13 Nov 15
Originally posted by no1marauderWho or what is "society"? What are wages that is more than the price of labor? I want something done. I offer a price. It can be accepted or rejected. Wages are an agreement on price between a buyer and a seller.
Wages are far more than the price of labor. They are the primary determinant of demand and consumption. The lower the wages, the less advanced the economy will be and will also be more inherently unstable.
The economic system is created by society; there is no reason why society should accept a level of wages that is detrimental to the overall well-be ...[text shortened]... s some who have benefited from the economic system that society has created unhappy, that's TFB.
Society, whatever that is, has nothing to do with it. Low wages are usually the indicator of low skilled workers. Yes that indicates a less advanced economy, but it doesn't advance by simply raising wages. The skill of workers, and the application of capital to labor makes the economy advance, and that in turn increases the wages paid to labor.
Paying more doesn't magically advance an economy without progress in productivity. For millenniums of human existence, wages remained rather static, at or about subsistence levels, until the industrial revolution. In some backward cultures and nations conditions remain the same today.
Progress is created by progress, not by progressives.
13 Nov 15
Originally posted by no1marauderAha. Markets are created by society. You want to lay upon markets the degree of inequality, of poverty and of wealth. Have you come to grips with the fact that poverty and inequality has been a staple of human existence.
The "market" is a societal creation governed by societal rules and regulations. If the result of this human creation is large degrees of poverty and misery then it should be regulated as necessary to alleviate these undesirable results.
Only increases in productivity and education have enabled workers to ask for and get better wages, starting with the industrial revolution, and fed by not just markets, but by free markets. Workers have flourished where liberty has been present, not by command economies.
13 Nov 15
Originally posted by AThousandYoungUsually not. Wages are usually determined by the productive output of the worker. Effecting this are his enthusiasm and effort, his technical ability, and the capital applied to his labor.
Good point. Either way, lower wages don't lower the income of the wealthy.
http://www.economictheories.org/2008/07/adam-smith-wage-profit-rent-theory.html
A gravedigger with just his hands might take a week to dig a single grave. With a good shovel, he can dig one in a day. With a backhoe and knowledge of operation, he can dig a dozen a day. Knowledge and capital increase wages, and at the same time profits.
Originally posted by normbenignWorkers hardly "flourished" in the heyday of laissez faire capitalism as I have exhaustively documented on these forums many times. Subsistence level was what they got if they were lucky during the early part of the Industrial Revolution; usually they lived in abject poverty and in filthy living conditions that assured their early death.
Aha. Markets are created by society. You want to lay upon markets the degree of inequality, of poverty and of wealth. Have you come to grips with the fact that poverty and inequality has been a staple of human existence.
Only increases in productivity and education have enabled workers to ask for and get better wages, starting with the industrial re ...[text shortened]... free markets. Workers have flourished where liberty has been present, not by command economies.
It took the Progressive reforms of the late 19th and early 20th Century to improve the lot of the working man (which is the great majority of the population), reforms that you despise and would gladly reverse if you could.
13 Nov 15
Originally posted by normbenignYour fairy tale version of economics is laughable. Wages are determined by the relative strengths in bargaining position between the worker and the employer. The largest determinant of that is societal conditions and laws. Children working 12 hours a day during your laissez faire paradise of the 1800s were hardly paid based on their "productivity".
Usually not. Wages are usually determined by the productive output of the worker. Effecting this are his enthusiasm and effort, his technical ability, and the capital applied to his labor.
A gravedigger with just his hands might take a week to dig a single grave. With a good shovel, he can dig one in a day. With a backhoe and knowledge of operation, he can dig a dozen a day. Knowledge and capital increase wages, and at the same time profits.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you really wanted to know the truth, you would listen to the video of what Trump actually said instead of reading what some biased New York Times reporter writes. All you really want to do is bear false witness and argue about it. 😏
No he specifically said "Our wages are too high" referring to workers in the US. He was NOT misquoted.
14 Nov 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThe NY Times story given in the OP (which you obviously haven't read) accurately reported Trump's quotes at the debate and in the Morning Joe interview. Your YouTube is a small segment of the debate and ignores the MJ interview. Therefore it is you who are being either ignorant or dishonest.
If you really wanted to know the truth, you would listen to the video of what Trump actually said instead of reading what some biased New York Times reporter writes. All you really want to do is bear false witness and argue about it. 😏
15 Nov 15
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderGive me the reference to the Youtube video so I can listen to determine the context and tha accuracy of the claim. I really don't believe that New York Times Reporter. I don't understand why Trump would say it two different ways. You also have a tendency to lie. 😏
The NY Times story given in the OP (which you obviously haven't read) accurately reported Trump's quotes at the debate and in the Morning Joe interview. Your YouTube is a small segment of the debate and ignores the MJ interview. Therefore it is you who are being either ignorant or dishonest.
