It's 12:00. Do you know where John Kerry is?

[SirNitram]

The thing is, a company has to be willing to pay enough to meet its labor needs. Especially when they have comptition from other firms. In the Third world, even the lowest wages are a boon, because they give people money to spend that they didnt have previously.

So it's all alright, no need to worry or regulate, don't you big meanies see? They're doing everyone a service!

there you go! You are finally getting it.

That was sarcasm, you flaming retard. Child labour is still unexcusable, but I'm sure you're just going to claim without evidence that it won't be solved by laws.

[Master of Ossus]

That's why I always think that the truly left fringe of the West is trying to have its cake and eat it, too, by demanding an end to outsourcing and simultaneously demanding increases in wages in the third world.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So it's all alright, no need to worry or regulate, don't you big meanies see? They're doing everyone a service!

there you go! You are finally getting it.

That was sarcasm, you flaming retard. Child labour is still unexcusable, but I'm sure you're just going to claim without evidence that it won't be solved by laws.

WHy is child labor so bad? Especially whenit increases the childs chances of survival? Or is it some knee jerk reaction to child labor?

[SirNitram]

That's why I always think that the truly left fringe of the West is trying to have its cake and eat it, too, by demanding an end to outsourcing and simultaneously demanding increases in wages in the third world.

Myself, I understand that outsourcing is a natural reaction of economies and technology. Then again, I also have crafted the Technology-Employment Paradox, which basically states that as technology improves, the number of people per capita that you can realistically employ will drop. Eventually creating a Culture-like enviroment.

[kojikun]

Don't take my 200 dollars a year thing so seriously, really. I was ballparking it. Tho the current GDP per capita (average) in Zambia has an 800 dollar PPP, so gods know what 800 dollars hard cash would be like. In China, I know, you can buy things for about half the price as in the US, according to the Economist Big Mac Price Index.

[Master of Ossus]

Myself, I understand that outsourcing is a natural reaction of economies and technology.

Well, it might be theoretically possible to stop outsourcing with legislation, but again you're looking at massive costs for no real benefit.

Then again, I also have crafted the Technology-Employment Paradox, which basically states that as technology improves, the number of people per capita that you can realistically employ will drop.

Right, but I tend to disagree with that model. Improving technology eliminates some jobs, but it also creates demand for others. Today, the countries with the worst employment rates tend to be the ones with the weakest technology bases, and also tend to be some of the most isolationist.

[Alyrium Denryle]

well yes, but still, they can live on an amount of money we consider sickeningly low.

[Alyrium Denryle]

*waits for Wal-mart to open up in Zambia*

[kojikun]

Myself, I understand that outsourcing is a natural reaction of economies and technology. Then again, I also have crafted the Technology-Employment Paradox, which basically states that as technology improves, the number of people per capita that you can realistically employ will drop. Eventually creating a Culture-like enviroment.

Without anyone to purchase, tho, I doubt you can say that at all. The thing about it, tho, is that the number of people you can employ doesn't drop at all. The number you can employ in a given sector does, but not overall. Unemployment rates in the US have not gotten high and higher every year since the Industrial Revolution nor the computing revolution, despite the ease with which companies could automate processes like register working, etc.

Look at the coming of automation. Factory workers lost their jobs. But what happened? We needed lots more people designing and programming computers that lets automation happen, and because of it more people were employed than before, AND the economic situation of the country, and even the world, improved.

[SirNitram]

Myself, I understand that outsourcing is a natural reaction of economies and technology.

Well, it might be theoretically possible to stop outsourcing with legislation, but again you're looking at massive costs for no real benefit.

Indeed. It's an inevitability in that it's probably the best means to deal with it.

Then again, I also have crafted the Technology-Employment Paradox, which basically states that as technology improves, the number of people per capita that you can realistically employ will drop.

Right, but I tend to disagree with that model. Improving technology eliminates some jobs, but it also creates demand for others. Today, the countries with the worst employment rates tend to be the ones with the weakest technology bases, and also tend to be some of the most isolationist.

Well, stop and think. Automation of a factory creates a few jobs, but not nearly as many as it removes. No, it will never hit a zero-level. However, it may dip so low that the only reasonable result will be to create a literal middle class subsidy. This is a ways off, but keeps looking inevitable, especially when you realize technology also allows us to have ever-larger populations while whittling away at the number of required jobs.

