Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Capitalism and the poor
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Capitalism and the poor (Read 8073 times)
Proletariat
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Statist

Posts: 127
Joined: Aug 2nd, 2013
Re: Capitalism and the poor
Reply #10 - Aug 29th, 2013 at 5:40pm
Print Post  
LibertariCAN wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 4:17pm:
Edit: Not worth it.

But FYI: Under the Canadian Constitution, the responsibility for enacting and enforcing labour laws, including the minimum wage, rests with the ten provinces as well as the three territories which have been granted this power by federal legislation. This means that each province and territory has its own minimum wage.


True, but I guess my point is that in Canada 99.99999% of the population believes in minimum wage laws and that's not going to change any time soon. We are a nation straight out of the nightmares of Glenn Beck.
  

"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population." -Karl Marx
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Proletariat
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Statist

Posts: 127
Joined: Aug 2nd, 2013
Re: Capitalism and the poor
Reply #11 - Aug 29th, 2013 at 5:43pm
Print Post  
LibertariCAN wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 4:21pm:
The minimum wage does more harm than good in those situations.


It absolutely does not "do more harm"to be guaranteed subsistence wages. I would bet money that nobody on this forum has ever actually raised a family or was raised by a family on minimum wage (oh please do tell me if I am wrong on this). If you ever were in such a situation I doubt that you would be as euphoric about doing away with all legal measures of labour/wage protection as you all are. This is an upper class ideology if I've ever seen one.
  

"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population." -Karl Marx
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Proletariat
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Statist

Posts: 127
Joined: Aug 2nd, 2013
Re: Capitalism and the poor
Reply #12 - Aug 29th, 2013 at 5:54pm
Print Post  
Crystallas wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 4:40pm:
Why would anyone pay $12 an hour for $4 an hour worth of work?


You can't measure "worth of work", the "free market" isn't some magical thermometer of worth. Why is what a baseball player does "worth" more than a soldier? And besides, it's naive of you think that your employer pays you what you are worth man, he pays you as little as he possibly can without you leaving to the competition. Just like you don't work because you want your employer to get rich, you work as much as you need to to not get fired. (Or to get a promotion of you are particularly ambitious, but most people aren't.)

Quote:
I would like to see the socialist or proletariat business person that consistently pays their employees wages based on their own belief system. Go ahead, start a business and pay your low skill workers according to what you believe they should earn.


Yes, there is something wrong either with the system or with human nature if 99.999% of business owners pay unskilled labourers only what they absolutely need to. That's why we have minimum wage laws. As much as the employing class would like to be allowed to nickel and dime their unskilled labour force into an early grave according to their workers' "worth" in a "free market", most people, through the use of minimum wage laws and the like, are not prepared to allow that.

Quote:
Oh wait! Lets just steal money from nameless, faceless people to pay them! great idea!


Yes, let's take a bit from the poor, abused taxpayer to make sure unskilled labourers aren't starving in the streets.


But, are you a or have ever been a minimum wage worker? Were your parents minimum wage workers? If you were one or the offspring of one, do you honestly think that you would against minimum wage laws as you were?

  

"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population." -Karl Marx
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2108
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: Capitalism and the poor
Reply #13 - Aug 29th, 2013 at 6:54pm
Print Post  
Proletariat wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 5:54pm:


You can't measure "worth of work", the "free market" isn't some magical thermometer of worth. Why is what a baseball player does "worth" more than a soldier? And besides, it's naive of you think that your employer pays you what you are worth man, he pays you as little as he possibly can without you leaving to the competition. Just like you don't work because you want your employer to get rich, you work as much as you need to to not get fired. (Or to get a promotion of you are particularly ambitious, but most people aren't.)





I'm an employer. Do you honestly believe I pay my employees as little as I can. You should take that tin-foil hat off and smell the roses.

But yeah, I guess people who sham all day should get paid as much as people who actually make the business money. It's only fair.

Proletariat wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 5:54pm:
But, are you a or have ever been a minimum wage worker? Were your parents minimum wage workers? If you were one or the offspring of one, do you honestly think that you would against minimum wage laws as you were?


Yes, yes, and yes. I started at minimum wage, my parents did as well, their parents started out making next to nothing before minimum wage laws existed(and in due time, became  wealthy from their own hard work and merits). Do you know why? We entered the workforce without ANY skill. Of course, when I was a "know-it-all" but really, a know-nothing kid in the workforce, I wanted the minimum wage to go up. Then I saw that the harder that I worked, the better my raises were, the more I made, the more I gained. By the time I was your age, I was already managing a restaurant and starting my own business. No longer was I looking for idealistic laws to magically fix problems, I realized that THERE WERE NO SHORT-CUTS.


