Most innovation is backed by huge amounts of government spending. This runs against your theory that it's caused by markets. Just a few examples.
1. Internet - DARPA 2. Computers - research started by government 3. Pharmaceuticals - research paid for mainly by government (i.e. NIH) Only the final stages and FDA approval are performed by the companies themselves. Part of the reason FDA approval is so expensive is because it creates a huge barrier to entry. This helps create a government/corporate buereacracy that is lucrative for the drug companies. The last thing they want is markets, and they've been very successful in getting their way. 4. Telecom - received quite a bit of government subsidization and regulation in the beginning. 5. Aerospace - Boeing, Northrup Gruman, McDonnal Douglas, and others, could not exist without huge gravy train defense contracts, which are largely meant to keep the industry afloat. 6. Agriculture - this industry is heavily subsidized. 7. Auto - It is heavily subsidized by providing a road system for the cars to travel on, without which, the industry could not exist. It was written off as "defense" spending. If that same governemnt money was spent on public transportation, and the road system was left to privatization, it is highly likely the industry would collapse. 8. Power industry - again, highly regulated and subsidized, for good reason, one only need to look at Enron to see the effect of markets on national infrastructure.
Need I go on?
The other reason the US flourished while South America sank into a pit of corruption is due to a radically socialist government program known as the homestead act. This distributed the majority of the wealth of the country to the lower classes, and gave them the opportunity to innovate. Without that massive subsidy, the markets would never have taken off. The problem is, markets tend to concentrate wealth to the point that this equality of opportunity is no longer available. We are starting to face the same problem as 3rd world countries face. That is, the conentration of wealth is corrupting our government, causing declining innovation, and oppressing the lower classes. Unless we figure out a way to redistribute this wealth, and fast, we will end up with a stagnant economy, much like the majority of South America, and other 3rd world countries.
Oh, and don't point to India as an example of how great markets are, they are an example of how completely unrestrained markets, with corrupt governments (which are corrupted by the concentrated wealth that markets encourage), can destroy a society. That is, if we choose to rely on the entire population as a barameter for an economy, and not just the top 1%, the latter of which, unfortunately, seems to be the method that you prefer.
The root of the problem is that the parents are too afraid to stand up for their rights and demand that employers give them sane working hours with proper benefits. This problem has the same root as free trade. The problem is that our economy is crumbling due to the fact that there is no longer any market incentive for hiring a lot of workers. More and more tasks can be automated and those that cannot be automated can also be shipped overseas. This is what happens when you let unregulated markets run your economy for you. The irony is that our production has more than doubled in the last 30 years. However, that extra production is going into the pockets of the upperclasses, while at the same time wages are plummeting. If we keep letting markets run the economy, what we may end up with is a highly productive society where only a fraction of the population works at any one time, for poverty wages, while the rest scramble to find one of the remaining jobs. But, I don't think it will get that far, when people that have never been homeless, or hungry a day in their life start to experience what free trade is all about, they will rise up. Of that, I have no doubt.
As I've said before, this is the traditional article of faith that free trade advocates have been talking about for at least a decade. When you ask them a direct question such as, "Tell me what is going to replace all the IT jobs.", their response is,"We don't know yet.". This guy's article is a variant of that "article of faith". He's basically saying,"We're creative, we'll think of something". Nevermind the fact that people need to pay their bills NOW, not 5-10 years from now.
Here's an article that talks about the "leap of faith" we are expected to have. http://www.cwa-union.org/news/CWANewsDispla y.asp?I D=1383
It makes no sense to talk about things such as deserve, property, etc. without evaluating what one means by freedom. should be
It makes no sense to talk about words such as deserve, property, freedom etc. without evaluating what one means by them within the context that they are used.
Don't worry about replying, I'm talking to people who might be reading this not you. Have a nice day.
Nooo, it's because only within the context of reality that one can correctly evaluate how things work. It makes no sense to talk about things such as deserve, property, etc. without evaluating what one means by freedom. Slave owners used the word freedom to justify slavery back in the 19th century US. "Why shouldn't they have the freedom to own slaves?" Well, one can answer that by looking at the reality of slavery. The same goes for evaluating free trade, copyright, etc.
I'm writing you off as a troll. We'll agree to disagree. Have a nice day.
Second, the topic at hand, if you'll refresh your memory, is that corporations think they deserve to have the government enforce their gravy train, and to take away other's freedom to innovate. I think that taking someone's freedom to write software requires a large burden of proof, and I don't think that corporations have met that burden of proof. Open Source is not breaking the law, they are doing what they feel is right in a free society. I simply pointed out the obvious fact that corporations don't share. Then you asked me if I thought they should share. Yes, I do, but it's beside the point, because with Open Source, we don't need them to share. We don't ask them for anything. We don't ask the government for special protection or incentive. It's the corporations that feel that they are entitled.
BTW, you deserve to be able to tell me what kind of software I can write, correct?
I'm not going to answer that question out of context, because you are leaving out the fact that if it weren't for society and the police protection that we pay for to enforce their copyrights, Microsoft's copyrights wouldn't be worth the paper they are printed on. Basically, you are ordering me to answer out of context whether or not I DESERVE sourcecode. It depends on the context. What determines whether or not someone deserves anything? Can you answer that? It depends on the situation, if I pay the required amount, sure, I deserve it, as much as can be said about anything. What about expired source code? Should it be released to the public domain. Yes, I think that it's a small payment to society for the protection that society provides to copyright holders in the enforcement of copyright laws. There should be something that is given in return by the copyright holders in exchange for the monopoly that they are given, and I don't think that merely releasing the software is enough. An idea that is expressed in copyright law is the idea of public domain. In order for the public domain to have anything useful, it must have the source code in this case. Our current situation with software is similar to books that are printed on paper that crumples right when the copyright expires. It goes against the spirit of the copyright system.
I beleive that we should have a system that encourages open source in order to restrict the amount of control that corporations have over the technology industry. I should have the freedom to promote the kinds of institutions and groups that are dedicated to maximizing freedom for all Americans. I feel that encouraging laws and instutional structures that are greedy and refuse to give back to the society that supports them, even when it costs them nothing, is the wrong path to go. I don't deserve source code any more than Microsoft deserves my taxpayer dollars in order to keep me from freely using software produced by them. You might then say,"Well, how are we supposed to have innovation if you don't subsidize the police protection required to enforce copyright law?" I believe we have an answer in Open Source, much in the same way the Music Industry's pro copyright stance falls apart once you point out all the musicians that earn nothing from our current copyright laws.
Wow, you spotted an assumption. See, but if you'll pay attention, I pointed out that his assumption was incorrect. There is nothing wrong with an assumption, it's INCORRECT assumptions that are the problem. There is plenty of evidence that corporatiosn will lock it up and throw away the key. It's in their very nature to be controlling and greedy, even if they can't make a profit from it. When was the last time you were able to get a license for an Atari ROM so that you could legally run it in your emulator? How about the source code for old software that was written in 80's and is no longer used, have you had much luck in getting a hold of that? And the list goes on...
I disagree, it will likely result in job loss. Let's not take the route that free traders take and say that somehow it will magically create jobs. Chances are that it will not. I could be wrong, but don't enter into free software with this rosy picture of the future and a stronger economy, etc. That's not why we do it. We do it because the alternative is even worse. The alternative is letting large corporations have all of the control over the future of technology. Perhaps what you mean is that it will be better for employment than the current system. That might be true, just make sure that you aren't counting on it.