[HemlockGrey]

Well, stop and think. Automation of a factory creates a few jobs, but not nearly as many as it removes. No, it will never hit a zero-level. However, it may dip so low that the only reasonable result will be to create a literal middle class subsidy. This is a ways off, but keeps looking inevitable, especially when you realize technology also allows us to have ever-larger populations while whittling away at the number of required jobs.

I would imagine the future of jobs rests in small businesses and technical positions.

[Master of Ossus]

Well, stop and think. Automation of a factory creates a few jobs, but not nearly as many as it removes.

Why? It may reduce manufacturing jobs, but somebody has to build the machines to automate the factories.

In order to prove this model, you have to show that unemployment rates have consistently risen as technology has improved. I find that assertion to be ludicrous. Did unemployment rates suddenly go down when the Roman Empire collapsed? No, they went UP, even though the technology available to Europeans during the Dark Ages sucked compared with Roman stuff. Did unemployment rates change during the Industrial Revolution? Not really, and there are a LOT more jobs today than there were during the Industrial Revolution, simply because there are more people alive today because of the greater level of technology.

[Master of Ossus]

I would imagine the future of jobs rests in small businesses and technical positions.

The trend in the US is towards oligopolistic models, which generally involve significant amounts of technical and overhead jobs. Manufacturing tends to be shifting away from the high costs, here, which if extrapolated to infinity would mean that the US would eventually become a society of paper-pushers making fairly good wages but also requiring significant training.

[HemlockGrey]

Did unemployment rates suddenly go down when the Roman Empire collapsed? No, they went UP, even though the technology available to Europeans during the Dark Ages sucked compared with Roman stuff

To be fair, that had more to due with the collapse of the Roman beaucracy in the West rather than any sort of shift in technology.

[kojikun]

Well, stop and think. Automation of a factory creates a few jobs, but not nearly as many as it removes. No, it will never hit a zero-level. However, it may dip so low that the only reasonable result will be to create a literal middle class subsidy. This is a ways off, but keeps looking inevitable, especially when you realize technology also allows us to have ever-larger populations while whittling away at the number of required jobs.

Aint that the biggest pile of shit ever. If automation hurt job opportunities, why are there less unemployed people TODAY than when there wasn't automation? I'll tell you why, it's because today the support infrastructure, to keep all this automation up a running is much larger than the numbers that would otherwise be working those jobs. Hewlet packard employs something like a hundred thousand people from what I know of the company. GE is three times that, and most arent manual labour. Automobile factories are automated, yet they still employ a third of a million people. That's a huge number of people for a single company with large amounts of automation. There are cities smaller than that. Automation doesn't hurt employment opportunities at all, and only helps to create them.

[kojikun]

Not only that, but with so many more people today that have larger expendable incomes compared to before automation existed, there are more service jobs to employ people at, further reducing the number of unemployed people.

[Symmetry]

Again, do you realize that in Libertarian fantasies, no one would repair the rail network?

I'm not quite sure I grasp your logic here, or rather I'm sure I don't.

No one owns the rails. The only group who could is Amtrak, and if they aren't given subsidies, they'll simply roll over and die.

What do you mean, "the only group that could?" Just auction them off line by line.

[Symmetry]

Well, stop and think. Automation of a factory creates a few jobs, but not nearly as many as it removes. No, it will never hit a zero-level. However, it may dip so low that the only reasonable result will be to create a literal middle class subsidy. This is a ways off, but keeps looking inevitable, especially when you realize technology also allows us to have ever-larger populations while whittling away at the number of required jobs.

But if you built an automated masseuse, would anyone use it? Less manufacturing jobs means goods become less expensive, so people have more money to spend on people doing service jobs.

[SWPIGWANG]

gah, sucked into another economics thread....

'Privatization makes everything better' that was so beautifully shown to prevent any power outages that would shut down the entire northeast for several days?

Actually, powre outages are fundamentally caused by regulation. (or stupid privatization with a trillion rules) We have a state that has denied building of major power generation stations for years and some short required seperation of generation, transmission and distribution of system not to say a whole bunch of other entangled mess that makes the whole system respond far too slowly to demand.

The energy market is NOT free, or unregulated in those states. It is as regulated as any shit, just less so compared to even more complex systems.

Slapping more regulations can solve the problem, but it would always be inefficient compared to a truely unregulated market, which would also solve the problem.

Scared that power would go out? Just write a contract that penalize the supplier if case of breech of contract (loss of power) as business regularily do. Business do keep everything in perfect working order if it costs them otherwise. Sadly most consumers are too lazy to organize to put pressure for this issue and governments have to step in, but goverments are stupid.

