Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The fallacy of minimum wage and unions. The fallacy of minimum wage and unions.

10-20-2015 , 06:00 AM
Someone in another thread posted about the Australian minimum wage. I started to do some more research on the subject to possibly profit when Los Angeles increases it minimum wage.

http://workinglife.org.au/minimum-wage-story/
This cartoon depicts the typical liberals view of minimum wage terrorism. Most San Bushman have a 2 hour workday with no minimum wage.

http://fee.org/freeman/the-eugenics-...-minimum-wage/
Jeffery Tucker believes minimum wage was a Eugenics plot. By preventing people from working, you can force them to starve to death and die out from the population.

I have also heard lately that minimum wage stops immigration. However, by experience I find the opposite to happen. Illegals are the choice of many employees as they can pay them at or less than minimum wage and have a low risk of a lawsuit, compared to paying U.S. citizens under the table. I would not be surprised if most of the illegal immigration is due to minimum wage laws, as you can send money home.

2006 13.47
2007 13.74
2008 14.31
2009 14.31
2011 15.51
2012 15.96
2013 16.37
2014 16.87
2015 17.29

However, those are AUD if converted to USD, the minimum wage has been dropping.

2006 .75
2007 .83
2008 .95
2009 .81
2011 1.07
2012 .97
2013 .96
2014 .93
2015 .76
present .73

2015 present 17.29*.73 = $12.62
2011 15.51*1.07= $16.60
2006 13.47*.75= $10.10

Australia taxes
Taxable income
Tax on this income
0 – $18,200
Nil
$18,201 – $37,000
19c for each $1 over $18,200
$37,001 – $80,000
$3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000
$80,001 – $180,000
$17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000
$180,001 and over
$54,547 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000
10-21-2015 , 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton555
Well the bigger issue is that words like "deserve" and "should" have no ****ing business in economic discussions.

Ding ding ding ding!!! Well said!
03-19-2016 , 11:10 PM


Hardees CEO stunting.
03-24-2016 , 10:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelhouse
Suppose you own a company, call it company A. You have a job opening for a cook and it is a minimum wage job. The first guy is a white guy out of high school seems real eager to work, the second guy is a black guy who was fired from his last job after 3 weeks, and the third guy seems al-right but has tattoo and seems a little shady. Since they demand the same wage the minimum wage, the white guy is going to get the job.
So fkn racist
03-24-2016 , 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryS
So fkn racist
You didn't quote the whole post you fake. The whole idea of the post was to show minimum wage is racist. The reason why black youth unemployment is so high is minimum wage creates a barrier to entry. Replace white with hot women.

Unlike you I actually think blacks are good hard smart workers. However there how can you explain the high unemployment. There must be barriers. There is no cost to be racist and hire a white person over a black person with minimum wage.

It is a disgrace liberals hate blacks and minorities so much and prevent them from working. It is because in the long run they are scared they will take their jobs and make more money than them. There are no 2nd chances.

Last edited by steelhouse; 03-24-2016 at 11:28 AM.
03-24-2016 , 12:51 PM
ok you may have a point I shouldnt have jumped to conclusions. YOu shouldnt have either though in that post, saying what I think when you have no idea how I think.

There seems to be a general sense that Black people are less employed for economic reasons (how useful they are as employees), when it could be for others reasons. After all, Black people get a worse deal in the justice system usually and other reasons, so why wouldn't they in employment interviews?

Your arguments seem pretty good (though I disagree) but I hate labels like 'liberal'. Its like you put me in a group you like to bash (like a strawman group). Maybe thats why you say I hate blacks and minorities, which I don't, because you see me as a character in that group.
03-24-2016 , 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryS
ok you may have a point I shouldnt have jumped to conclusions. YOu shouldnt have either though in that post, saying what I think when you have no idea how I think.