He's assuming that the direction the US IT industry was headed was a good a direction, with a small minority of people owning everything. I disagree with his assumption that this was a good direction for the industry to go. However, I do agree with his assertion that free software does strike a major blow to US corporations, and I think that this is a good thing.
He's assuming that the direction the US IT industry was headed was a good a direction, with a small minority of people owning everything. I agree, free software does strike a major blow to US corporations, and this is a good thing. Of course we can expect him to whine about how it's hurting them, but that's exactly what the point is, it's to loosen the grip of major corporations on IP, at all costs. It doesn't make sense to give corporations complete control over IP, if, in the long run, they'll simply lock it up and throw away the key, keeping a small team of programmers around for maintenance activities after the majority of work is done, but still charging the same price.
As far as free trade goes, let's try not be naive. He's implying that corporations are really nice guys who wouldn't offshore if only we could get rid of free software. This is an old trick. What he's doing, is he's taking two groups that are a threat to the IT industry, and these groups are: 1. IT workers who have recently been laid off and are upset at the industry for offshoring. 2. Open Source programmers who are creating software for free.
Now he is setting them up to fight amongst themselves so that they'll ignore what the industryis doing. The company I work for is doing the same thing. We have a Union here that is set to strike any day now. They keep bringing up the Union member's wages and saying,"See, look how much they get paid for what they do." Nevermind that they get paid a fraction of what I get paid. The assumption that they are implying is that the Union, by asking for higher wages, is causing my salary to drop and leeching off the company. That's pure nonsense. When low-level workers make more, then that causes everyone else wages to go up as well. This kind of wage inflation might be seen as a bad thing, until you realize where the money is coming from. It's coming from the top 1%. That top 1% owns about 43% of the wealth in the US, and they've managed to acquire 15% of that 43% in the last 20 years. When one knows that single fact, it's easy to see who the leeches are. They've stolen a huge chunk from Americans through scams such as free trade, credit cards, IRA's, Enron, Haliburton, etc., and getting some of is back to the people who actually work for it is a good thing in my opinion.
I think you make some good points but I would be careful to not co-opt everything that comes out of your tv set. I think that the "world owes me" attitude was propaganda made up by the media precisely to combat the fact that younger memebers of the last 3 generations have cared quite a bit for those around them (starting with Vietnam protests). If you are someone in power and you are faced with a lot of young people who are mobilized against you, then you have to do something. So, starting in the 80's, the media started droning on about "the me generation", and it was largely successful, as quite a few people started to adopt this slogan and look out for number one. Next came Generation X, the "slackers" who worked 60 hour weeks during the 90's. But, I think this is a case of media manipulation, not an accurate assessment of the desire of today's youth, or any generation's youth for that matter. The process of complete demoralization usually isn't finished until one reaches mid-life, and so I think that the terms "slacker" and "me generation" better apply to older Americans than it does to our young. (note that demoralization has two definitions, the first refers to having one's spirit crushed, the second refers to a loss of morals, or in other words, becoming corrupt. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, "I just don't care." when I describe something like what's going in present day Iraq. In that case, the 2nd definition applies.).
Also, one other point, is that in America we put very little funding into education. Most students are required to put an increasing amount into education. And, well, our high school system is an entire waste of time. So, I don't blame them for not wanting to "give back". I wish we had a society that cared more for it's young, rather than creating a bunch of anti-social automotons, but hey, that's America, richest country in the world.
As far as layoffs go, let's not kid ourselves, no one, and I mean, absolutely no one, not even people such as yourself, can compete with someone who is able to live on 10% of your yearly salary. It is absolutely impossible, and no one, not even the proponents of free trade, would expect an American to work for $6,000 a year, which would hardly be enough to provide a roof over one's head in a studio apartment in a small town, much less a large urban area. Even the proponents of free trade wouldn't say something as stupid as, "Gee, you just need to work twice as many hours per week, and then you might be able to afford food and clothing." The argument they have made is that other jobs will come down the pike, which hasn't happened.
I can't blame my fellow IT workers, many of whom dropped half a mortgage on their college education only to have their career evaporate, for not embracing another degree. Who in their right mind would take that kind of a risk on a degree, given the fact that the job market is so turbulent? I think the biggest problem is the fact that the rich in our country, who benefit from these highly educated workers, are unwilling to spend any of their tax dollars on educating them. Then, when things go wrong and they need talented, educated workers, they whine about the educational system. Well, there's a solution, spend your billions on education. There is no excuse not to do what other, poorer countries have managed to do much better.
What's ironic, is that India is going through the same thing that the US was four years ago. They have such a demand for workers over there, that everyone and their brother is getting into IT, which leads to a lot of clueless programmers screwing things up. On top of that, even the good ones are making so much money that they just aren't that motivated. Think about it, if you have 5 years of salary sitting in the bank, what motivation will you have to work over 40 hours of week or to bust your ass? Meanwhile, in the US, most of the bad programmers have been weeded out, and what's left are over-worked, but extremely talented programmers who often have everything on the line. That explains the difference in quality, in my opinion, not some "difference in culture" as others have said. I think that it's purely market based.
I still don't think that this will brigde the gap. There is just too large of a difference in pay, and I think we need to regulate "free" trade if we are to have any hope of preventing disasterous economic consquences. It's like an article that I have read on the CWA Union's website said, those that promote free trade basically are presenting an article of faith. They have nothing, they have no evidence at all that this will be good for society. In the mean time, they are making boatloads of cash during the "jobless recovery", and simply want us to just believe, without any evidence, that things will get better. It's pure BS, and I see no reason to believe these people, they have given me every reason not to trust them.
By the way, here is that article by the CWA presenting their view on "free trade". See, not everybody in America is insane, you just have to turn off the tv and focus on other sources of news if you want to make sense of it all. http://www.cwa-union.org/news/CWANewsDisplay .asp?I D=1383
Rights are whatever people want them to be. That's the only reason people have rights to begin with, is because at some point everbody agreed that things like democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of unlawful entry, right to bear arms, would be a good thing to have in a free society. So, if enough people want it, then yes, it IS a right. It's worth thinking about.
If you bother to study history, you will notice that complaining is part of fixing the problem of free trade. Crying is important. America doesn't need to do accpet anything. And, let's be accurate, by America, you mean America's poor and middleclass, since clearly America's wealthy love free trade. Likewise, India's poor needs to quit protesting the fact that their farms are being put out of business by US corprorate agriculture. They just need to accept the change as a small minority in their country get rich by expoiting free trade.
Here's something to think about, when you hear someone from India on slashdot talking about how wonderful free trade is, remember that only a minority of people in India can access the internet, and they are relatively wealthy. The majority of people around the world cannot stand this exploitative form of trade. If democracy means anything to you, then you will be in favor of allowing people to govern their own lives, rather than have them run by the richest in that society.
You could always ask him if he's taken his blue pill yet today or some variation thereof.
Speaking of clever ways of lying, a friend of mine introduced to me the concept of "unasking" a question. In other words, the idea is that lies can be masked in the form of assumptions that frame a question, i.e. "Did you hide the gun under the bed or in the fireplace?". I've tried to get in the habit of keeping a running translation of questions into commands, since essentially a question is a polite command for information. This I think helps one to properly defend themselves. I'm not sure how uesful it is, but it's an interesting exercise. So, the idea is to translate the language into how it makes you feel. If you feel like you are being coerced or commaned to squeeze your worldview into a box, then you might as well translate it into what it is, such that if you read it on a printed page, the intent would be clear without any context. In the case above you could translate it into,"We order you to admit that you either hid the gun under couch or that you hid in the fireplace, or else." BTW, I've enjoyed reading your posts, I still haven't made up my mind how much truth there is in what you write (due to a lack of information), but you have some interesting insights.
