2016 HL WPOY Nomination Thread

Saka

Saka

Pro
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
995
Reputation
235
Daps
1,833
David_TheMan said:
You asked me how I definie market, I told you, and your first line is to complain about me telling you the economic definition of market. Come on kid, get it together, don't ask a question then get mad when your question is answered. Again as for businesses and job, they are all created by the market expressing or being expressive in showing that there is a need unfulfilled. (1) There are no businesses unless there is a market demand for a product, which makes a potential producer want to produce in the first place, jobs come from that initial contention, not the other way around.

jobs are important, no one said hey werent, you seem to now be trying to move goalposts because the original contention was disproven. (2) The original question was more jobs grow the economy, fact of the matter is more jobs don't grow the economy, expanded markets and new markets do.

I've get that you believe you are speaking economic reality, I understand that, I think you seem to not know what you are talking about in terms of the level of theory and reality based observations that entails the Mises strain of the (3) Austrian School of economics. So please educatee yourself first or ask me questions if you are interested about what you think I know and about Austrian theory, if you won't just say you disagree and move on.

What you describe is what austrians call the business cycle, and its not positive at all. Yes the government stimulates spending, no its isn't good for the economy or the citizens of that respective nation, with every boom they initiate a bust is to follow, to which they typically start another boom. its all a result in government subsidizing malinvestment. Needless to say government trying to get people spend isn't actually a good example to use IMHO if you want to talk about wise economic decisions, seems to me Keynesian economics has been soundly shown to be faulty on a pure logical level and in execution.

If you want a quick primer that is more in=depth here are a couple of videos on the flaws of spending to put off market correction.


Nah I don't see your chicken and egg connondrum. there is no business to hire unless there is a need, forget even about people having jobs, no business is going to start on the notion that there isn't a need to be filled by their business, period.

As for trickledown, I'm not a proponent of trickle-down or supply-side economics
Click to expand...


What you fail to realize is that demand correlates directly to the price and affordability of the product, if the consumer can't afford the product there's no REAL demand. Thus, more jobs do grow the economy because more jobs lead to more money in the hands of consumers, which spurs REAL demand to create and expand new markets, so giving workers more in wages will increase the velocity of money in the communities in which they spend, it's extremely beneficial to spurring economic growth because of the way that we calculate GDP.

Austrian economics is basically a fanatical belief in the free market, but in reality unfettered capitalism is prone to monopolies and cronyism, government regulation and oversight is essential for the system to not cannibalize itself.
 
David_TheMan

David_TheMan

Banned
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
40,574
Reputation
-3,308
Daps
89,588
Misanthrope said:
Why do you say that a job that pays slightly over minimum wage now, would continue to pay the same amount if minimum wage was removed? Is there a reason why a job that's at $9/hour or 125% of minimum wage would stay at $9 an hour, instead of following the market and staying at 125% of the lowest wage paid in that particular market?
Click to expand...

Why do i say it, easy because it if the though process was what you thought it was, the job would be above minimum wage at all it would be exactly at minimum wage, the lowest it could possibly be, but it isn't and that isn't by accident its by deliberate choice of the employer and its confirmed by it being done in action.

Now tell me why you think a job that is offered above minimum wage will suddenly go under the price of the previous minimum wage (if it is removed) once the limitation is removed but never went even a step down before hand?
 
M

MrSinnister

Delete account when possible.
Joined
Aug 1, 2015
Messages
5,323
Reputation
325
Daps
6,832
David_TheMan said:
Yes I've bought something on clearance.

That said supply doesn't change price, demand dictates price.
If no one wants what is being sold it doesn't matter how little of it is around you as a producer are at a loss. Same token doesn't matter how much of it is produced if there is no demand you are still at a loss. so your contention that supply changes price is wrong. Demand dictates where you are on the supply curve with relation to pricing.

Yes you can expect the free market to set wage and minimum wages, it already does for positions that have salaries over the minimum wage starting, so your claim is wrong.