I found it for you. However, in context he was referring to our minimum wage being too high to compete with other countries. He said he would like to see it at $50, but that would not work if we are to compete with other countries.
Donald Trump GOP Debate Recap. - Morning Joe
Published on Nov 11, 2015
15 Nov 15
4 edits
There are some workers calling for a minimum wage of $15 an hour. Even Hilliary Clinton said that was too high. She said in the Democrat Debate on CBS that she would go for $12 an hour. So if they want $15 an hour then they better go with Bernie Sanders because he went with that like lightning.
Now in some cities where the cost of living is high, $15 an hour minimum wage might work just fine since all the people are used to paying high prices anyway and most of the people there are making better than the average wage anyway.
However, in another state and town where the cost of living is lower a 15$ an hour minumum wage would cause a lot of trouble for some small business that are just barely meeting payroll as it is. I believe the national minimum wage now is less than or close to $8 an hour and to pay $15 dollars an hour may force the small business to lay off workers. That is probably not so good for those that now are out of a job. Those keeping their jobs may also be forced to work faster and harder to keep the business going.
An alternate idea is to figure out how to reduce the cost of living for everyone. Also those wanting the higher wage could prepare themselves and apply for a higher wage position like many others do all the time.
18 Nov 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThere is no such thing as free fuel. It takes money to make a device to use any energy.
So we should rebuild the steel industry, right? We have let the major producers go to Germany or China. It seems to me we could redo the steel industry to be more cost effective than any Chinese company if we upped the technology to make steel production more efficient, less energy dependent. Like using the sun in Arizona or New Mexico to concentrate a few ...[text shortened]... ectricity, something like that. Expensive to start but free fuel will pay for itself eventually.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/16/u-s-steel-plants-are-on-a-layoff-spree-heres-why/
Tariffs are needed for the steel industry too. Losing such an important industry to foreign competitors would also be bad for defense/offense, especially if we went to war with China for whatever reason..
18 Nov 15
Originally posted by no1marauderI wonder how many people would go back to 14 hour workdays and if there is a coal stove for heat, you bring in your own coal to keep warm, and the medical bennies were zero. if you died, your wife and kids gets kicked out of the company supplied house.
Workers hardly "flourished" in the heyday of laissez faire capitalism as I have exhaustively documented on these forums many times. Subsistence level was what they got if they were lucky during the early part of the Industrial Revolution; usually they lived in abject poverty and in filthy living conditions that assured their early death.
It took the ...[text shortened]... eat majority of the population), reforms that you despise and would gladly reverse if you could.
Yessir, who wouldn't want to go back to such an idyllic lifestyle.
21 Nov 15
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat do you mean 'losing' the steel industry. I gather you have't been to Bethlehem Pa lately. It's now a casino. Pretty much the only steel industry in the US is recycling places, I see them all over the place, big electromagnets pulling steel into bins to go to the smelter to be used again. That is not really a steel industry. The big guns are in Germany and China.
There is no such thing as free fuel. It takes money to make a device to use any energy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/16/u-s-steel-plants-are-on-a-layoff-spree-heres-why/
Tariffs are needed for the steel industry too. Losing such an important industry to foreign competitors would also be bad for defense/offense, especially if we went to war with China for whatever reason..
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=61855.0
This is from 2010 and Bethlehem steel in Bethlehem is DOA, I know that for a fact, since I live here. This list says it was alive in 2010 but not now.
One sad note from that list, that the US cannot even produce the highest grades of steel anymore. We make a nice rebar though;;;;;
21 Nov 15
Originally posted by no1marauderWorkers flourished in relatively free economies, and progressive reforms took place in such economies, whereas they couldn't in command economies. It was the economic progress of the industrial revolution which altered the fate of workers.
Workers hardly "flourished" in the heyday of laissez faire capitalism as I have exhaustively documented on these forums many times. Subsistence level was what they got if they were lucky during the early part of the Industrial Revolution; usually they lived in abject poverty and in filthy living conditions that assured their early death.
It took the ...[text shortened]... eat majority of the population), reforms that you despise and would gladly reverse if you could.
Progressives of the demand economies of Russian just didn't manage to pull it off.
21 Nov 15
Originally posted by normbenignEconomics of Russian what?
Workers flourished in relatively free economies, and progressive reforms took place in such economies, whereas they couldn't in command economies. It was the economic progress of the industrial revolution which altered the fate of workers.
Progressives of the demand economies of Russian just didn't manage to pull it off.