I don't think that the prices will go up. Prices of commodities have not come down due to free trade, I see little reason to believe that they would go up if the minimum wage was raised. There is a huge disconnect between wages and product pricing, that disconnect is of course the huge wads of cash that business owners are putting in their pockets. What seems to be the only determining factor in determining labor price is how much labor is willing to put up with. If people put up with a $5.15 wage, then that is what it costs, if they don't, then wages start to go up.
But, it's somewhat beside the point. For example, let's say that you are right, and prices of goods does go up, there is one thing that you are not noticing, and that is the fact that inflation tends to be a great equalizer in society, and actually is a good thing for most of the working poor. The reason is that it reduces the power of those who hoard cash. If I'm a billionaire, and the only way I manage to make any money from my inherited billions is by sitting around on my computer and movie my billions to and from one market to another, or from one interest bearing account to another, without doing any real work, then if inflation doubles, suddenly my power is cut in half, and if it keeps happening, eventually I will have to work for a living. This is why our government hates inflation so much. It's a serious problem for the wealthy.
The main problem I have with your argument is that you are making the assumption that the business world is so cut-throat that any increase in living standard for poor people will have all these horrible consequences of job loss, cuts in healthcare, etc. That may happen, but it's not for the reason that you think. There is one statistic in the US that flies in the face of your assumption. If you look at who owns what, the top 1% of the US population owned about 28% of the wealth in the early 1980's, and now own about 43% of the wealth of the country. In other words, there has been a massive shift of money to that top 1%, in only 20 years. Free trade has created such huge profits that one article in the Wall Street Journal in the 90's basically said, "Profits are soaring! The only problem, what to do with all that cash." I'm not sure what the value of 15% of total US assets is, but it's a fairly big number with a lot of zeros after it. (simply go to the US census website for information on income, economic stats, the whole ball of wax. It takes a bit of work to ferret this stuff out, but it'll mean a lot more to you if you find out for yourself.) When you keep that statistic in mind, the behavior of big business suddenly become clear. They don't screw over employees because they're losing money, in fact, they're rolling in it. The treat their employees like shit because several trillion just isn't enough for them. They won't stop at 43% either, they're going to keep going until they own it all. That's the reality of the situation. You can theorize all you want about it being a cut-throat business world, with lots of competition, but the only real competition is between workers who want a living wage, and transnational corporations who serve as an extension of the American upper class.
So, here's a question, if the business world is so cut-throat, then how are they managing to transfer 15% of the wealth of the country into their pockets in a mere 20 years? Shouldn't competition prevent that, and cause stabilization of wealth distribution? If we havne't reach equilibrium in 200 years, then when will we reach equilibrium, when they finally own everything? From everything I can see, the market will not reach equilibrium until the majority of wealth in the US is concentrated in the hands of a few. When that happens, what will be the difference between the US and a dictorship? If one person owns all the land, for example, is that any different than having a dictorship? After all, what rights will I have on someone else's land?
You need to have acid tests for theories, in other words a standard that you can use to measure a theory. One part of judging a theory or metaphor is it's usefulness in increasing our understanding. I think that your reference to bacteria studies is an interesting analogy, but it's not very useful for understanding what's going on with humanity. It reminds me a lot of the "meme" analogy, it's interesting to think about, but doesn't seem to be a very useful analogy. One very large difference between bacteria and people is that bacteria continue to grow if given more food and resources, human populations tend to stay relatively static in industrialized nations. Humans behave in dramatically different ways than bacteria. This is not a trivial difference. Most of our social problems are a reflection of problems with our economic system, not people in general. We have plenty of resources to feed, shelter, and provide for all members of our society. I believe that the reason this is not done is because keeping people hungry and scared provides an element of control. That is why we have the largest jail population in the entire world, and why our leaders allow for there to be a homeless population, it's a message to everyone else, "Fall in line and work hard or you'll end up like them."
If you look at society from a pure resource standpoint (in other words get away from that useless concept of money, and simply evaluate resources based on availability and cost in terms of labor to use that resource), we have plenty of food, in fact, a constant surplus, so feeding everyone shouldn't be a problem. What about housing? Well, that's relatively cheap too, we have plenty of land, trees, and an excess of labor to build those houses with. Ok, let's move on to gas. Should it be cheap? Hmm, it's worth thinking about, I would say the answer is no, it's a hard to produce, limited resource, that will only last another 30-50 years at our current rate of consumption. What does this tell us? It tells us that the value that is placed on things in the market is absolutely horrible from a standpoint of determining social policy. I wouldn't think about supporting old people in terms of money. It's too easy to have your thinking clouded when you think in terms of dollars, since the price of things is so easily manipulated by those in power (case in point, read about Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia's deal with Bush to lower the price of oil right before the 2004 presidential elections. This deal was struck in January of 2003 while the US was claiming to solve the Iraq WMD problem with "diplomacy". It was in exchange for Bush guaranteeing that he was going to invade Iraq, all back in Januray of 2003.). Instead, I would think about it from a resource standpoint. Do we have enough food? yes, in fact we have a constant oversupply of food. Do we have enough resources to house them? yes. Do we have enough healthcare? No, but the important thing to ask is why we don't.
I think if you think in terms of dollars and cents, it's too easy to be manipulated. The price set by the market is very prone to manipulation, and these manipulations can dramatically distort one's thinking. One striking example was my SO's categorizing my beowoulf cluster project as a big toy and impratical. If we think in terms of resources, silicon is very abundant, and consumes relatively small amounts of resources to turn into a computer. My car, on the other hand, consumes a much more precious resource (oil), and has much less potential to do good. If we think about it clearly, it would appear that the car is very impratical, while my beowulf cluster has a lot of potentially practical uses. But, the money equation makes the car appear more practical. The car is less expensive in terms of dollars, and has an immediate use. If we think long-term, and think in terms of resources used, I believe we can have a much saner definition of what is practical and what is not. Much of what we think of as pratical has been manipulated by market dis
You're right, it was an over-simplification that ignores the obvious fact that if things get low enough people simply drop out or attempt to form their own business. Now, there some pretty huge barriers that make the latter rather difficult, but there is evidence that the former (which is simply dropping out) is happening at an alarming rate in the US. Go through my posts and read the last post that I wrote. Basically, as I explained in that post, "dropping out" is a nice euphenism for some of what is happening already in our country. People are already refusing the $5.15 an hour and choosing crime, or simply to drop out and go on welfare if they can, or be homeless. None of these things are good. This is part of the reason that we have such a huge jail population, the largest in the world, even larger than China's. So, you are right, I did over-simplify, simply to help make my point more succint, not because I was afraid of where logically extending my argument would take us. If anything taking into account the fact that people will only go so low makes my argument stronger, not weaker. When a large enough group of people reach that breaking point, it usually means the destruction of the society they are a part of.
They SHOULD always seek to hire the least amount possible. If it costs me $10 to make my product (car, ladder, gallon of milk, whatever) then I can sell it to you for $20 and make $10 of profit.
