Occupy Wall Street

[unpro]

basically the theory is removing the minimum wage laws would decrease unemployment on average 3%.

[kirk]

oh thats lovely, i show you something to read or look at and you call it biased. you link me something and i watch it, im still not swayed in the least bit, but i read or watched what you linked. except that essay.

It comes from a site dedicated to Austrian economics...of course it's biased. The Youtube I posted was opinion; not something I'm trying to pass off as empirical truths. Just something to describe the purpose of the movement.

i love how you think a different view on economics is somehow biased. im not going to find shit that favors your opinion to support my view points, nor would i expect you to link something from mises to support a viewpoint you have. why dont you read the articles, check the sources(i did what i could without buying a book when i read the articles), and then come up with a counter point?

Difference in opinions does not =/= biased. Site dedicated to a SINGLE PERSPECTIVE in economics = biased. Understand the difference?

I'm telling you how it's actually done. You make the claim, you present proper material from an unbiased source. It's kind of like when you said it was "hilarious" that I said eating 1 meal per day was not unhealthy - the reason you believed that is because you believed bullshit sources (much like the one you are posting here) rather than credible sources (much like the ones I am demanding).

having any sort of debate does not revolve around "you dont agree with me, your dumb. im ignoring everything you say or link regardless of potential for debate because you hold a different viewpoint than me".

I'm not saying that. I'm telling you the standard for presenting objective material. If you want to post something that is an opinion, that's cool. But you're trying to prove that minimum wage is objectively bad, and you're trying to support that by providing a biased website that supports this stance. Provide me sources that aren't trying to support your perspective, but rather aren't trying to prove ANY perspective; just delivering the facts.

here, ill give a point thats made. unemployment leading up to the stock market crash in the early 20th century was under 5% on average. it was as low as i believe 1.8%. since the minimum wage laws came into effect we have rarely dropped below 5% unemployment. the argument is we decreased jobs based on inflating the wage by intervention, and we enable employers to selectively hirer while favoring certain demographics. say an ex con tries to get a job at mc donalds, at the same time a 18 year old with no criminal record and no prior work experience also applies. the con has 5 years exp working in management at a fast food restaurant. 9 times out of 10, the kid with no experience will get hired over the con. without minimum wage laws, that ex con could say "well ill take this lower wage" and get the job by directly competing with his labor, not his past. or the employer could offer a lower wage to the con so he could "prove" himself a valuable employee, and hire both of the applicants. thereby increasing employment overall, while enabling a person who would otherwise be **** in our current system to actually get a job.

it wouldnt effect most people in this country, since they already get paid over the minimum wage. it directly benefits the poorest of this country by providing more jobs.

How does someone afford to cover the bills if they are getting paid $3/hour to flip burgers?

[`NG]

[gwolf_]

oh thats lovely, i show you something to read or look at and you call it biased. you link me something and i watch it, im still not swayed in the least bit, but i read or watched what you linked. except that essay.

i love how you think a different view on economics is somehow biased. im not going to find shit that favors your opinion to support my view points, nor would i expect you to link something from mises to support a viewpoint you have. why dont you read the articles, check the sources(i did what i could without buying a book when i read the articles), and then come up with a counter point?

having any sort of debate does not revolve around "you dont agree with me, your dumb. im ignoring everything you say or link regardless of potential for debate because you hold a different viewpoint than me".

here, ill give a point thats made. unemployment leading up to the stock market crash in the early 20th century was under 5% on average. it was as low as i believe 1.8%. since the minimum wage laws came into effect we have rarely dropped below 5% unemployment. the argument is we decreased jobs based on inflating the wage by intervention, and we enable employers to selectively hirer while favoring certain demographics. say an ex con tries to get a job at mc donalds, at the same time a 18 year old with no criminal record and no prior work experience also applies. the con has 5 years exp working in management at a fast food restaurant. 9 times out of 10, the kid with no experience will get hired over the con. without minimum wage laws, that ex con could say "well ill take this lower wage" and get the job by directly competing with his labor, not his past. or the employer could offer a lower wage to the con so he could "prove" himself a valuable employee, and hire both of the applicants. thereby increasing employment overall, while enabling a person who would otherwise be **** in our current system to actually get a job.

it wouldnt effect most people in this country, since they already get paid over the minimum wage. it directly benefits the poorest of this country by providing more jobs.

I had an ex gf in college whose dad owned a kingdom of fast food restaurants. She would always talk about abolishing the minimum wage and how it would be so great. For dad's business absolutely, he would improve his margins. Would this improve the common good? Absolutely not. Artificially lowering the unemployment rate by paying people wages that even when multiplied by two (IE two person family) do not reach above the poverty line does not make sense to me. I see this as a way that makes sense from a raw economic efficiency perspective, but that in practicality does nothing but help the rich. Those people don't need help, even when top marginal tax rates were 90% there weren't any soup kitchens at my local country club.

We don't need 1.8% unemployment, 4-5% is optimal.