You just want everything to be paid for by someone else. You're a moocher, and that is indeed a 100% fact. Just like some n00b that demands they get the same respect as the lifetime expert. You don't like rewarding hard work, you want hard workers to sacrifice even more than they already do, so you can chill and do nothing. You are the most selfish of the sh*ts on the wall.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LibertariCAN
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Freedom Forever

Posts: 593
Location: Canada
Joined: Jan 25th, 2013
Re: Capitalism and the poor
Reply #14 - Aug 29th, 2013 at 7:56pm
Print Post  
Proletariat wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 5:43pm:
It absolutely does not "do more harm"to be guaranteed subsistence wages. I would bet money that nobody on this forum has ever actually raised a family or was raised by a family on minimum wage (oh please do tell me if I am wrong on this). If you ever were in such a situation I doubt that you would be as euphoric about doing away with all legal measures of labour/wage protection as you all are. This is an upper class ideology if I've ever seen one.


Once again, you are wrong in assuming this.

You are getting to the point of being incredibly insulting to people you don't know by pretending to think you know who they are, where they come from, or what their experiences are. That's called prejudice. And the best part of this whole thing is the irony that it's usually the left wing accusing libertarians of being ignorant and unsympathetic to other people!

I come from a family of lower class Italian immigrants and minimum wage and labor laws almost put my Father and his family into a welfare trap, which they luckily avoided. I'm sure you have absolutely no desire to hear any of that seeing as you pretty much understand everyone on this forum as an upper class snob anyway.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LibertariCAN
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Freedom Forever

Posts: 593
Location: Canada
Joined: Jan 25th, 2013
Re: Capitalism and the poor
Reply #15 - Aug 29th, 2013 at 8:03pm
Print Post  
Proletariat wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 5:40pm:
True, but I guess my point is that in Canada 99.99999% of the population believes in minimum wage laws and that's not going to change any time soon. We are a nation straight out of the nightmares of Glenn Beck.


Thanks for pulling that statistic out of your ass.

I used to be like you at one point. I was an ignorant Canadian who turned my nose up at everyone else and thought that Canada was the best and we do everything right.

Here's some Canadian perspective for you by the way. You might have heard of these guys before....

Minimum wages hurt the poor:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=17274

You can stop it with your horror stories about the majority of minimum wage earners almost starving in Canada. Once again, you speak too fast and don't pay any mind to facts:

Quote:
According to Statistics Canada, nearly 65 per cent of minimum wage workers in Canada are between the ages of 15 and 24, and of these, about 85 per cent live at home with their parents. In addition, many of the adults earning minimum wage are supplementing their family income with part-time work during child-bearing years and retirement.


Minimum wage as a job killer:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=17361
Quote:
While it might feel good to jump on the raise the minimum wage bandwagon, a look at the facts indicates that such policies have very negative consequences. The truth is, minimum wage hikes actually hurt the poor.




Many people on this forum have respectfully asked you to look at studies by institutions and then have a proper discussion. Many members here have also been open minded to you and your views, asking you to provide some studies and statistics that support things like minimum wage, for instance.

The best you can throw back is some correlative (not causative) stats from Wikipedia, and some hyperbole coupled with some anecdotes. There ARE worse places on the internet you know; you would be hard pressed to find a libertarian forum that gives you a complete clean slate and allows you to express your opinion, while we sit open-minded. Yet, once challenged, you have been nothing but insulting.

I want to say this though. You, my friend, are starting from a good place on intellectual train of thought. You care, and just like MOST PEOPLE on this board, you find problems like poverty and unemployment troubling and sad to see. The problem is you're speaking more from what you FEEL should be a solution, and you just scrape the surface with most of these issues. Do yourself an intellectual favor and read Free to Choose by Milton Friedman, I picked a copy up at Chapters. Let your mind open to the possibility of solving these problems in a different way than you originally conceived!
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
chris105
Ex Member


Re: Capitalism and the poor
Reply #16 - Aug 29th, 2013 at 8:15pm
Print Post  
Proletariat wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 5:43pm:
It absolutely does not "do more harm"to be guaranteed subsistence wages. I would bet money that nobody on this forum has ever actually raised a family or was raised by a family on minimum wage (oh please do tell me if I am wrong on this). If you ever were in such a situation I doubt that you would be as euphoric about doing away with all legal measures of labour/wage protection as you all are. This is an upper class ideology if I've ever seen one.