I never said that they shouldn't. It follows from that fact that employers will not hire more people just because wages fall. My opponent was saying that if wages dropped that employers would start hiring more people. This makes no sense from a business stand point. You hire the people you need, no more, and ideally, no less. However, just because there is no market reason for hiring everyone doesn't mean that not everyone should be given a chance to work. Try to come up with a free market reason for paying a living wage, for not having slavery, or for educating our youth, social security, affordable healthcare, growing enough food to buffer during famine years, etc. There are none that I can think of, or that are compelling enough to force all unregulated companies to do what I consider the desirable thing to do. However, that doesn't mean that they aren't worthwhile. Some things, such as certain basic rights, should not be enforced by the market.
As far as the labor price goes, it is simplified quite a bit. Obviously, if things get bad enough people will attempt to form their own business, revolt or strike, or simply refuse to participate in the economy. All of this happens in the 3rd world, where quite a few people simply refuse to participate in the economy, there are many rebellions and strikes, etc. So, you are right, there reaches a certain point where people simply refuse to go any lower. However, many things break before we get to that point, and that is not an ideal situation.
Ok, on the last one, it was a stupid question for me to ask, since , as you said, they can't hire people for less than $5.15. Point taken. I partially corrected myself later. However, I think even if they did get rid of minimum wage, that $5.15 is getting so low that as you pointed out, people are dropping out of the system rather than participate in the economy. Let's not kid ourselves, this is NOT a good thing. It would be helpful to think about what "dropping out of the system" really means. That means you could be staring down the barrel of a gun held by someone that drops out of the system or have your city over-run by protests and riots. Or, you could be paying a much higher social cost to house these people in prison, and ironically, this labor will then be used by private industry for below minimum wage. We already have the largest jail population of any country in the world. Granted, we are a civilized country, we don't shoot them like China, but that should get the concern of anyone who promotes freedom as you are claiming to do. Whose freedom are you promoting and why? What exactly are we supposed to do with all the people that can't earn a living, simply lock them up and be done with it? That doesn't sound like a free country to me, by any definition.
They SHOULD always seek to hire the least amount possible. If it costs me $10 to make my product (car, ladder, gallon of milk, whatever) then I can sell it to you for $20 and make $10 of profit.
I never said that they shouldn't. It follows from that fact that employers will not hire more people just because wages fall. My opponent was saying that if wages dropped that employers would start hiring more people. This makes no sense from a business stand point. You hire the people you need, no more, and ideally, no less. However, just because there is no market reason for hiring everyone doesn't mean that not everyone should be given a chance to work. Try to come up with a free market reason for paying a living wage, for not having slavery, or for educating our youth, social security, affordable healthcare, growing enough food to buffer during famine years, etc. There are none that I can think, or that are compelling enough to force all unregulated companies to do what I consider that desirable thing. However, that doesn't mean that they aren't worthwhile. Some things, such as certain basic rights, should not be enforced by the market.
As far as the labor price goes, it is simplified quite a bit. Obviously, if things get bad enough people will attempt to form their own business, revolt or strike, or simply refuse to participate in the economy. All of this happens in the 3rd world, where quite a few people simply refuse to participate in the economy, there are many rebellions and strikes, etc. So, you are right, there reaches a certain point where people simply refuse to go any lower. However, many things break before we get to that point, and that is not an ideal situation.
Ok, on the last one, it was a stupid question for me to ask, since , as you said, they can't hire people for less than $5.15. I partially corrected myself later. However, I think even if they did get rid of minimum wage, that $5.15 is getting so low that as you pointed out, people are choosing to drop out of the system rather than participate in the economy. However, lets not kid ourselves, this is NOT a good thing. It would be helpful to think about what "drop out of the system" really means. That means you could be staring down the barrel of a gun held by one of these people that "drop out of the system" or have your city over-run by protests and riots. Or, you could be paying a much higher social cost to house these people in prison, and ironically, this labor will then be used by private industry for below minimum wage. We already have the largest jail population of any country in the world. Granted, we are a civilized country, we don't shoot them like China, but that should get the concern of anyone who promotes freedom as you are claiming to do. Whose freedom? What exactly are we supposed to do with all the people that can't earn a living, simply lock them up and be done with it? That doesn't sound like a free country to me, by any definition.
Just keep in mind that stupidity doesn't keep people down. You're seriously delusional if you believe that. What keeps people down are the tanks, planes, police in full riot gear with batons and fully loaded assault rifles. You would be stupid not to back down to that. So, when Joe sickpack turns on the 6:00 news and sees a bunch of cops with loaded guns, perhaps using the "safe" rubber bullets that only shatter bone rather than kill, belting protestors and keeping them in line, they say to themselves, "That's not for me." That's not stupidity, that's self preservation. But, you don't notice the guns, the police, the high security fences surrounding your friendly transnational corporation because you are trained not to notice that. You fail to understand the role that violence plays in all of this, even in a "free" society such as America.
Facts? Ok, I can't "prove" any of this to you. However, disproving things is much easier. I would challenge you to find a case of a Union shop having the effect of an employer treating non-Union employees worse. I can't think of any, nor can I think of how this would occur. What would an employer do, tell it's non-Union employees that the Union is causing their wages to drop? If they do that enough, then the non-Union employees will form a Union. Not only that, but non-Union shops still have to compete with Union shops for employees. If your competitor is offering $40 an hour to it's employees, and you only offer $25 for the same amount of work, how can you expect to compete? It would seem rather self-evident that market forces would cause both Union and non-Union shops to increase their wages. This of course can cause devaluation of the dollar, however, that's a good thing in this case, since devaluation actually reduces the amount of power that those with lots of cash have over us. If someone is sitting on a pile of $20 billion dollars and wielding it like a stick to beat labor into submission, cutting the value of that money in half reduces the power that they have.
As far as ad-hominen attacks go, I fail to see how paying attention to the facts is an ad-hominem attack. I was merely giving my opponent credit for understanding the fact that without labor unions it is likely that the conditions of working people, including children, would likely get much worse. Things didn't get better magically. Businesses didn't accept a minimum wage and health benefits out of the goodness of their own hearts. The logical extension of "letting the market set prices", is going back to conditions when the market did set the price. We have history, we have facts, we know what it was like when "the market set the price". I shouldn't have to dredge up every single fact or write a book to remind him of this. The logical extension of what he is promoting are similar conditions to the early 20th century in America, or the current situation in the 3rd world, where there are no regulations.
Yes, I have backed that up. I've told you the facts, that things were much worse before Unions were around. More specifically, in countries that have no Unions, such as Mexico, India, the majority of South America, China, etc., the workers are treated much worse. The economies in the majority of the 3rd world are about as unregulated as it gets, with no environmental protections, no labor laws, etc, and I see no reason to envy them, can you give me any? I'm sorry if that's not enough for you, I'm not going to find references for everything I say in an online forum. Maybe some other time I will. If you really believe that workers were treated better before Unions, then I would like to see your evidence. I have found references in the past but I think that the effect Unions have had on wages is fairly obvious.
5.15 is supposed to be 5.50. Obviously 5.15 is the minimum wage. That still doesn't explain why all the Mexicans don't have jobs right now, same goes for India. History shows that employers won't go out of their way to hire people, even if the price of labor is very low to non-existent. History also shows that if people fight for a higher wage, that everyone prospers, as that extra income is not hoarded, but instead put right back into the system. Working people can't afford to hoard money. Your theory that allowing the market to set the wage will help society has no basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Most innovation is backed by huge amounts of government spending. This runs against your theory that it's caused by markets. Just a few examples.