The Libertarian Party might as well be the Suck Big Business' Cock Party: They exist to say 'No, you shouldn't do anything to interrupt the All Important Profit Margin.' I daresay they also think the government shouldn't make sure someone maintains the rail network... Wonder if they're too brain-dead to know what would happen if the trains stop running...

You do realize that, here in the real world, businesses do the absolute minimum whenever possible? Again, do you realize that in Libertarian fantasies, no one would repair the rail network?

Libertainians do not help big business, hell they'd fvck those big business compared to what we have today. The big two regularily pass handouts, tax breaks, bailouts, protectionism while wasting tax payer and consumer money going to the big business. (and small business, but big business have more lobby power for market distortions) Thanks to some agribusiness lobby we have things like suger costing twice the world market price in the states (and all your candy companies move to Canada, thank you) and you the consumer have to pay the price. Mutiply that to steel, timber whatnots and you get all your goods costing much more than the world market price.



Business do what is PROFITABLE, not what is minimum. If they do the minimum they'd be sleeping a home and we won't have fun microsoft bashing sessions anymore.

In the free market world, someone that can run the railway will actually own the railway. If the railway is not worthwhile it would be scrapped and have more useful things build ontop of it rather than draining millions of dollars. If rail is a economic form of transportation someone would pay for it.

Of course there are some arguments for rail subidization because the free use of the road system represents a huge government based market subsidy. However to the libertain or merely a market system believer would, what is needed is a rough pay as one use system rather than having some guy that rides the train pay for thousands of km worth of road.

Enron. Microsoft. To harken back a while, Standard Oil.

God, I love how people think companies are actually benevolent. It makes you really have to wonder if they're using their heads.

Companies shouldn't be benevolent. They should do stuff that makes economic sense. If one wants a benevolence one build economic incentives for it, rather than limiting the size of apples I can grow or number of times I can run up a stair in an futile, inefficient and ineffective attempt and micromanagement that creates more evil than problems it solve.

I remember now, though. You simply disbelieve in monopolies, refuse to accept that they exist and exert power.

Every capitalist dreams of being a monopoly, and every capitalist does his damn best to prevent others from being one.

Monopolies exert power though the cost of entry and economies of scale and there is a real and effective limit on their margins. Monopolies that simply raise prices and screw everyone gets smacked down by new entry very quickly.

The real reason why monopolies and other large companies in the real world have so much power is mostly though political, legal and extra-legal resources they sometimes obtain. Big companies can afford to lobby more effectively and can give out political favors to politicians, the best example of this would be the great loot of Yeltsin years. Other times laws help monopolies, such as intellectual property rights that can lock an industry and make new entry costs infinite. Other times large companies simply use its great wealth for extra-legal or simply illegal tricks especially in third world countries where private armies or buying off whole governments have not been unheard of.

'It's fine! Just look away for a while! It'll go away! It's vital to the survival of these people; we couldn't possibly promote the existance of a minimum-wage law that would let the adults get a living wage!'

I don't get the obessions with replacing low wage jobs with lack of one.

Minimum wage law is not the solution in this environment. There are investment to be made, people to be educated, factory to be built, not paper pushing and scaring every red blooded capitalist within a thousand miles. Minimal wage increases unemployment as it makes capital investment, rather than investment in labor, more attractive, not to say when lower wage labor markets exists. I'm talking about unemployment on the orders of 60% of the population. (which is usually caused by other factors, but not helped by minimal wage laws) Wages increases naturally when there is high employment and high productivity.

The economic justification for minimal wage lies in claims in market distortions and irrationality at the lowest wage level and that unemployment would not be elimated even with no minimal wage as classical ecnomics anaylsis would claim. However this rationale is pointless when the said minimal wage is higher than the working wages of a sizable protion of society and would hurt employment directly.

Just imagine a minimal wage of $500USD/hour and feel the insanity. While this is obviously insane, for some economies the relative productivity means the proposed minimal wages would either be just as insane or changes nothing at all.

If anything, a high minimal wage would probably lead to massive inflation until the buying power returns to its original level. Prices of real objects have the annoying tendency to match their actual value. (in relation to work being done)

Then again, I also have crafted the Technology-Employment Paradox, which basically states that as technology improves, the number of people per capita that you can realistically employ will drop.

As long as people want more shit and people can produce shit, there will be jobs for everyone. (excluding structure friction, irrationality and whatnots)

If demand is infinite than there is always more work to do (balanced with the uility curve for leisure of course) until the marginal value of extra goods and serives is zero for all of society, which is far from the case.