No shaming or propaganda used at all by me. If a worker wants to work at a certain price he should be allowed to.

What does minimum wage in NYC have to do with my argument? Nothing.

Most of the economics world and every western nation practice keynsian model, not the austrian method of economics. So you are factually wrong on that claim. Keynesian argue for the elimination of market feedback which leads to waste, money printing (inflation), and constantly when exercised leads to prolonged bouts of stagflation (japan in the 80s) (US in the 70s) or rapid booms and gains followed by bust they usually prolong with methods that delay hard market resets and correction.
Click to expand...
Wrong. People have been trying to tinker with Keynesian models to maximize revenue and halt wages for decades after implementation, which led to its b*stard trickle down. NYC is important as the minimum wage was so low, that people couldn't afford housing without subsidies, which took away the tax revenue for those who actually were paid closer to what their labor provided the company. This lead to massive waste and over inflation of a company's value, which led to a crash.

Yes, you see a lot of countries go to Keynesian models, hell, the EU is based on it, but America's trickle down exposed the banks that lead to everything failing. You can't put that on Keynesian as the EU countries were moderately strong before combining and the US failures.

Again, you're betting on perpetual growth, which is not possible under circumstances of businesses setting the wages, even if they think it is. Again, by the time a company thinks it is in trouble and starts slashing prices, that line of product(s)/company reputation is already hit, because of the stock markets rapid response to changes in forecast. You have a dual market, and Austrian economics cannot account for it.

You pay and shed workers based on the number of product you can actually sell, not continue to make shyt, because it's cheaper to, then have people wait for the costs to go down, which is closer to your cost/unit. If you're going to charge 500% of the cost of the unit, you should multiply 5x to what you're paying the workers, so they can afford it.

Again, this is supposedly common sense.
 
Misanthrope

Misanthrope

None of the above '16
Joined
Jan 14, 2015
Messages
1,223
Reputation
250
Daps
3,123
David_TheMan said:
Why do i say it, easy because it if the though process was what you thought it was, the job would be above minimum wage at all it would be exactly at minimum wage, the lowest it could possibly be, but it isn't and that isn't by accident its by deliberate choice of the employer and its confirmed by it being done in action.

Now tell me why you think a job that is offered above minimum wage will suddenly go under the price of the previous minimum wage (if it is removed) once the limitation is removed but never went even a step down before hand?
Click to expand...

Because they're not paying based on the value the worker creates for the employer, they're paying based on what it costs to keep the employee from leaving (and not then having to pay the cost associated with hiring and training new employees), or they're paying to hire a slightly better class of employee than you can get on the absolute lowest wage, or they're paying slightly more to get an employee to do more intensive work.

If Burger King is paying $7.25, Wendy's might pay 8 to keep from having to hire a new fry cook. But if minimum wage is gone, and BK starts paying $4.30, what's to keep Wendy's to keep from paying their employee $5, since their only reason for paying him above MW was to prevent other MW jobs from poaching them?
 
M

MrSinnister

Delete account when possible.
Joined
Aug 1, 2015
Messages
5,323
Reputation
325
Daps
6,832
Misanthrope said:
Because they're not paying based on the value the worker creates for the employer, they're paying based on what it costs to keep the employee from leaving (and not then having to pay the cost associated with hiring and training new employees), or they're paying to hire a slightly better class of employee than you can get on the absolute lowest wage, or they're paying slightly more to get an employee to do more intensive work.

If Burger King is paying $7.25, Wendy's might pay 8 to keep from having to hire a new fry cook. But if minimum wage is gone, and BK starts paying $4.30, what's to keep Wendy's to keep from paying their employee $5, since their only reason for paying him above MW was to prevent other MW jobs from poaching them?
Click to expand...
THIS

I addressed this in the 15/hr thread a real progressive put up with a valid question. A minimum wage is mandatory and there's no way around it.
 