If you have a minimum wage job and have a child you can't support on that wage, maybe you shouldn't have had a kid. If you don't have an education or skills that give you earning power, buy some prophylactics. My parents had low paying jobs when they were getting on their feet, but were responsible and smart enough to have this ray of sunshine after they were confident they had a comfortable wage, job security and some money in the bank. Also, I buffed and waxed floors for 2 years and then unloaded trailers at a distribution center for 4 while I went to school part-time - both jobs were at or near minimum wage, so don't pretend you are unique or that every libertarian was born with a trust fund.

When capable people complain about their jobs or how much they earn, but aren't doing anything to improve themselves, I have little sympathy - and by little, I mean zero. The jobs I've held in the past were just as miserable. Sometimes people just need to mtfu.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Capitalism and the poor
Reply #17 - Aug 29th, 2013 at 9:03pm
Print Post  
The problem with the idea of a "living wage" is simple.

We don't set prices due to what we "feel is fair" to "live well". Otherwise, why not set the price of milk to 1 cent per gallon? Surely this is MUCH fairer? Then everyone can afford milk!

Now, the same reason why this would be ridiculous (no one would produce milk) is the same reason why it is ridiculous to try to fix the prices of labor. If you try to fix the price of labor to, let's say $15/hr, and your labor is only worth 10 dollars profit for the company then you won't get a job. No one would hire you because they would lose money. The company would likely make due with less people and speed up automation as much as possible.

The problem is that prices are not set by what "is fair" to people. They are set by many market mechanisms. The price of labor is determined (and these are just some parts of it) by:

1. The experience of the worker. This is because if the worker has work experience I know he'll have at least some idea of what it is like to have a job. If he has no work experience I don't have any idea what I am getting, could end up with a slacker. Thus having too high of a wage for this person would lead to me not hiring him (uncertainty is too high to risk paying this person $15/hr).

2. Competitive Pricing. That is, what is my competition paying workers with similar skills/experience? Generally companies will pay around the same amount (with a few exceptions) because this is the market price for a worker with a specific skill set.

3. Economic conditions can effect that. If there's a recession then the price of labor can drop (sure) since this is a natural market response. Supply and Demand. There is now more supply of labor than there is demand for it. Thus the pay drops... BUT the flipside of this (assuming no interference into the economy by external forces) is that wages will necessarily increase over time.

The reason for this increase is also explained through supply and demand. As the (now) cheap labor is starting to pay off for companies, both by the increased profit margins from them, as well as the fact that these people are working and gaining skills, both of these factors lead to increased wages for all workers. Especially the ones who are working already but also future workers.

The drop in wage prices means companies can hire more people, more people thus gain valuable work experience and as a result will earn more money in the long term. As they gain more experience they can move up in their job. This opens the way for new workers to enter the markets.

This means that now you would gradually see the demand for Labor outweigh the supply for labor. This is usually what is characterized as a time of economic boom.

And (I know you will bring this up) the reason why it is bad to have government programs, such as welfare and unemployment benefits, increase in scope during a recession is also explainable. It negates the natural mechanisms described above. Instead of finding some form of employment and gaining some work experience, people waste their time. Instead of having our full labor force utilized (with much lower unemployment than we see today) to spur gradual economic expansion, we have nothing of the sort. Instead we see an increase in taxes to pay for the programs, thus making matters even worse. So what this means, in the extreme case, is that there would never be a boom or even an exit from the recession. Only when we eliminate welfare and unemployment benefits (as well as a plethora of other interferences) can we see the markets functioning most efficiently. Most efficiently means that everyone benefits the most over time. Sure some times will be harsh but it is better to have a few bad times than a never-ending stagnant economy.


I hope this helps you understand some of the reasons for why prices work. They are not "feelings" based but rather determined by billions of voluntary interactions. Smiley

If you have any questions please feel free to ask me or others here.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Liberalterian
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3316
Joined: Feb 6th, 2011
Re: Capitalism and the poor
Reply #18 - Aug 29th, 2013 at 9:19pm
Print Post  
Also, before you ask me this Proletariat, I am working minimum wage right now myself. 20 hrs/week whilst being in College. I also have tens of thousands of dollars in college loans. So there's no need to try to play the victim card or how people "need" help due to their conditions. A lot of people have it hard, yes, and we can change that.

The solution is not to make it more expensive and difficult for people to get work experience and work out of their situation, the solution is to do the opposite. The solution is not more government programs, the solution is to decrease taxes and allow people to have more of their hard-earned money to spend for themselves. If I didn't need to pay the IRS a cent I would be considerably better off. Why not do that? If you really want to help regular people, then this seems like the most direct and fair way to do it!