There seems to be a general sense that Black people are less employed for economic reasons (how useful they are as employees), when it could be for others reasons. After all, Black people get a worse deal in the justice system usually and other reasons, so why wouldn't they in employment interviews?

Your arguments seem pretty good (though I disagree) but I hate labels like 'liberal'. Its like you put me in a group you like to bash (like a strawman group). Maybe thats why you say I hate blacks and minorities, which I don't, because you see me as a character in that group.
Employment interviews should not be that important. Employment interviews are more of a new phenomena, you use to be able to walk on the job and the foreman would give you a job on the spot.

If you have a restaurant where everyone is making $3 per hour, the farmers are making $3 per hour, and the truck drivers, you would expect the prices for the same goods would be 3x less than a company where the workers are paid $9 per hour.

So if you are paid 3x less but prices are 3x less relatively you are just as rich.

I bash on liberals because I was one, I know they are think they are good and more moral than the right. When Garcetti says he wants to raise the minimum wage, he actually thinks he is helping the poor people.

I would prefer to work at a publicly traded corporation where everyone is paid the same with 26 weeks of paid vacation a year. Where if you want to you can keep the vacation or cash it in. It should be a privilege to be a CEO, executive, or engineer, you should not be paid more for it.
03-28-2016 , 04:50 PM
They just raised the minimum wage in California to $15 in 2022. Either prices will have to rise or workers have to be cut to remain open. The average profit margin is about 5%, 1/2 of the sales tax. Debts have just been cut in 1/2, at the expense of debt holders. Illegals and foreigners will flock to the state. Savings have been confiscated. The minimum wage for the self-employed is $0.00.

Last edited by steelhouse; 03-28-2016 at 04:58 PM.
03-28-2016 , 09:12 PM
Quote:
They just raised the minimum wage in California to $15 in 2022. Either prices will have to rise or workers have to be cut to remain open. The average profit margin is about 5%, 1/2 of the sales tax. Debts have just been cut in 1/2, at the expense of debt holders. Illegals and foreigners will flock to the state. Savings have been confiscated. The minimum wage for the self-employed is $0.00.
I was looking for a thread to complain about this in, and I guess this is the best we got.

But yes, a $15 minimum wage for a moron whose #1 qualification is that they have a pulse is f*cking ******ed, and there are going to be enormous unintended consequences.

Here's one right off the bat: Say goodbye to live poker in California. I don't play that often anymore so I don't really care, but the juice is already pretty high and that's with a $10 minimum wage. A 50% increase over 5 years is ridiculous.
05-14-2016 , 06:18 AM
The way capitalism is suppose to work.

You have 3 restaurants A,B, and C. Restaurant A only hires whitey and pays $10 per hour (ph) and charges $10 per hamburger. Restaurant B decides decides to hire intercity kids and homeless for $5ph and charges $5 per hamburger. People still like Restaurant A better so B goes out of business. Restaurant C decides to hire intercity kids for $3ph and charge $5 per hamburger. Restaurant A seems to go out of business, but decides to offer fish and steak too and lowers wages to $8ph. Wages, quality of employees, and products all adjust but in the long run. Then some ass like Krugman, Marx, J. Brown, Sanders, E. Warren, Wolff, or Reich will always come along and say we need minimum wages, shorter hours, retirement accounts, unions omg, same pay for each sex, personal time offer, hurting mean bosses, maternity leave, safety, or any other scheme to help workers.

The reality is the only thing making people poorer is government itself. Most of these people trying to help you above would be fired from any of the above restaurant in about 2 days. If government would just get out of the way or remove barriers they already have, permitting, private ownership of unequal lands, and taxes, people would be far richer.

So you say the restaurant worker makes $3pr on average. While the farmer makes $15ph, the auto worker $25ph, the firefighter $30ph, and the lawyer $35ph. So the kid see the firefighter job as something he can do goes to public college gets all the certs, applies everywhere and the only one getting the jobs are firefighter families a, insiders, and racial quotas. What you see here is the government unwilling to lower the price of the job to allow anyone that applies and is qualified the job. They are creating racism and anxiety. Setting wages by unions, grades or experience is only going to create insanity wards. Everyone should be able to be a paid firefighter if they want, lower the wage, end the union!

