2016 HL WPOY Nomination Thread

[JahFocus CS]

In the modern west it was the want of socialist and progressive in response to free market capitalism.

.................

 

[DEAD7]

In the modern west it was the want of socialist and progressive in response to free market capitalism.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Even CATO7 thinking his fellow Austrian is tripping

 

[MrSinnister]

Even CATO7 thinking his fellow Austrian is tripping

 

[David_TheMan]

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.

Not wrong at all actually right.
You are also wrong in thinking Supply side economics is linked to Keynesian economics it isn't, its not based on Keynesian models either but on the laffer curve. This are simply things you are factually incorrect on. NYC is just another city, its not important in a macro economic debate about the underlying economic principles in support or against a minimum wage, nothing more than a personal aside or anecdote.

American, everyone one in the western world is on the US track, the US just has more freedom to fukk around because its the world currency. On top of that I would reccomend you a book by David Stockman, called the great deformation on the myth of the econoic collapse and the banking crisis, nothig more than a transfer of wealth to ensure wall street fatcats kept their bonuses. A good read. As for the fault of the US banking system, it wasn't due to lack of regulation, but the regulation itself that was still on the books and most importantly the lack of alternatives and central banking itself which encourages the risks that were taken because they were subsidized by the government.

I'm not betting on perpetual growth or even reaching a equilibrium. free market isn't based on a result in the sense of central planning good, its acknowledgement that tastes vary too widely to centrally plan, and the best option is to allow freedom of trade in the sense that one it grants people liberty to live their life, and allows the quickest reaction and optimal feedback mechanism to market actions.

As for companies, they know its going bad before they slash prices, and quite frankly its not the obligation of people who are being served to demand an inefficient producer who the market has rejected stay in business, with money taken from them against their will.

You pay workers based on the need and calculation of what you need to produce a run that can be profitable or service that can be performed and be profitable. Usually the releasing of workers is because you didn't hit your goals or you think you aren't going to be able to hit your revenue goals that allows you to pay them and keep profit margins.

As for paying workers to afford what you buy, that is absurd, for reasons already explained, your employees aren't your target, the market for your product is. Most Bentley workers will never own a Bentley, most boat builders will never own expensive boats they work on and etc. This doesn't mean they are paid the bare bones though, especially if they are skilled craftsmen, it just means they aren't the target market for the product, and there is nothing wrong or exploitative about that if the worker agrees to the job and agrees with the pay when they sign on.

You aren't really making logical arguments, your argument is more from emotions, the flawed logic of your argument would be shown in saying eveyone should be paid 1 million dollars, that way everyone will be millionaires and rich and wouldn't have a need for anything. Its a kind of niavte divorced from economic reality.

 

[Misanthrope]

Pay isn't based on value of labor, its based o the value of the good being made and its demand i the market.

Then why does a guy making a Volkswagen in Chattanooga get paid roughly the same as the guy making a Benz in Tuscaloosa?

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.

Are you saying that hiring an employee and training them to the level of a previous employee is costless? If pay was solely based on what it takes to get an employee while staying profitable, and productivity and hiring costs weren't real, then why would any employer ever give an employee a raise?

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.

And the value of all the jobs that depended on the minimum wage as a comparison point would be inflated as well. If your value as an employee boils down to "I'm not as shyt as the guy making minimum wage", then why wouldn't your wage change when the wage of the guy you're being compared to changes?

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.

Yes, demand drives wages up from a low point. Right now that low point is set with minimum wage. If minimum wage is removed, what is there to keep the entire system from adjusting once the low point is reset at the "fair market value"?

 

[BaggerofTea]

Corporatism is socialism now

 

[David_TheMan]

Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MrSinnister]

Not wrong at all actually right.
You are also wrong in thinking Supply side economics is linked to Keynesian economics it isn't, its not based on Keynesian models either but on the laffer curve. This are simply things you are factually incorrect on. NYC is just another city, its not important in a macro economic debate about the underlying economic principles in support or against a minimum wage, nothing more than a personal aside or anecdote.

American, everyone one in the western world is on the US track, the US just has more freedom to fukk around because its the world currency. On top of that I would reccomend you a book by David Stockman, called the great deformation on the myth of the econoic collapse and the banking crisis, nothig more than a transfer of wealth to ensure wall street fatcats kept their bonuses. A good read. As for the fault of the US banking system, it wasn't due to lack of regulation, but the regulation itself that was still on the books and most importantly the lack of alternatives and central banking itself which encourages the risks that were taken because they were subsidized by the government.