Also, PLEASE take ONE Economics class. It can even be supply side (if necessary) though Austrian Economics would be preferable. This way you can actually understand WHY it is that a baseball player is paid more than a soldier. It's quite simple. It's due to all of us. Maybe not you or me (I certainly don't watch Baseball) but the fact is that a lot of people DO watch it and they put their hard-earned money to the industry. This means that the baseball industry has billions of dollars, due to the service they provide. I agree with you, they don't do much at all since Baseball is boring as hell (in my opinion). BUT millions of people disagree. They derive some sort of pleasure from baseball and are willing to pay as much money as they do to watch the games.

This means that the baseball industry is only making as much money as they are because people voluntarily choose to give them a lot of money. Would you rather see those billions go solely to the team owners? I for one find it entirely fair that the players themselves make a decent salary as well, surely you agree this is much fairer than having even more money go to the owners of the teams? Especially for players that are very good and thus cause more fans for the teams - which means they bring the team more profits due to fans paying for merchandise, tickets to watch the games in stadium, sports packages on TV, etc. So that's why a baseball player might be paid a lot, they create a lot of value thus they make a lot of money. Pretty elementary stuff...

As for a soldier, they don't create any value whatsoever. At least not any measurable value. It's kinda hard to measure the value of them protecting you. Maybe if we had a voluntarily-funded military the value could be better determined, since the money given to the military would be what the markets determine to be necessary for military protection.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
keauxbi
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 608
Location: Southwest Michigan
Joined: Oct 30th, 2012
Re: Capitalism and the poor
Reply #19 - Aug 29th, 2013 at 11:52pm
Print Post  
Proletariat wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 3:24pm:
Let me ask you a question, say I run a Walmart here in Canada. I hire 20 workers at 10.50 an hour (the legal minimum wage). One day, the minimum wage law is repealed (which by the way would never happen here in Communist Canada), why would I, as a rational minded capitalist, not pay my existing work force 4 dollars an hour to do the same work they did before?

Why would I waste money on further workers? And overworking my labour force worked fine in the past, why would I cease to do so simply because the minimum wage is gone? Sure, it becomes cheaper to hire more workers now that the minimum wage is gone but it's still waste of my hard earned capitalist money.

Repealing the minimum wage won't increase the labour force, shorten work weeks, etc... current hiring and labour practices would be replicated, only difference is that the workers would be living on below subsistence wages. That is why laws mandating 40 hour work weeks, lunch and bathroom breaks and the like, and being paid for overtime are so important. That way, under staffing stores comes from the pockets of the bourgeois and not the workers.

But let me ask you a question, have you yourself attempted to raise a family or were raised by parents who worked a minimum wage job? If yes, were you incessantly thinking "oh man, my life would be so much better if there was no minimum wage laws"? We can talk about theory and crap until we are blue in the face, but all of this ignores just how difficult the lives of people on minimum wage already is. And repealing those laws in some blind hope that Walmart will be kind enough to lower its prices as a result would make these people's lives much harder than it already is.


You clearly don't, or at least I greatly doubt, you look into the matter outside your own little world there in Canada so let me present real world evidence of the free market driving entry level wages.  Try to keep up and in some way I'd like for you to try to refute that minimum wages are a good thing in the scenario I present.

The legal minimum wage in North Dakota is $7.25/hour which is set by the federal government. 

North Dakota is currently experiencing a petroleum boom and the unemployment rate in ND is 3.0% which leads all 50 states. 

McDonald's, in some boom towns, is hiring entry level employees at $15.00/hour.  UndecidedThe evil Walmart that you, Proletariat, hate so much? $17.00/hour!  Shocked Is that exploitation of the workers? Roll Eyes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/21/mcdonalds-signing-bonuses_n_1220088.htm...
http://www.startribune.com/local/188503971.html

Now surely since you know so much about the plight of the "proletariat" you know why these poor souls are being exploited at income over $31,000/year right?

That's the going rate, the rate the market decided was justifiable, for entry level labor in North Dakota boom towns.  In a nut shell, to have employees in these towns, the sweatshops run by the Waltons and Ronald McDonald are forced to pay their entry level employees twice the legal minimum wage.

The employee chooses to accept the employment at a given wage and if the employee does not accept the wage they are free to find work elsewhere.  Sure in other areas of the country, were there no minimum wage laws, entry level labor might only fetch $2 or 3/hour.  But it is the employee that decides to accept the wage, no one forces it upon them. 

Minimum wage laws force an employer to pay above what entry level work is worth.  Forcing an employer to pay a higher wage will make employers hire employees that are worth that higher wage and those that do not meet the qualifications are left without a job.
  

Keauxbi
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization..."--Edward Abbey
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Capitalism and the poor
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy