushing for the 8 hour workday well before employers adopted it. In fact the Haymarket Riot of 1886 erupted over the Knights of Labor demonstrating for an 8 hour workday.
Pbirv 2 years ago
The sattement is again factually WRONG. The 8-hour day (and the 40-hour week and better working conditions) were all FIRST provided by the private sector. The Haymarket riot erupted because was an example of labor's propensity for violence during the period because SOME companies didn't move to the 8-hour day with the speed that others already had. Labor was too impatient to wait for market forces already underway.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
@FletchforFreedom
Whatever the private sector did on its own was largely to keep unions out by keeping their workers happy.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Again, your assertion is factually wrong (and contrary to history. Again, at the time when MOST of the steel industry was unionized the ONLY steel mills with an an 8-hour day were NON-union shops EXPRESSLY to attract the best workers. Further, the US adopted 8-hour days in non-union businesses FASTER than in unuon businesses or in more unionized Europe.
Kepping workers happy makes them more productive (even when, as was the case, no likelihood of unionization existed).
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
It was unions & the labor laws they fought for, along with the New Deal that built America's middle class, made us a world leader and made our standard of living possible. W/out those, we end up a 3rd World country, with 2-5% obscenely rich, a very insecure 5% to MAYBE 10-15% middle class, & everyone else desperately poor- like Mexico or Brazil. W/out unions, your boss could fire you simply because he didn't like you, or you had to leave/be late to work to take your sick kid to a doctor.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Keep spouting this historically inaccurate nonsense; it will never make it remotely credible. The greatest economic growth in the US was during the period between the end of the Civil War and WWI - BEFORE unionization. The New Deal (including the Wagner Act), according to the overwhelming and stuill growing economic evidence, was an economic disaster that helped turn a recession into the Great Depression.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
The economy was already in a Depression before the New Deal got enacted. Maybe FDR should've done nothing? If not for the New Deal, the communists or fascists very likely would've taken over- people were that desperate. Like it or not, the New Deal Saved capitalism. I suppose you think the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the GI Bill, a logical extension of the New Deal, were also mistakes? Maybe Social Security, minumum wage, and laws banning child labor too?
Pbirv 2 years ago
Your historical ignorance is showing. Yes, the recession had already begun and was exacerbated by the interventionist policies of Hoover. FDR just made matters much worse (there NEVER having been any chance of either communist or fascist rise - albeit FDR's policies were in some ways modeled on the latter). Like it or not the notion that the New Deal saved capitalism has been completely debunked by actual research.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" was exacerbated by the interventionist policies of Hoover. FDR just made matters much worse"
So Hoover and FDR should've done nothing? Just sat there while people starved?
"(there NEVER having been any chance of either communist or fascist rise "
Germans were saying the same thing in 1932. Look what happened there.
Pbirv 2 years ago
@FletchforFreedom Then what should Hoover or FDR have done about the Depression?
Pbirv 1 year ago
@Pbirv simple, they should have done nothing except have the federal reseve pump money to the banks that didnt have cash on hand to cover the peoples withdrawal. THAT WAS THE RESERVES JOB and they did nothing. People paniced due to local banks not having money on hand. they still dont to this day but, if they need the actual cash, the reserve ships it to them to cover. all could have been avoided had the reserve done its job after the market crash.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
Short of getting in a time machine and preventing the Fed from expanding the money supply or having legislators repeal unit banking laws about a decade before, the best course of action for them was to do ... nothing. No Smoot-Hawley, no Wagner Act, no minimum wage or, in Hoover's case, convioncing companies to keep wages up, no CCC, no NRA ... these are the things that turned a Fed caused recession into the economic disaster that it was.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "no CCC, no NRA ... " So there should've been no public works programs? No Hoover Dam, Golden Gate Bridge, or Tennessee Valley Dam built? No bringing electricity to rural areas(most rural areas didn't have electricity until the Rural Electrification Act)?
Pbirv 1 year ago
You're right and wrong. Public works programs serve only to make recessions/depressions longer and deeper (as current "stimulus" programs have demonstrated). The private sector is much better at creating jobs and meeting consumer needs. Your assessment of electrification is factually wrong and, in fact, private sector electricity companies were expanding rapidly into ever more remote areas before government intervened.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom amen to that. recent raising the minimum wage to 7.25 when it was 5.75 is a huge jump and inflation is starting to show although, some jobs can be paid the old 4.25 depending on the job classification. Minimum wage and entitlements are what is driving this country down. I would gladly work for nearly nothing to learn about working on cars but, I cannot and no one is going to hire me being forced to pay me minimum wage as I was trying to educate Pvirv
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@cliffkemp Minimum wage and entitlements? How about de-regulation and the tax cuts we've given the top 1%? How about 2 unfunded wars?
Pbirv 1 year ago
what about the tax cuts?? You have a job because of them. 'If you squeeze the nobility, the common people feel the pain" The above is about minimum wage. Unfunded wars are due to overspending on both parts under many congresses. I never said it was right but, spending too much money on entitlements and raising minimum wage could have helped paid for the 2 wars you speak of.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Would private enterprise alone have created those projects? Would they have created the Interstate highway system? Government investment in infrastructure benefits everybody.