1. Internet - DARPA
2. Computers - research started by government
3. Pharmaceuticals - research paid for mainly by government (i.e. NIH) Only the final stages and FDA approval are performed by the companies themselves. Part of the reason FDA approval is so expensive is because it creates a huge barrier to entry. This helps create a government/corporate buereacracy that is lucrative for the drug companies. The last thing they want is markets, and they've been very successful in getting their way.
4. Telecom - received quite a bit of government subsidization and regulation in the beginning.
5. Aerospace - Boeing, Northrup Gruman, McDonnal Douglas, and others, could not exist without huge gravy train defense contracts, which are largely meant to keep the industry afloat.
6. Agriculture - this industry is heavily subsidized.
7. Auto - It is heavily subsidized by providing a road system for the cars to travel on, without which, the industry could not exist. It was written off as "defense" spending. If that same governemnt money was spent on public transportation, and the road system was left to privatization, it is highly likely the industry would collapse.
8. Power industry - again, highly regulated and subsidized, for good reason, one only need to look at Enron to see the effect of markets on national infrastructure.
Need I go on?
The other reason the US flourished while South America sank into a pit of corruption is due to a radically socialist government program known as the homestead act. This distributed the majority of the wealth of the country to the lower classes, and gave them the opportunity to innovate. Without that massive subsidy, the markets would never have taken off. The problem is, markets tend to concentrate wealth to the point that this equality of opportunity is no longer available. We are starting to face the same problem as 3rd world countries face. That is, the conentration of wealth is corrupting our government, causing declining innovation, and oppressing the lower classes. Unless we figure out a way to redistribute this wealth, and fast, we will end up with a stagnant economy, much like the majority of South America, and other 3rd world countries.
Oh, and don't point to India as an example of how great markets are, they are an example of how completely unrestrained markets, with corrupt governments (which are corrupted by the concentrated wealth that markets encourage), can destroy a society. That is, if we choose to rely on the entire population as a barameter for an economy, and not just the top 1%, the latter of which, unfortunately, seems to be the method that you prefer.
The root of the problem is that the parents are too afraid to stand up for their rights and demand that employers give them sane working hours with proper benefits. This problem has the same root as free trade. The problem is that our economy is crumbling due to the fact that there is no longer any market incentive for hiring a lot of workers. More and more tasks can be automated and those that cannot be automated can also be shipped overseas. This is what happens when you let unregulated markets run your economy for you. The irony is that our production has more than doubled in the last 30 years. However, that extra production is going into the pockets of the upperclasses, while at the same time wages are plummeting. If we keep letting markets run the economy, what we may end up with is a highly productive society where only a fraction of the population works at any one time, for poverty wages, while the rest scramble to find one of the remaining jobs. But, I don't think it will get that far, when people that have never been homeless, or hungry a day in their life start to experience what free trade is all about, they will rise up. Of that, I have no doubt.
As I've said before, this is the traditional article of faith that free trade advocates have been talking about for at least a decade. When you ask them a direct question such as, "Tell me what is going to replace all the IT jobs.", their response is,"We don't know yet.". This guy's article is a variant of that "article of faith". He's basically saying,"We're creative, we'll think of something". Nevermind the fact that people need to pay their bills NOW, not 5-10 years from now.
a y.asp?I D=1383
Here's an article that talks about the "leap of faith" we are expected to have.
http://www.cwa-union.org/news/CWANewsDispl
quick correction
It makes no sense to talk about things such as deserve, property, etc. without evaluating what one means by freedom.
should be
It makes no sense to talk about words such as deserve, property, freedom etc. without evaluating what one means by them within the context that they are used.
Don't worry about replying, I'm talking to people who might be reading this not you. Have a nice day.
Nooo, it's because only within the context of reality that one can correctly evaluate how things work. It makes no sense to talk about things such as deserve, property, etc. without evaluating what one means by freedom. Slave owners used the word freedom to justify slavery back in the 19th century US. "Why shouldn't they have the freedom to own slaves?" Well, one can answer that by looking at the reality of slavery. The same goes for evaluating free trade, copyright, etc.
I'm writing you off as a troll. We'll agree to disagree. Have a nice day.
Define the word freedom...
Second, the topic at hand, if you'll refresh your memory, is that corporations think they deserve to have the government enforce their gravy train, and to take away other's freedom to innovate. I think that taking someone's freedom to write software requires a large burden of proof, and I don't think that corporations have met that burden of proof. Open Source is not breaking the law, they are doing what they feel is right in a free society. I simply pointed out the obvious fact that corporations don't share. Then you asked me if I thought they should share. Yes, I do, but it's beside the point, because with Open Source, we don't need them to share. We don't ask them for anything. We don't ask the government for special protection or incentive. It's the corporations that feel that they are entitled.
BTW, you deserve to be able to tell me what kind of software I can write, correct?
I'm not going to answer that question out of context, because you are leaving out the fact that if it weren't for society and the police protection that we pay for to enforce their copyrights, Microsoft's copyrights wouldn't be worth the paper they are printed on. Basically, you are ordering me to answer out of context whether or not I DESERVE sourcecode. It depends on the context. What determines whether or not someone deserves anything? Can you answer that? It depends on the situation, if I pay the required amount, sure, I deserve it, as much as can be said about anything. What about expired source code? Should it be released to the public domain. Yes, I think that it's a small payment to society for the protection that society provides to copyright holders in the enforcement of copyright laws. There should be something that is given in return by the copyright holders in exchange for the monopoly that they are given, and I don't think that merely releasing the software is enough. An idea that is expressed in copyright law is the idea of public domain. In order for the public domain to have anything useful, it must have the source code in this case. Our current situation with software is similar to books that are printed on paper that crumples right when the copyright expires. It goes against the spirit of the copyright system.
I beleive that we should have a system that encourages open source in order to restrict the amount of control that corporations have over the technology industry. I should have the freedom to promote the kinds of institutions and groups that are dedicated to maximizing freedom for all Americans. I feel that encouraging laws and instutional structures that are greedy and refuse to give back to the society that supports them, even when it costs them nothing, is the wrong path to go. I don't deserve source code any more than Microsoft deserves my taxpayer dollars in order to keep me from freely using software produced by them. You might then say,"Well, how are we supposed to have innovation if you don't subsidize the police protection required to enforce copyright law?" I believe we have an answer in Open Source, much in the same way the Music Industry's pro copyright stance falls apart once you point out all the musicians that earn nothing from our current copyright laws.
Wow, you spotted an assumption. See, but if you'll pay attention, I pointed out that his assumption was incorrect. There is nothing wrong with an assumption, it's INCORRECT assumptions that are the problem. There is plenty of evidence that corporatiosn will lock it up and throw away the key. It's in their very nature to be controlling and greedy, even if they can't make a profit from it. When was the last time you were able to get a license for an Atari ROM so that you could legally run it in your emulator? How about the source code for old software that was written in 80's and is no longer used, have you had much luck in getting a hold of that? And the list goes on...
I disagree, it will likely result in job loss. Let's not take the route that free traders take and say that somehow it will magically create jobs. Chances are that it will not. I could be wrong, but don't enter into free software with this rosy picture of the future and a stronger economy, etc. That's not why we do it. We do it because the alternative is even worse. The alternative is letting large corporations have all of the control over the future of technology. Perhaps what you mean is that it will be better for employment than the current system. That might be true, just make sure that you aren't counting on it.