M

MrSinnister

Delete account when possible.
Joined
Aug 1, 2015
Messages
5,323
Reputation
325
Daps
6,832
DEAD7 said:
#false
:heh:
Click to expand...
:russ::russ::russ:

You're flat out insane. Again, the 80's made more money than GAWD, and crashed under the weight of its own success. Explain why that happened, other than the right people didn't get a chance to buy in?

Remember, that was the true decade of union busting. It's cool to be the contrarian and theorize, but proof is a motherfukker.
 
David_TheMan

David_TheMan

Banned
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
40,574
Reputation
-3,308
Daps
89,588
psychedelic said:
What you fail to realize is that demand correlates directly to the price and affordability of the product, if the consumer can't afford the product there's no REAL demand. Thus, more jobs do grow the economy because more jobs lead to more money in the hands of consumers, which spurs REAL demand to create and expand new markets, so giving workers more in wages will increase the velocity of money in the communities in which they spend, it's extremely beneficial to spurring economic growth because of the way that we calculate GDP.

Austrian economics is basically a fanatical belief in the free market, but in reality unfettered capitalism is prone to monopolies and cronyism, government regulation and oversight is essential for the system to not cannibalize itself.
Click to expand...

You are false, demand can exist even at if currently the ability to manufacture at a profitable rate because lets say consumers will not be able to easily afford it or afford it at all. That demand in itself and the unaffordability will usually lead companies that can take a loss into investing in a field for eventual growth opportunities when it can become profitable. We saw this with automobiles, before the age of mass production and other manufactured goods before mass production. The demand was there it took a while before the technology could catch up and deliver at a profitable rate.

so your contention has been proven to be false in reality, on top of that you've yet to disprove my contention that its the market and its demand for a good that grows the economy, not jobs, you've yet to even refute the point about workers and wooden spoons that i gave you.

so we know jobs do not increase an economy, we know jobs do not spur demand, but come as a result of demand. All of which has no connection your argument about increase in wages increasing the economy, money velocity isn't a sign of economic growth. GDP is a very poor caluclation for economic health as well.

Austrian economics is a regimented system of economics in the classical sense that has been around since the 1800s and is present today. To try to handwave it away as fanatical when there is a large body of academic and peer reviewed work behind it shows you have no idea about the school, so its better to probably just stay quiet about that, because you are out of your depth.

As for monopolies, funny the word specifically was created with regard to government privelege, the opposite of the free market. Cronyism has shown to exist in socialist economic systems like corporatism, its hard to have cronyism in a market unregulated by the government. You claim it cannibalizes itself, yet we have ample evidence of socialist alternatives in fact doing what you put on capitalism, seems to me you are confused
 
David_TheMan

David_TheMan

Banned
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
40,574
Reputation
-3,308
Daps
89,588
Misanthrope said:
Because they're not paying based on the value the worker creates for the employer, they're paying based on what it costs to keep the employee from leaving (and not then having to pay the cost associated with hiring and training new employees), or they're paying to hire a slightly better class of employee than you can get on the absolute lowest wage, or they're paying slightly more to get an employee to do more intensive work.

If Burger King is paying $7.25, Wendy's might pay 8 to keep from having to hire a new fry cook. But if minimum wage is gone, and BK starts paying $4.30, what's to keep Wendy's to keep from paying their employee $5, since their only reason for paying him above MW was to prevent other MW jobs from poaching them?
Click to expand...

Pay isn't based on value of labor, its based o the value of the good being made and its demand i the market. They aren't paying on what it costs to keep you from leaving, they don't have you when you enter they job, they pay on what it takes to get you with regard to what they can afford to meet goals for profitability. If your argument of lowest wage held true, majority of the workforce would be earning min. wage, factually less than 4 percent of the workforce does and half of that is comprised of teenage workers.

If minimum wage is gone, like I said before, the only jobs that have to worry are jobs specifically at the minimum wage, because those jobs will have to find out what the actual market price should be, because they were artificially inflated jobs and pay in the first place.

what is funny though is you show the case of demand for workers driving the price up, which sort of refutes the initial contention you were making that the price for pay is being forced down constantly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top