Pbirv 1 year ago
Would private enterprise have created those projects? Absolutely. Unequivocally. Without even the slightest chance of question. The only projects that could not have been created by private enterprise are those that cannot ultimately generate a return (that is, cannot generate sufficient wealth to society to be economically justified). That government has monopolized road building and prevents competition does not support your case at all.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom If private enterprise would've created those projects, then why didn't they?
Pbirv 1 year ago
Obviously, because government took to itself monopoly power. Government had already accorded to itself sole right and responsibility to engage in roadbuilding. By having the ability to throw money at any road project they chose, the governmnet effectively eliminated private road construction at that level. Prior to its doing so, private enterprise had already been accomplishing such projects. the turnpike system began as private roads funded at turn-pikes.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Imagine if our interstate highway system had been developed and owned by corporations; vast portions would never have been built (unless compensated by a giant give-away, as with territorial land grants to the railroads), while on those segments that were, corporate owners would be in a position to extract via tolls from motorists many billions of dollars more every year than is currently paid in fuel taxes.
Pbirv 11 months ago
@Pbirv To the contrary, the notion of private highways has been extensively researched and evaluated extensively (see Walter Block’s work, for example). The net result is not merely LOWER costs but better maintenance of the roads (as opposed to stimulus payments that result in highways being repaved constantly while others have potholes. The facts, as usual, are entirely against you.
FletchforFreedom 11 months ago
No one ever said the gvt did everything bad, just saying that many things, they need to leave alone. I will pay some tax for being able to drive on I-20, but since they didnt pave it like the autobahn, they keep wasting my tax money on paving it over and over. I have personally seen it paved 4 different times in my lifetime. funny how the autobahn is starting to wear out some at nearly 75 years old. Just an example and yes I have been on the autobahn several times.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Would private enterprise alone have created those projects? Would they have created the Interstate highway system? Government investment in infrastructure benefits everybody.
Pbirv 1 year ago
In fact, efforts by utilities to expand into the very regions covered by the REA were HINDERED by the administration because key members in it believed that, regardless of the state of the economy, utilities should be a government-provided service (Chase, in particular, pushed for a Soviet model).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
These projects would have been done at some point in time anyway and could have been done better. still not sticking to the point of minimum wage as it was not even in existance til after hoover dam was complete. Back on point, people chose who lives and dies in economics and should never be the gvt. Where I live, we have mom/pop still open despite having 4 walmarts within 25 miles of one another. People have the power and gvt needs to be reminded of that.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
You must understand that depressions/recessions are never caused by stock market crashes or asset bubbles or investments in derivatives. They are caused by manipulation of the money supply by governments that, in tirn, CAUSE asset bubbles, etc. They are then made worse by further government action that increases uncertainty in the market. The pro-union Wagner Act precipitated the Roosevelt Recession in '37 that prolongedthe Great Depression still further.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom that is true as they are caused by people that dont understand how the economy works. I believe that the gvt should have done nothing as well if we had a time machine and let it work itself out. doing this would have not been the popular thing but it would have worked best.
cliffkemp 1 year ago
Well, if we had a time machine, we could have gotten the same people to do "nothing" earlier. Had the Fed not manipulated the money supply a few years earlier that particular bubble would not have appeared. And had unit banking laws not been passed, a more diversified banking system would have made it less painful (albeit would not have prevented it). Had Hoover not worked to keep up wages, it might have ended before FDR took office (and removed his justifications).
Sigh.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Unit banking laws? Like Glass-Stegall?
Pbirv 1 year ago
No and yes. Unit banking laws prevented banks often from having more than a single branch and they could not diversify. The larger banks in states without such laws or pre-dating them nearly all survived without depositor loss.
Glass-Steagal was a disaster for other reasons, creating artificial distinctions between certain banking activities (that exist nowhere else). It facilitated the S&L crisis and its partial repeal had not a damn thing to do with the current crisis.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom And look what repealing Glass-Steagal and other unit banking laws brought us- the "too big to fail" banks and the huge bailouts.
Pbirv 1 year ago
Since a) Glass-Steagal was not a "unit banking law", b) repealing the unit banking laws was a huge economic benefit, c) repealing Glass-Steagal contributed not in the slightest to the current economic crisis (which was caused by the Fed, Fannie and Freddie), d) there never was a company that was "too big to fail" (including banks), e) bailouts were never justified and f) bail outs of the 'too big to fail" only made things worse, that's a pretty silly statement on your part.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@cliffkemp So those who the Depression had put out of work should've just been allowed to lose their homes and go hungry. One thing that history teaches is that revolutions happen when that many people are hungry and desperate. Bob Marley said it best "a hungry man is an angry man". You get millions of people who've lost their jobs, their homes, and are now starving and have nothing left to lose- they'll listen to anybody who promises to make things better. A sure recipe for revolution.