SD on 30/3/2006 at 23:35
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
Why don't we set the minimum wage at a million dollars (or pounds for you limeys) an hour? Wouldn't we all be rich then?
Don't be an idiot. There is a finite amount of money in the economy.
Agent Monkeysee on 31/3/2006 at 00:25
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
I don't know much about the governments track record with regards to pollution, but the pollution/emission credits system certainly sounds like something that could work, if a good way of determining the value of the damage caused by a unit of pollution. Even if someone just pulled a number out of their ass though, it would still likely be a better heuristic than systems that don't use market mechanics.
The emission credits program is something that
does work. It's pretty clever. OH AND IT'S A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM WHOOPS. I think you need to read up on this stuff more before you try and rebut it.
Deep Qantas on 31/3/2006 at 01:04
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
In elaboration of my point on bundles: value is subjective. Different people will place different values on the same thing. If the government mandates A and B, and the company offers A, B, C and D but not E, it might be the case that for me ABCD < AECD < ABCDE and for the company AECD < ABCD < ABCDE, so both of us would prefer AECD, but we are not allowed to drop B in favor of E, so both of us are left worse off. Unless of course you believe that I (and possibly the employer as well) have no idea what's
really good for us so the decision has to be made for us.
Can you think of an example where the company would be willing to drop B in your special case, but wouldn't be tempted to do it with every employee?
Wyclef on 31/3/2006 at 01:07
Haha, it's hard to believe tggp's ideologically rooted lack of imagination. Unbridled capitalism has never been exploitative, and there's no possible scenario in which it could be; no one has ever gained from coordination with other actors in the labor market, and no one ever will; government action has never yielded more than the markets could have delivered, and never will; market failures in the form of externalities have never appeared, and never will.
"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio"
EDIT: Also, isn't it a bit ironic (LOL, ALANIS) that tggp lists a public university in his location field?
Ultraviolet on 31/3/2006 at 03:21
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
Why don't we set the minimum wage at a million dollars (or pounds for you limeys) an hour? Wouldn't we all be rich then?
How about we change our minimum wage to something like $15 an hour, and then crank down the salaries on those fucks that have three vacation houses in various states (so they have options depending on what their fucking whimsical asses want to do this/next season!) in order to actually have somewhere for that $15 an hour to come from?
At my current job, I make $9.50. I'm pretty fortunate, I suppose, compared to other people in my town. But my job makes $23.50 an hour off of me (it's a call center, and what the account pays the company is known, so I'm not making that up). I only make 40% of what the company I work directly for makes off of me (9.5 divided by 23.5). Now, one could argue that the company needs that $14 per hour for maintenance costs, but we have some 120 people working for just this one account (and there are several hundred other people working for the company on three other accounts that make I-don't-know-what -- but the other accounts are Qwest (formerly US West), Bell-South, and American Express, so I'll leave the cashflow to your imagination) -- just so you know, I only make $9.50 instead of $9 flat because I was one of the first 40 people on the scene, the other 80 make $9 flat -- so the company makes $1680 to $1740 per day on JUST ONE OF ITS FOUR ACCOUNTS. However, the computers we use to do our jobs are the best of the mid/late 90's -- 300MHz PII/128MB RAM, running Win2k, and being used for tasks that REQUIRE at least 256MB (constant HD churning -- I have medicare members on HOLD while I wait for my HD to stop thrashing so I can answer their questions, taking several minutes at a time; in fact, getting SIGNED IN so I can have my time that I'm sitting there at work logged so I can get paid takes ten minutes, as in ten minutes that I'm AT WORK but NOT getting paid). It would cost $50 per computer to get a 512MB PC133 stick (yes, I have a price source -- and that $50 is for me at consumer-level ordering one stick, not considering possible discount for a BUSINESS ordering fucking TWO HUNDRED of them) to make our work doable (would fix the thrashing problem completely I'm sure, not even requiring a processor upgrade), but it isn't happening. Our bathrooms are even constantly out of paper towels. If we need to use the bathroom, it comes out of our break time (state-mandated 15 minutes per 4 hour shift). The custodial night shift has quit, leaving the day shift janitors (there are three of them) with all the work. So, with all that money being made, but not being spent on observable operating costs, where must it all be going?
INTO PAY FOR THE HIGHER-UPS. Their business model hurts MY pay AND my JOB SATISFACTION (improper equipment for getting my job done). They make tons of money and don't really do any of the work that makes the money. Who was it that was trying to say that this isn't "exploitive?"
aguywhoplaysthief on 31/3/2006 at 05:32
You probably get paid 10 an hour because you're doing a job that anyone worth 10 an hour could do. People with less responsibility get paid less, and people with more responsibility get paid more. Clearly you should get that job where you don't do anything and get paid lots of money - you've certainly proven your worth to the world!
Try doing something a little more in-demand and get back to me. Have you considered nursing, caregiving, or computer science?
Also, and I would hope that you could understand this, the company has to pay rent, utilities, and it has to recoup capital costs to pay off the people who loaned them the money to start the business, as well as pay you people.
Convict on 31/3/2006 at 13:33
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
I would agree wholeheartedly.
I remember when the minimum wage was introduced (and it was just £3.60 back then, it's £5.05 now), conservatives were predicting that there would be mass unemployment as small businesses went bust in their droves.
Of course, it didn't happen, which has pretty much done nothing to shatter the widely-held belief that conservatives are reactionary asshats who talk out of their backsides.
See, when you increase the wages of the lowest-paid staff, it's true that you place an extra financial burden upon employers. But what conservatives generally don't appreciate is that those low-paid members of society (and we are talking about
millions of people who earn the minimum wage) now have more disposable income, which balances out the negative effects on business. There's still the same amount of money sloshing around in the economy, it's just a bit more fairly distributed.
Sometimes people are surprised to hear me (a liberal) endorsing profoundly socialist policies like the redistribution of wealth, because it's not a classic liberal belief, but it's really a logical leap for any modern liberal to make. Because as liberals we believe in freedom for everyone - and when you 're below the poverty line, being exploited by the upper echelons of society, you cannot ever be truly free.
Umm, having written all that, I'm not sure what the point of this post was, but I think it probably belongs in this thread :).
It will be interesting to see if this new French job scheme lowers unemployment (which I personally suspect it will).
SD on 31/3/2006 at 13:49
Quote Posted by Convict
It will be interesting to see if this new French job scheme lowers unemployment (which I personally suspect it will).
Whether it does or not is not a bone of contention. I personally cannot condone a law that treats young adults as second-class citizens, whatever the intention.
Uncia on 31/3/2006 at 14:08
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
Why would they pay employees at all? It would be cheaper to pay them nothing.
Slavery?
Very profitable, true.
Chimpy Chompy on 31/3/2006 at 16:53
That new french law seems quite harsh, but I can appreciate the motives behind it. Looks like the job market is pretty grim for young people there, especially graduates hoping for something half-decent.