Uh, I was sorta under the impression that the reason businesses stopped employing child labor and raised wages was because of the massive labor reforms and the rise of trade unions and federal regultions in the mid to late 19th century.

Labor unions are perfectly fine things that makes sense in free market economics as an control of supply. As for federal regulations, it exists because people are stupid and insane. (basically people are too stupid to know whats good for them so they need the government)

[Rogue 9]

Dude.. I live in Arizona, if it werent for the free medical care the beaners get, they would HELP our economy.

Slaves were good for the economy of the American South pre-1865. Should we allow that again? The line has to be drawn somewhere; if it wasn't for all the free medical care the "beaners" get, they'd be dropping like flies in the labor conditions they have to put up with. Is this good for them? Again, I'm seeing "Screw the workers as long as the profit margin is protected."

And what free medical care, anyway? My family never got totally free medical care, despite my mother being employed in upper management at a frickin' hospital. That was some of the best employer-given health insurance in the several surrounding counties, and it was still far from "free." I find it hard to believe that illegal immigrants are getting totally free medical care.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Slaves were good for the economy of the American South pre-1865. Should we allow that again?

They arent slaves, they are being paid. ctually they can make a good living as undocumented day labor. Stard fee is 50-100 bucks to do someones yard work, that generally takes a couple hours. If they get multiple jobs a day, which is easy for them in nice neighborhoods, say 3.. that is 150-300 bucks a day.

at 150 a day, 300 days a year, they make 45 grand a year. double that if they get 300 a day regularly. Mexican day labor live like kings when compared to their living conditions in Mexico. They live in nice apartments, they drive reasonably nice vehicles.

if it wasn't for all the free medical care the "beaners" get, they'd be dropping like flies in the labor conditions they have to put up with.

See above. They DO drop like flies in mexico... And they do well for themselves in peoples backyards. Sure they are doing manual labor, but they bring sunscreen, gloves, and a huge cooler full of water/use the hose.

They do a damn good job(they get all the weeds pulled in less than an hour, and take care of the roots as well)

If they work for an establishment, they may get paid less, but the working conditions are no worse than those of a teenager.

Is this good for them?

Honestly? Yes.

And what free medical care, anyway?

Illegals get free medical, at least the emergency stuff. We have free/almost free clinics all over the place that are used by immigrants as well. Taxpayer supported.

[frigidmagi]

Look Aly, I consider myself to be on friendly terms and I think you're a good guy, but you are being a retard.

Hell, child labor in Thailand prevents child prostitution...

Oh Yeah, what works in one nation is perfect for another. We must all strive to be excaltly alike! Because what works in Thailand will work here and what works here will work in France which will work in Russia which will in Canada, because there is no difference between any of the countries, NONE AT ALL!

Even 2 dollars an hour is better than nothing. It is enough to buy food

YOU ARE A MORON! Do you any experience with such a situation?!? HUH!
Both my partents worked minium wage jobs and could barely afford to feed their kids (3 of us). There are hundreds of thousands of people working minium wage who still have to use fucking food stamps and Welfare to EAT!!!!

They may be exploited now, but that condition will not last.

Because Exploiters always get tired of standing atop the crushed bodies of oppressed folks. I mean the South freed the slaves without help... Oh Wait no we didn't... The Nazis got tired of killing and enslaving folks... Oh wait there had to be that whole world war thing... The Czar got tired of oppressing the the populace of Russia... Oh Wait, no again. Well the Commies who replaced him got tired of it... Wait you mean there was a mass uprising and military mutiny against orders to put it down? Whoops.
Well the Romans got tired of killing the Christians... Oh a Christian Emperior stopped them... Well the Inqusition, oh who am I kidding!

Noone is forced to take a job. If they do not like the pay they have the option to not take it. However $2/herou is better than nothing. If they want more, they can organize and bargain for better wages. In the meantime however the amount of money they know have in their pockets, will entice other businesses into the area. They will compete for workers by offering better wages.

A Walmart in Tusla found out it's employees were organizing, they shut down the store and fired everyone who worked there. They opened a new one 5 blocks away and hired new guys. Yeah worked real well for the organizors! If this is bad, open a history book, in the 1800s unionizers were shot, stabbed, drowned and beaten. Until regulations were passed to protect them. Businesses often know where the bread is buttered. If they can get away with wage slavery, they'll generally attempt it. DO NOT EVEN THINK OF DEPENDING ON THE GOODWILL AND GENEROUSITY OF BIG BUSINESS!