My first paragraph should start...
He's assuming that the direction the US IT industry was headed was a good a direction, with a small minority of people owning everything. I disagree with his assumption that this was a good direction for the industry to go. However, I do agree with his assertion that free software does strike a major blow to US corporations, and I think that this is a good thing.
He's assuming that the direction the US IT industry was headed was a good a direction, with a small minority of people owning everything. I agree, free software does strike a major blow to US corporations, and this is a good thing. Of course we can expect him to whine about how it's hurting them, but that's exactly what the point is, it's to loosen the grip of major corporations on IP, at all costs. It doesn't make sense to give corporations complete control over IP, if, in the long run, they'll simply lock it up and throw away the key, keeping a small team of programmers around for maintenance activities after the majority of work is done, but still charging the same price.
As far as free trade goes, let's try not be naive. He's implying that corporations are really nice guys who wouldn't offshore if only we could get rid of free software. This is an old trick. What he's doing, is he's taking two groups that are a threat to the IT industry, and these groups are:
1. IT workers who have recently been laid off and are upset at the industry for offshoring.
2. Open Source programmers who are creating software for free.
Now he is setting them up to fight amongst themselves so that they'll ignore what the industryis doing. The company I work for is doing the same thing. We have a Union here that is set to strike any day now. They keep bringing up the Union member's wages and saying,"See, look how much they get paid for what they do." Nevermind that they get paid a fraction of what I get paid. The assumption that they are implying is that the Union, by asking for higher wages, is causing my salary to drop and leeching off the company. That's pure nonsense. When low-level workers make more, then that causes everyone else wages to go up as well. This kind of wage inflation might be seen as a bad thing, until you realize where the money is coming from. It's coming from the top 1%. That top 1% owns about 43% of the wealth in the US, and they've managed to acquire 15% of that 43% in the last 20 years. When one knows that single fact, it's easy to see who the leeches are. They've stolen a huge chunk from Americans through scams such as free trade, credit cards, IRA's, Enron, Haliburton, etc., and getting some of is back to the people who actually work for it is a good thing in my opinion.
I think you make some good points but I would be careful to not co-opt everything that comes out of your tv set. I think that the "world owes me" attitude was propaganda made up by the media precisely to combat the fact that younger memebers of the last 3 generations have cared quite a bit for those around them (starting with Vietnam protests). If you are someone in power and you are faced with a lot of young people who are mobilized against you, then you have to do something. So, starting in the 80's, the media started droning on about "the me generation", and it was largely successful, as quite a few people started to adopt this slogan and look out for number one. Next came Generation X, the "slackers" who worked 60 hour weeks during the 90's. But, I think this is a case of media manipulation, not an accurate assessment of the desire of today's youth, or any generation's youth for that matter. The process of complete demoralization usually isn't finished until one reaches mid-life, and so I think that the terms "slacker" and "me generation" better apply to older Americans than it does to our young. (note that demoralization has two definitions, the first refers to having one's spirit crushed, the second refers to a loss of morals, or in other words, becoming corrupt. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, "I just don't care." when I describe something like what's going in present day Iraq. In that case, the 2nd definition applies.).
Also, one other point, is that in America we put very little funding into education. Most students are required to put an increasing amount into education. And, well, our high school system is an entire waste of time. So, I don't blame them for not wanting to "give back". I wish we had a society that cared more for it's young, rather than creating a bunch of anti-social automotons, but hey, that's America, richest country in the world.
As far as layoffs go, let's not kid ourselves, no one, and I mean, absolutely no one, not even people such as yourself, can compete with someone who is able to live on 10% of your yearly salary. It is absolutely impossible, and no one, not even the proponents of free trade, would expect an American to work for $6,000 a year, which would hardly be enough to provide a roof over one's head in a studio apartment in a small town, much less a large urban area. Even the proponents of free trade wouldn't say something as stupid as, "Gee, you just need to work twice as many hours per week, and then you might be able to afford food and clothing." The argument they have made is that other jobs will come down the pike, which hasn't happened.
I can't blame my fellow IT workers, many of whom dropped half a mortgage on their college education only to have their career evaporate, for not embracing another degree. Who in their right mind would take that kind of a risk on a degree, given the fact that the job market is so turbulent? I think the biggest problem is the fact that the rich in our country, who benefit from these highly educated workers, are unwilling to spend any of their tax dollars on educating them. Then, when things go wrong and they need talented, educated workers, they whine about the educational system. Well, there's a solution, spend your billions on education. There is no excuse not to do what other, poorer countries have managed to do much better.
What's ironic, is that India is going through the same thing that the US was four years ago. They have such a demand for workers over there, that everyone and their brother is getting into IT, which leads to a lot of clueless programmers screwing things up. On top of that, even the good ones are making so much money that they just aren't that motivated. Think about it, if you have 5 years of salary sitting in the bank, what motivation will you have to work over 40 hours of week or to bust your ass? Meanwhile, in the US, most of the bad programmers have been weeded out, and what's left are over-worked, but extremely talented programmers who often have everything on the line. That explains the difference in quality, in my opinion, not some "difference in culture" as others have said. I think that it's purely market based.
y .asp?I D=1383
I still don't think that this will brigde the gap. There is just too large of a difference in pay, and I think we need to regulate "free" trade if we are to have any hope of preventing disasterous economic consquences. It's like an article that I have read on the CWA Union's website said, those that promote free trade basically are presenting an article of faith. They have nothing, they have no evidence at all that this will be good for society. In the mean time, they are making boatloads of cash during the "jobless recovery", and simply want us to just believe, without any evidence, that things will get better. It's pure BS, and I see no reason to believe these people, they have given me every reason not to trust them.
By the way, here is that article by the CWA presenting their view on "free trade". See, not everybody in America is insane, you just have to turn off the tv and focus on other sources of news if you want to make sense of it all.
http://www.cwa-union.org/news/CWANewsDispla
Rights are whatever people want them to be. That's the only reason people have rights to begin with, is because at some point everbody agreed that things like democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of unlawful entry, right to bear arms, would be a good thing to have in a free society. So, if enough people want it, then yes, it IS a right. It's worth thinking about.
If you bother to study history, you will notice that complaining is part of fixing the problem of free trade. Crying is important. America doesn't need to do accpet anything. And, let's be accurate, by America, you mean America's poor and middleclass, since clearly America's wealthy love free trade. Likewise, India's poor needs to quit protesting the fact that their farms are being put out of business by US corprorate agriculture. They just need to accept the change as a small minority in their country get rich by expoiting free trade.
Here's something to think about, when you hear someone from India on slashdot talking about how wonderful free trade is, remember that only a minority of people in India can access the internet, and they are relatively wealthy. The majority of people around the world cannot stand this exploitative form of trade. If democracy means anything to you, then you will be in favor of allowing people to govern their own lives, rather than have them run by the richest in that society.
You could always ask him if he's taken his blue pill yet today or some variation thereof.
Speaking of clever ways of lying, a friend of mine introduced to me the concept of "unasking" a question. In other words, the idea is that lies can be masked in the form of assumptions that frame a question, i.e. "Did you hide the gun under the bed or in the fireplace?". I've tried to get in the habit of keeping a running translation of questions into commands, since essentially a question is a polite command for information. This I think helps one to properly defend themselves. I'm not sure how uesful it is, but it's an interesting exercise. So, the idea is to translate the language into how it makes you feel. If you feel like you are being coerced or commaned to squeeze your worldview into a box, then you might as well translate it into what it is, such that if you read it on a printed page, the intent would be clear without any context. In the case above you could translate it into,"We order you to admit that you either hid the gun under couch or that you hid in the fireplace, or else." BTW, I've enjoyed reading your posts, I still haven't made up my mind how much truth there is in what you write (due to a lack of information), but you have some interesting insights.