I'm not betting on perpetual growth or even reaching a equilibrium. free market isn't based on a result in the sense of central planning good, its acknowledgement that tastes vary too widely to centrally plan, and the best option is to allow freedom of trade in the sense that one it grants people liberty to live their life, and allows the quickest reaction and optimal feedback mechanism to market actions.

As for companies, they know its going bad before they slash prices, and quite frankly its not the obligation of people who are being served to demand an inefficient producer who the market has rejected stay in business, with money taken from them against their will.

You pay workers based on the need and calculation of what you need to produce a run that can be profitable or service that can be performed and be profitable. Usually the releasing of workers is because you didn't hit your goals or you think you aren't going to be able to hit your revenue goals that allows you to pay them and keep profit margins.

As for paying workers to afford what you buy, that is absurd, for reasons already explained, your employees aren't your target, the market for your product is. Most Bentley workers will never own a Bentley, most boat builders will never own expensive boats they work on and etc. This doesn't mean they are paid the bare bones though, especially if they are skilled craftsmen, it just means they aren't the target market for the product, and there is nothing wrong or exploitative about that if the worker agrees to the job and agrees with the pay when they sign on.

You aren't really making logical arguments, your argument is more from emotions, the flawed logic of your argument would be shown in saying eveyone should be paid 1 million dollars, that way everyone will be millionaires and rich and wouldn't have a need for anything. Its a kind of niavte divorced from economic reality.

It's not based on emotions at all. The Laffer curve is some 14th century taxation bullshyt. Supply side economics is based off a direct response (tinkering) of Keynesian economics to shift the balance of power to the supply side, from the demand side to deal with times of stagflation that can't be fixed with interest rate manipulation. Everything else you said was your opinion, that has be been tested it the real world.

Business would pay .50/hour if they could, and they do in places where idiots allow that. Those places get high supply and hype from companies going there, then high crime, corruption, and then the destruction of their economy.

Name me any successful economy without a minimum wage.

 

[BaggerofTea]

In the modern west it was the want of socialist and progressive in response to free market capitalism.

 

[David_TheMan]

Then why does a guy making a Volkswagen in Chattanooga get paid roughly the same as the guy making a Benz in Tuscaloosa?



Are you saying that hiring an employee and training them to the level of a previous employee is costless? If pay was solely based on what it takes to get an employee while staying profitable, and productivity and hiring costs weren't real, then why would any employer ever give an employee a raise?



And the value of all the jobs that depended on the minimum wage as a comparison point would be inflated as well. If your value as an employee boils down to "I'm not as shyt as the guy making minimum wage", then why wouldn't your wage change when the wage of the guy you're being compared to changes?

Yes, demand drives wages up from a low point. Right now that low point is set with minimum wage. If minimum wage is removed, what is there to keep the entire system from adjusting once the low point is reset at the "fair market value"?

Last time i checked Benz in Vance make more than Hyundai in hope hull, I did a quick internet search on posted jobs for Benz and Volkswagon and Benz workers average more pay. I broke it down by state and Benz workers in AL average more than Volkswagen workers in TN. Show me the numbers you are talking about though.

That said wage is a mix of factors, the demand for the units being produced factored in with the supply of workers avaiable to fill that position, so my mistake for not clearly including the second factor.

No I never said hiring a employee is costless, I literally said pay is offered to get people to come on board ,not to get them to stay, increases in salary usually are factored in but base salary is to entice workers.

All job value don't rely on minimum wage, the factors of the average pay in fields over minimum wage rely on market prices determined by supply in that field for the most part and the coffers of the hiring party, if they can pay more they drive price up and etc. So again you make the statement, but reality disproves you.

If minimum wage is removed you've yet to show how everything is related to it, and you've yet to refute the previous arguments showing how it isn't.

 

[Misanthrope]

If minimum wage is removed you've yet to show how everything is related to it, and you've yet to refute the previous arguments showing how it isn't.

Are you saying your posts count as a refutation? I'm asking a question repeatedly because you haven't answered it with anything.

 

[David_TheMan]

It's not based on emotions at all. The Laffer curve is some 14th century taxation bullshyt. Supply side economics is based off a direct response (tinkering) of Keynesian economics to shift the balance of power to the supply side, from the demand side to deal with times of stagflation that can't be fixed with interest rate manipulation. Everything else you said was your opinion, that has be been tested it the real world.