Dude, I am talking about third word slums. There are not any jobs in third world slums... You know, in places like Zambia

Dude, Minium Wage laws don't effect anywhere outside of the US. In fact they're under state control mostly. That's why California's wage is higher than Oklahoma's for example. The reason they don't go to Zambia is well, there's alot of shooting going on so they think it's a little...Unsafe, you know?

You have to consider third world economics tho. A few pennies an hour is alot for a poor person in the third world where the poverty line is 100 dollars a year or lower. Their labour is only worth an equivalent of that much, and you can't argue against that.

Expect we're talking about the US because 3rd world nations DON'T have minium wage laws! They also have corrupt governments, no safety laws and no labour unions! In most 3rd world countries there is no workers comp, no insurence, no nothing. In some nations they can get away with outright slavery! Yeah, we really want that.

Look I'm talking from 1st hand in my face experience. Minium Wage laws are nescessary and helpful to the American Worker. I agree with the Libs, on a quite a few things, this ain't one of them. I also freak out when I hear things from some members along the lines of "Let's privatize the police and firemen. Oh we should legalize Coke and Crystal Meth to!"

No, No, No, over my dead body. Marijunia, we can't stop really so we might has well long has we slap enough control over it to make tabacco glad they aren't them. But Cocaine? Crystal Meth? Fuck the idea of a police company to. No Justice for hire, no mercenaries under arms in the US.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh Yeah, what works in one nation is perfect for another. We must all strive to be excaltly alike! Because what works in Thailand will work here and what works here will work in France which will work in Russia which will in Canada, because there is no difference between any of the countries, NONE AT ALL!

You dont understand what I am trying to say. We dont have problems with child prostitution here in first world countries because children here have families that make enough that it isnt needed to survive. Kids in places like Thailand dont have it that easy. They ahve to work in order to survive. If a min wage law, or child labor laws existed in Thailand, they would not amke enough money to live, and would have to (and in some places still do if they cant get work) resort to prostitution.

YOU ARE A MORON! Do you any experience with such a situation?!? HUH!
Both my partents worked minium wage jobs and could barely afford to feed their kids (3 of us). There are hundreds of thousands of people working minium wage who still have to use fucking food stamps and Welfare to EAT!!!!

Lets take my quotes in context here. I was refering to third world countries. Not the US. 2 bucks an hour is enough to live like a king in a place like Zambia or Etheopia

Because Exploiters always get tired of standing atop the crushed bodies of oppressed folks. I mean the South freed the slaves without help... Oh Wait no we didn't... The Nazis got tired of killing and enslaving folks... Oh wait there had to be that whole world war thing... The Czar got tired of oppressing the the populace of Russia...

I am not talking about slavery. I am talking about people in third world countries that make enough to be in their countries middleclass even if making 2 dollars an hour. A factory in a third world country, even if they pay $2 an hour will give the local economy such a boost that the people will no longer be willing to work for $2 dollars an hour. And when that happens, they will get a raise. Or, if not, labor will naturally organize and strike, forcing the company to do so.

A Walmart in Tusla found out it's employees were organizing, they shut down the store and fired everyone who worked there. They opened a new one 5 blocks away and hired new guys

Not talking about the US, I am talking about the third world. In the third world, 2 dollars an hour would allow them to live like fucking kings.

Dude, Minium Wage laws don't effect anywhere outside of the US. In fact they're under state control mostly. That's why California's wage is higher than Oklahoma's for example. The reason they don't go to Zambia is well, there's alot of shooting going on so they think it's a little...Unsafe, you know?

We werent talking about US in wage laws, we were talking about Min wage laws in foreign countries.

Expect we're talking about the US because 3rd world nations DON'T have minium wage laws! They also have corrupt governments, no safety laws and no labour unions! In most 3rd world countries there is no workers comp, no insurence, no nothing. In some nations they can get away with outright slavery! Yeah, we really want that.

We were refering to outsourcing, not US min wage laws...

[Gunshy]

Dude.. I live in Arizona, if it werent for the free medical care the beaners get, they would HELP our economy.

Would you mind keeping your racist comments to yourself in the future?

[Rogue 9]

DEATH PENALTY FOR DRUG USE? lmfao.. good thing the Constitution Party is irrelevant, huh?

Well, to be fair, I think they're referring to drug-related violent crime, not possession or use.