[unpro]

there is no such thing as an unbiased view in economics. its like that in pretty much anything we do. history? biased along the lines of who wrote it. science? easily biased based on what evidence someone chooses to look at or the way they choose to interpret the data. government? biased on the opinion of the majority or minority depending on the type of government you have.

why is it so hard for you to look outside of current standards and think about how thinks could be done differently? you want to relate everything i say to the exact same system we have right now. what im saying is change the system. its no longer relative to what we accept as normal today when you change it based on theories of Austrian economics.

and im glad you think 5% unemployment is a good number. way to encourage people who went to jail for robbing a 7-11 to do it again when they cant get a job. yea, some people might get **** on a wage, but they dont have to work there. thats the awesome part of a free market not constrained by government influence in all aspects of business, they can hire whoever is willing to accept the pay, and you can take your labor somewhere else if you think you deserve more. the market will even itself out if you let it.

i would rather be making 3 dollars an hour than be unemployed. the sense of entitlement that you somehow deserve to be paid x amount regardless of actual value for labor is ridiculous.

as for your 1 meal a day thing, im not going to find old school books, and medical articles from 20 years ago. i just dont give that much of a **** on the subject. was pretty sure i made that clear in that thread.

[kirk]

there is no such thing as an unbiased view in economics. its like that in pretty much anything we do. history? biased along the lines of who wrote it. science? easily biased based on what evidence someone chooses to look at or the way they choose to interpret the data. government? biased on the opinion of the majority or minority depending on the type of government you have.

There is such a thing as unbiased data. It's called peer-reviewed empirical research. Provide some numbers for your views. Why do you believe what you believe? What FACTS? That's what you need to be posting if you want to solidify your point, and not further opinion.

why is it so hard for you to look outside of current standards and think about how thinks could be done differently? you want to relate everything i say to the exact same system we have right now. what im saying is change the system. its no longer relative to what we accept as normal today when you change it based on theories of Austrian economics.

I think the changes I want to make to the system are significantly more radical than what you want to make. I simply want to make changes on the opposite end of the spectrum from you.

and im glad you think 5% unemployment is a good number. way to encourage people who went to jail for robbing a 7-11 to do it again when they cant get a job. yea, some people might get **** on a wage, but they dont have to work there. thats the awesome part of a free market not constrained by government influence in all aspects of business, they can hire whoever is willing to accept the pay, and you can take your labor somewhere else if you think you deserve more. the market will even itself out if you let it.

I didn't say 5% is a good number; gwolf did. I'm not okay with paying someone $2/hour for shitty work though, sorry. You think it's okay for some people to be at extreme advantages in life and for the system to do nothing to fix that. Thank God I was born to upper-middle class parents so we could afford the higher cost of housing in a neighborhood with a good school system. If I wasn't, my odds of success would decline significantly. Your solution? Just get a job that pays you $2/hour because "it's better than nothing." To which I say that's **** ridiculous.

i would rather be making 3 dollars an hour than be unemployed. the sense of entitlement that you somehow deserve to be paid x amount regardless of actual value for labor is ridiculous.

And you saying apparently saying it's okay for some **** in a free market to make billions without higher taxes (than they already have) while other people have to work for $3/hour is infinitely more ridiculous. You choose to abandon what is decent for what is "logical" or whatever the hell your justification is.

Curious, if you could build your perfect society, what would you tax for? Army, police, school, etc.? How far would you go with taxation, and what would you leave up to the individual to cover?

as for your 1 meal a day thing, im not going to find old school books, and medical articles from 20 years ago. i just dont give that much of a **** on the subject. was pretty sure i made that clear in that thread.

Simply saying you have a history for accepting shit with zero empirical foundation, based on our previous engagements. I have a high standard for what constitutes "proof" - and a site DESIGNATED to promote a specific agenda is NOT good proof.

[gwolf_]

I didn't say 5% is a good number; gwolf did. I'm not okay with paying someone $2/hour for shitty work though, sorry. You think it's okay for some people to be at extreme advantages in life and for the system to do nothing to fix that. Thank God I was born to upper-middle class parents so we could afford the higher cost of housing in a neighborhood with a good school system. If I wasn't, my odds of success would decline significantly. Your solution? Just get a job that pays you $2/hour because "it's better than nothing." To which I say that's **** ridiculous.

Agreed with all of that. The 5% number was approximately what unemployment was in the 1990s. When unemployment is too low inflation goes up because wages increase. Now granted a little wage increasing particularly right now would be good but not down all the way to 1.8%.

[BrentMusburger]

1.8% unemployment is bordering on impossible. 5% is considered the best case scenario, and even that would lead to "overheating" and bubbles that, if left unchecked by monetary policy, would lead to a collapse. See: the 90's...which eventually boomerangs back to what we're seeing today.

That's a social expirement that cannot work in the real work. You're advocating taking the American standard of living, and instantly rebalancing it to the rest of the world. IE, if we let the "real" minimum wage come out, it would match the global standard for low skilled labor. Americans are at the peak of the pyramid and the rest of the world is the base. Right now, we're trying a slow, controlled rebalancing of the imbalances, and you can already see the problems that it causes. Outrage as people lose what they once had.

And you saying apparently saying it's okay for some **** in a free market to make billions without higher taxes (than they already have) while other people have to work for $3/hour is infinitely more ridiculous.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7..

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[kirk]

I don't care if the wealthier have to pay more. You're barking up the wrong tree. Lots of other countries do it, and it works great. My family is part of the class that would get taxed more, and they accept that responsibility as having benefited from the system with an unfair advantage.

What's funny is my dad left America because everything about it is too political - his work in public health, the tax system, etc. Went back to mother Canada with my step-mom and two brothers. Some people leave for the opposite reason.

[Rambizzle]