In the meantime the restaurant worker can move to another profession, maybe a farmer, or maybe a new profession altogether like rocketman. But as a result, all professions are intertwined. The wages and working conditions are all set fairly as if an invisible hand is doing it. The only thing government can do to make people richer is end all wage laws, all unions, and private ownership of land laws, enforce all environmental laws, end all tariffs, corporations over schools, CEOs over economic professors, barriers to entry, end the fed, and all other laws that hurt people.

cheers. This is reality in the real world not some Krugman, Sanders, Trump (trade), or Obama beating and rape of the American worker. In the real world if you want to be a firefigher, show up to the fire station and be hired the same day with no experience or training.

Last edited by steelhouse; 05-14-2016 at 06:29 AM.
05-20-2016 , 06:57 AM
Quote:
Because the owners had locked the doors to the stairwells and exits – a then-common practice to prevent workers from taking unauthorized breaks and to reduce theft[6] – many of the workers could not escape and jumped from the high windows. The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards and helped spur the growth of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (ILGWU), which fought for better working conditions for sweatshop workers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triang...t_Factory_fire
You mean to tell me that I have to pay more for my shirts because of this bull****?! Let the immigrants get another job, or burn and decrease the surplus population; they are probably mostly illegal anyway, right?

****ing government, man
05-20-2016 , 04:49 PM
The workers should not work there if they don't like the conditions. If they did not steal, they would not have to locked up the stairwells. Employees should make sure they offer life insurance policies, breaks, and highest wages possible. Any employer that did not have bolt cutters at least around is not a company worth working for. As people leave the unsafe company they will either have to make it safe or lose workers to safer companies. Employee work at a company due to offer the corporation makes to the employee. The employee can take the offer and work there, or work somewhere else.

In San Francisco in 1906 when 1/2 the town burned down, having them install fire sprinkler systems was ok, because one building effects other buildings. If all had fire sprinkler systems, it would not be a problem. However in 1906 that technology was new, or non existent.

It is not government protecting you from smog by requiring you to get a smog check. It is government enforcing laws preventing other people from putting smog down your throat. Most environmental laws are similar to speeding tickets.

Many safety laws are to save the worker time to have to investigate whether a business is safe to work at. It did not come from unions or government.

Government has one purpose only to send you off to die in war, to take your money, and put you homeless on the street unless to pay $2000 a month to the man. Not to help you but give Obama 50 aides to go golfing, drivers, and a plane, a massive severance package and $50,000 speeches when he gets out. Otherwise all land would be free and you could move to New York City and build a 1000 square foot $1000 home. Then even minimum wage would make you rich.

It is a privilege and honor to work at a corporation. Corporations are not people, they are better than people.

If it is unsafe to work there post it on employment forums. With or without government laws, bad employers are unsafe to work for.

Last edited by steelhouse; 05-20-2016 at 04:55 PM.
05-21-2016 , 09:13 AM
the old "get another job" argument



Maybe victims of crime should, idk, move out of their crime-ridden areas? No need for police.

Maybe victims of car accidents should, idk, not drive around unsafe drivers? No need for traffic signs.

Maybe people who want to insulate their children from profanity should, idk, never listen to the radio? No need for the FCC.
05-21-2016 , 09:14 AM
Spoiler:
05-21-2016 , 09:15 AM
It has been a while since my last smog check, I'll admit.
05-24-2016 , 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelhouse
Suppose you own a company, call it company A. You have a job opening for a cook and it is a minimum wage job. The first guy is a white guy out of high school seems real eager to work, the second guy is a black guy who was fired from his last job after 3 weeks, and the third guy seems al-right but has tattoo and seems a little shady. Since they demand the same wage the minimum wage, the white guy is going to get the job.