I don't think that the prices will go up. Prices of commodities have not come down due to free trade, I see little reason to believe that they would go up if the minimum wage was raised. There is a huge disconnect between wages and product pricing, that disconnect is of course the huge wads of cash that business owners are putting in their pockets. What seems to be the only determining factor in determining labor price is how much labor is willing to put up with. If people put up with a $5.15 wage, then that is what it costs, if they don't, then wages start to go up.
But, it's somewhat beside the point. For example, let's say that you are right, and prices of goods does go up, there is one thing that you are not noticing, and that is the fact that inflation tends to be a great equalizer in society, and actually is a good thing for most of the working poor. The reason is that it reduces the power of those who hoard cash. If I'm a billionaire, and the only way I manage to make any money from my inherited billions is by sitting around on my computer and movie my billions to and from one market to another, or from one interest bearing account to another, without doing any real work, then if inflation doubles, suddenly my power is cut in half, and if it keeps happening, eventually I will have to work for a living. This is why our government hates inflation so much. It's a serious problem for the wealthy.
The main problem I have with your argument is that you are making the assumption that the business world is so cut-throat that any increase in living standard for poor people will have all these horrible consequences of job loss, cuts in healthcare, etc. That may happen, but it's not for the reason that you think. There is one statistic in the US that flies in the face of your assumption. If you look at who owns what, the top 1% of the US population owned about 28% of the wealth in the early 1980's, and now own about 43% of the wealth of the country. In other words, there has been a massive shift of money to that top 1%, in only 20 years. Free trade has created such huge profits that one article in the Wall Street Journal in the 90's basically said, "Profits are soaring! The only problem, what to do with all that cash." I'm not sure what the value of 15% of total US assets is, but it's a fairly big number with a lot of zeros after it. (simply go to the US census website for information on income, economic stats, the whole ball of wax. It takes a bit of work to ferret this stuff out, but it'll mean a lot more to you if you find out for yourself.) When you keep that statistic in mind, the behavior of big business suddenly become clear. They don't screw over employees because they're losing money, in fact, they're rolling in it. The treat their employees like shit because several trillion just isn't enough for them. They won't stop at 43% either, they're going to keep going until they own it all. That's the reality of the situation. You can theorize all you want about it being a cut-throat business world, with lots of competition, but the only real competition is between workers who want a living wage, and transnational corporations who serve as an extension of the American upper class.
So, here's a question, if the business world is so cut-throat, then how are they managing to transfer 15% of the wealth of the country into their pockets in a mere 20 years? Shouldn't competition prevent that, and cause stabilization of wealth distribution? If we havne't reach equilibrium in 200 years, then when will we reach equilibrium, when they finally own everything? From everything I can see, the market will not reach equilibrium until the majority of wealth in the US is concentrated in the hands of a few. When that happens, what will be the difference between the US and a dictorship? If one person owns all the land, for example, is that any different than having a dictorship? After all, what rights will I have on someone else's land?
You need to have acid tests for theories, in other words a standard that you can use to measure a theory. One part of judging a theory or metaphor is it's usefulness in increasing our understanding. I think that your reference to bacteria studies is an interesting analogy, but it's not very useful for understanding what's going on with humanity. It reminds me a lot of the "meme" analogy, it's interesting to think about, but doesn't seem to be a very useful analogy. One very large difference between bacteria and people is that bacteria continue to grow if given more food and resources, human populations tend to stay relatively static in industrialized nations. Humans behave in dramatically different ways than bacteria. This is not a trivial difference. Most of our social problems are a reflection of problems with our economic system, not people in general. We have plenty of resources to feed, shelter, and provide for all members of our society. I believe that the reason this is not done is because keeping people hungry and scared provides an element of control. That is why we have the largest jail population in the entire world, and why our leaders allow for there to be a homeless population, it's a message to everyone else, "Fall in line and work hard or you'll end up like them."
If you look at society from a pure resource standpoint (in other words get away from that useless concept of money, and simply evaluate resources based on availability and cost in terms of labor to use that resource), we have plenty of food, in fact, a constant surplus, so feeding everyone shouldn't be a problem. What about housing? Well, that's relatively cheap too, we have plenty of land, trees, and an excess of labor to build those houses with. Ok, let's move on to gas. Should it be cheap? Hmm, it's worth thinking about, I would say the answer is no, it's a hard to produce, limited resource, that will only last another 30-50 years at our current rate of consumption. What does this tell us? It tells us that the value that is placed on things in the market is absolutely horrible from a standpoint of determining social policy. I wouldn't think about supporting old people in terms of money. It's too easy to have your thinking clouded when you think in terms of dollars, since the price of things is so easily manipulated by those in power (case in point, read about Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia's deal with Bush to lower the price of oil right before the 2004 presidential elections. This deal was struck in January of 2003 while the US was claiming to solve the Iraq WMD problem with "diplomacy". It was in exchange for Bush guaranteeing that he was going to invade Iraq, all back in Januray of 2003.). Instead, I would think about it from a resource standpoint. Do we have enough food? yes, in fact we have a constant oversupply of food. Do we have enough resources to house them? yes. Do we have enough healthcare? No, but the important thing to ask is why we don't.
I think if you think in terms of dollars and cents, it's too easy to be manipulated. The price set by the market is very prone to manipulation, and these manipulations can dramatically distort one's thinking. One striking example was my SO's categorizing my beowoulf cluster project as a big toy and impratical. If we think in terms of resources, silicon is very abundant, and consumes relatively small amounts of resources to turn into a computer. My car, on the other hand, consumes a much more precious resource (oil), and has much less potential to do good. If we think about it clearly, it would appear that the car is very impratical, while my beowulf cluster has a lot of potentially practical uses. But, the money equation makes the car appear more practical. The car is less expensive in terms of dollars, and has an immediate use. If we think long-term, and think in terms of resources used, I believe we can have a much saner definition of what is practical and what is not. Much of what we think of as pratical has been manipulated by market dis
You're right, it was an over-simplification that ignores the obvious fact that if things get low enough people simply drop out or attempt to form their own business. Now, there some pretty huge barriers that make the latter rather difficult, but there is evidence that the former (which is simply dropping out) is happening at an alarming rate in the US. Go through my posts and read the last post that I wrote. Basically, as I explained in that post, "dropping out" is a nice euphenism for some of what is happening already in our country. People are already refusing the $5.15 an hour and choosing crime, or simply to drop out and go on welfare if they can, or be homeless. None of these things are good. This is part of the reason that we have such a huge jail population, the largest in the world, even larger than China's. So, you are right, I did over-simplify, simply to help make my point more succint, not because I was afraid of where logically extending my argument would take us. If anything taking into account the fact that people will only go so low makes my argument stronger, not weaker. When a large enough group of people reach that breaking point, it usually means the destruction of the society they are a part of.
Uggh revision
They SHOULD always seek to hire the least amount possible. If it costs me $10 to make my product (car, ladder, gallon of milk, whatever) then I can sell it to you for $20 and make $10 of profit.
I never said that they shouldn't. It follows from that fact that employers will not hire more people just because wages fall. My opponent was saying that if wages dropped that employers would start hiring more people. This makes no sense from a business stand point. You hire the people you need, no more, and ideally, no less. However, just because there is no market reason for hiring everyone doesn't mean that not everyone should be given a chance to work. Try to come up with a free market reason for paying a living wage, for not having slavery, or for educating our youth, social security, affordable healthcare, growing enough food to buffer during famine years, etc. There are none that I can think of, or that are compelling enough to force all unregulated companies to do what I consider the desirable thing to do. However, that doesn't mean that they aren't worthwhile. Some things, such as certain basic rights, should not be enforced by the market.
As far as the labor price goes, it is simplified quite a bit. Obviously, if things get bad enough people will attempt to form their own business, revolt or strike, or simply refuse to participate in the economy. All of this happens in the 3rd world, where quite a few people simply refuse to participate in the economy, there are many rebellions and strikes, etc. So, you are right, there reaches a certain point where people simply refuse to go any lower. However, many things break before we get to that point, and that is not an ideal situation.
Ok, on the last one, it was a stupid question for me to ask, since , as you said, they can't hire people for less than $5.15. Point taken. I partially corrected myself later. However, I think even if they did get rid of minimum wage, that $5.15 is getting so low that as you pointed out, people are dropping out of the system rather than participate in the economy. Let's not kid ourselves, this is NOT a good thing. It would be helpful to think about what "dropping out of the system" really means. That means you could be staring down the barrel of a gun held by someone that drops out of the system or have your city over-run by protests and riots. Or, you could be paying a much higher social cost to house these people in prison, and ironically, this labor will then be used by private industry for below minimum wage. We already have the largest jail population of any country in the world. Granted, we are a civilized country, we don't shoot them like China, but that should get the concern of anyone who promotes freedom as you are claiming to do. Whose freedom are you promoting and why? What exactly are we supposed to do with all the people that can't earn a living, simply lock them up and be done with it? That doesn't sound like a free country to me, by any definition.
They SHOULD always seek to hire the least amount possible. If it costs me $10 to make my product (car, ladder, gallon of milk, whatever) then I can sell it to you for $20 and make $10 of profit.
I never said that they shouldn't. It follows from that fact that employers will not hire more people just because wages fall. My opponent was saying that if wages dropped that employers would start hiring more people. This makes no sense from a business stand point. You hire the people you need, no more, and ideally, no less. However, just because there is no market reason for hiring everyone doesn't mean that not everyone should be given a chance to work. Try to come up with a free market reason for paying a living wage, for not having slavery, or for educating our youth, social security, affordable healthcare, growing enough food to buffer during famine years, etc. There are none that I can think, or that are compelling enough to force all unregulated companies to do what I consider that desirable thing. However, that doesn't mean that they aren't worthwhile. Some things, such as certain basic rights, should not be enforced by the market.
As far as the labor price goes, it is simplified quite a bit. Obviously, if things get bad enough people will attempt to form their own business, revolt or strike, or simply refuse to participate in the economy. All of this happens in the 3rd world, where quite a few people simply refuse to participate in the economy, there are many rebellions and strikes, etc. So, you are right, there reaches a certain point where people simply refuse to go any lower. However, many things break before we get to that point, and that is not an ideal situation.
Ok, on the last one, it was a stupid question for me to ask, since , as you said, they can't hire people for less than $5.15. I partially corrected myself later. However, I think even if they did get rid of minimum wage, that $5.15 is getting so low that as you pointed out, people are choosing to drop out of the system rather than participate in the economy. However, lets not kid ourselves, this is NOT a good thing. It would be helpful to think about what "drop out of the system" really means. That means you could be staring down the barrel of a gun held by one of these people that "drop out of the system" or have your city over-run by protests and riots. Or, you could be paying a much higher social cost to house these people in prison, and ironically, this labor will then be used by private industry for below minimum wage. We already have the largest jail population of any country in the world. Granted, we are a civilized country, we don't shoot them like China, but that should get the concern of anyone who promotes freedom as you are claiming to do. Whose freedom? What exactly are we supposed to do with all the people that can't earn a living, simply lock them up and be done with it? That doesn't sound like a free country to me, by any definition.
Just keep in mind that stupidity doesn't keep people down. You're seriously delusional if you believe that. What keeps people down are the tanks, planes, police in full riot gear with batons and fully loaded assault rifles. You would be stupid not to back down to that. So, when Joe sickpack turns on the 6:00 news and sees a bunch of cops with loaded guns, perhaps using the "safe" rubber bullets that only shatter bone rather than kill, belting protestors and keeping them in line, they say to themselves, "That's not for me." That's not stupidity, that's self preservation. But, you don't notice the guns, the police, the high security fences surrounding your friendly transnational corporation because you are trained not to notice that. You fail to understand the role that violence plays in all of this, even in a "free" society such as America.
Facts? Ok, I can't "prove" any of this to you. However, disproving things is much easier. I would challenge you to find a case of a Union shop having the effect of an employer treating non-Union employees worse. I can't think of any, nor can I think of how this would occur. What would an employer do, tell it's non-Union employees that the Union is causing their wages to drop? If they do that enough, then the non-Union employees will form a Union. Not only that, but non-Union shops still have to compete with Union shops for employees. If your competitor is offering $40 an hour to it's employees, and you only offer $25 for the same amount of work, how can you expect to compete? It would seem rather self-evident that market forces would cause both Union and non-Union shops to increase their wages. This of course can cause devaluation of the dollar, however, that's a good thing in this case, since devaluation actually reduces the amount of power that those with lots of cash have over us. If someone is sitting on a pile of $20 billion dollars and wielding it like a stick to beat labor into submission, cutting the value of that money in half reduces the power that they have.
As far as ad-hominen attacks go, I fail to see how paying attention to the facts is an ad-hominem attack. I was merely giving my opponent credit for understanding the fact that without labor unions it is likely that the conditions of working people, including children, would likely get much worse. Things didn't get better magically. Businesses didn't accept a minimum wage and health benefits out of the goodness of their own hearts. The logical extension of "letting the market set prices", is going back to conditions when the market did set the price. We have history, we have facts, we know what it was like when "the market set the price". I shouldn't have to dredge up every single fact or write a book to remind him of this. The logical extension of what he is promoting are similar conditions to the early 20th century in America, or the current situation in the 3rd world, where there are no regulations.
Yes, I have backed that up. I've told you the facts, that things were much worse before Unions were around. More specifically, in countries that have no Unions, such as Mexico, India, the majority of South America, China, etc., the workers are treated much worse. The economies in the majority of the 3rd world are about as unregulated as it gets, with no environmental protections, no labor laws, etc, and I see no reason to envy them, can you give me any? I'm sorry if that's not enough for you, I'm not going to find references for everything I say in an online forum. Maybe some other time I will. If you really believe that workers were treated better before Unions, then I would like to see your evidence. I have found references in the past but I think that the effect Unions have had on wages is fairly obvious.
5.15 is supposed to be 5.50. Obviously 5.15 is the minimum wage. That still doesn't explain why all the Mexicans don't have jobs right now, same goes for India. History shows that employers won't go out of their way to hire people, even if the price of labor is very low to non-existent. History also shows that if people fight for a higher wage, that everyone prospers, as that extra income is not hoarded, but instead put right back into the system. Working people can't afford to hoard money. Your theory that allowing the market to set the wage will help society has no basis.