Business would pay .50/hour if they could, and they do in places where idiots allow that. Those places get high supply and hype from companies going there, then high crime, corruption, and then the destruction of their economy.

Name me any successful economy without a minimum wage.

Entirely based on emotions, because you've yet to present a logical backed argument, you sway to making people better *emotional pleading" instead of linking how it does what you claim the end result will be.

Supply side economics and the Laffer curve were championed in the mid 70s and took prominance in the 80s, the guy for who its named after is still alive by the way, so to try to handwave your earlier misstatements as it being 14th century when it was most likely developed in the 60s and 70s seems strange.

Supply side is based entirely off the Laffer curves argument about tax revenue increasing if taxes is lowered again it was promoted in opposition to Keynesian theory, so again you are just factually wrong.

What does it matter what a business throws out, if someone is okay with it and accepts it? Plenty of high crime and corruption in every nation of earth regardless if they have min wage or not.

I don't even personally think their economies are that great, but I find it funny a lot of people want to emulate these countries and their welfare programs, so here you go Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Germany, Italy, Switzerland.

 

[David_TheMan]

Are you saying your posts count as a refutation? I'm asking a question repeatedly because you haven't answered it with anything.

I answered every point, you've yet to prove your contention though. I've been killing time though, so when you have the time if you could prove your contention I would love to see it or the logic behind the argument.

 

[MrSinnister]

Not wrong at all actually right.
You are also wrong in thinking Supply side economics is linked to Keynesian economics it isn't, its not based on Keynesian models either but on the laffer curve. This are simply things you are factually incorrect on. NYC is just another city, its not important in a macro economic debate about the underlying economic principles in support or against a minimum wage, nothing more than a personal aside or anecdote.

American, everyone one in the western world is on the US track, the US just has more freedom to fukk around because its the world currency. On top of that I would reccomend you a book by David Stockman, called the great deformation on the myth of the econoic collapse and the banking crisis, nothig more than a transfer of wealth to ensure wall street fatcats kept their bonuses. A good read. As for the fault of the US banking system, it wasn't due to lack of regulation, but the regulation itself that was still on the books and most importantly the lack of alternatives and central banking itself which encourages the risks that were taken because they were subsidized by the government.

I'm not betting on perpetual growth or even reaching a equilibrium. free market isn't based on a result in the sense of central planning good, its acknowledgement that tastes vary too widely to centrally plan, and the best option is to allow freedom of trade in the sense that one it grants people liberty to live their life, and allows the quickest reaction and optimal feedback mechanism to market actions.

As for companies, they know its going bad before they slash prices, and quite frankly its not the obligation of people who are being served to demand an inefficient producer who the market has rejected stay in business, with money taken from them against their will.

You pay workers based on the need and calculation of what you need to produce a run that can be profitable or service that can be performed and be profitable. Usually the releasing of workers is because you didn't hit your goals or you think you aren't going to be able to hit your revenue goals that allows you to pay them and keep profit margins.

As for paying workers to afford what you buy, that is absurd, for reasons already explained, your employees aren't your target, the market for your product is. Most Bentley workers will never own a Bentley, most boat builders will never own expensive boats they work on and etc. This doesn't mean they are paid the bare bones though, especially if they are skilled craftsmen, it just means they aren't the target market for the product, and there is nothing wrong or exploitative about that if the worker agrees to the job and agrees with the pay when they sign on.

You aren't really making logical arguments, your argument is more from emotions, the flawed logic of your argument would be shown in saying eveyone should be paid 1 million dollars, that way everyone will be millionaires and rich and wouldn't have a need for anything. Its a kind of niavte divorced from economic reality.

"The Laffer Curve, by the way, was not invented by me. For example, Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century philosopher, wrote in his work The Muqaddimah: "It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments."

“
”
Arthur Laffer, The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future.



Like everything else based from GOP talking points, the shyt always looks good and intelligent in theory, but SHOW ME RECEIPTS!! Where has this bullshyt actually worked. I can say Keynesian economics got us from the Great Depression, and it's more than obvious Laffer Curve put us back into one.

We're now at another 80's-type inflection point, because of QE. We need the right policy from here to keep going. Which would you actually pick: no min. wage or fair one? Simple question.