Now consider the same scenario if there was no minimum wage. With no minimum wage, in addition to the 3 candidates, you might get more candidates consider the 4th an white non-violent ex-con but served in Iraq.

In this latter scenario with no minimum wage, the job goes to the candidate that wants it the most. He will underbid the others to offset his flaws. Suppose considering his prejudices and wage he decides to hire the black kid at $5.00 per hour with the promise to give a raise later.

Now the employer can afford to presently pay $15 per hour for the job. So the new hire goes well he turns out to be a real good employee and gets better as time goes on. However, he is looking to make more money. So he looks at other jobs and gets accepted as a another cook in for $12 per hour. Now suppose his current boss counter the offer and offers him $15 per hour.

Suppose Company A has a 50% profit and suppose company B has 25% profit but uses the rest for employees wages. As time goes on the best employees will move to company B since the wages are higher. The division of labor and the invisible hand of business with set the wages and fire the worst workers, allow the best companies to grow, and force the worst companies into bankruptcy. If wages are cut and prices drop it only gives the dollar more value. The dollar rising in value due to dropping prices is a wage increase. Thus low wages and low prices with low profits actually may be the best raise for poor people in America. Thank god for McDonalds and Walmart.

So suppose you have a mine and a bunch of union workers and they go on strike. Not considering the higher prices for the commodity consider the other people that want to get a job at the mine. Suppose the mine workers are getting paid $50 per hour. However, you have an unlimited list that would work for $15 per hour. Why to the typical liberals consider the union miners at $50 per hour good for workers? They gain at the expense of someone else.

You can follow the same logic with international trade such as U.S. steel, but in the end you will always find in every case that restricting what businesses do will always result in hurting the workers the most. As more restrictions are placed on businesses it will restrict the creation of competitors and the creation of new industries, this ultimately creates a smaller job market and lower wages. More businesses equals higher wages less profit and lower prices. Unions have value for health and safety standards and rehiring fired workers, but those ultimately help business too. What is good for business (or GM) is good for America.

After listening to Obama's speech tonight everything is wrong with it. It is not as Schumer says it is because the republicans are on the take. It is because all government involvement will damage wages and prices more than government involvement is suppose to help. This is because government is not subject to but disrupts the invisible hand and the division of labor which ultimately results in people being less free and wealthy.

Now consider his free college ideas. Now it is possible to provide free college to everyone, just tack on 5% when they graduate to their taxes and send it into a endowment fund to give to new college entrants to go to school. Thus there is no debt to be repaid and the vouchers goes to the student first. Thus the schools must compete for the vouchers. But all this could be and would be done privately without government involvement.

Obamas idea will only result in colleges charging more per student behind the scenes. Most colleges already charge the taxpayer $20,000 per year. Yes, it might be wise to allow students to enter college with no money but they should work for it in wages after they graduate. To work for it by completing it and with good grades, is no different than saying you are working by running on a treadmill. In the end the workers that don't go to school ultimately pay for someone else's vacation. And this government run vacation is not even that good.
What about ASIANs? Asians know how to cook.
05-24-2016 , 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryS
ok you may have a point I shouldnt have jumped to conclusions. YOu shouldnt have either though in that post, saying what I think when you have no idea how I think.

There seems to be a general sense that Black people are less employed for economic reasons (how useful they are as employees), when it could be for others reasons. After all, Black people get a worse deal in the justice system usually and other reasons, so why wouldn't they in employment interviews?

Your arguments seem pretty good (though I disagree) but I hate labels like 'liberal'. Its like you put me in a group you like to bash (like a strawman group). Maybe thats why you say I hate blacks and minorities, which I don't, because you see me as a character in that group.
Kneegrows got a SWEET deal when you compare to what the GovErNmenT has done to the american indian....hi-ho silver!

      
m