If you want

If you want
then you are a faggot.

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/pwthornton/status/801258648613883904
forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#4f37529d1c96
daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/27/la-was-warned-that-a-15-minimum-wage-would-cost-jobs-in-official-report/#4952c96f4fa6
cpgb-ml.org/download/publications/leontiev_politicaleconomy_chapter1.pdf
cpgb-ml.org/download/publications/leontiev_politicaleconomy_chapter2.pdf
cpgb-ml.org/download/publications/leontiev_politicaleconomy_chapter3.pdf
marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

twitter.com/pwthornton/status/801258648613883904

A decent minimum wage insures that your employers have the money to spend on your products. Thus you generating more revenue, which means greater profits.

Don't believe me? It worked for Henry Ford.

a government-enforced minimum wage ensures that people whose labor is worth less than that minimum wage will be unemployable

price controls never work

That was not the reason why Henry Ford increased his wages. If you pay your workers a thousand dollars per month, so they can buy your one-thousand-dollar-car, then how can you make a profit? He increased the wages to counter the high turnover-rate, which incidentally also disproves the notion that workers that there was no competition for employees:
Sauce: forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#4f37529d1c96


This.

Building pyramids involves a lot of "economic activity", but does it increase wealth? Of course not. In fact, it drains wealth. Thank Keynes (a hobby economist, he never saw that as his primary occupation) for coming up with this idea that a busy economy is somehow a healthy economy.

...

france has a minimum wage
only 8,5% of the workforce earn so little
most are under 25yrs old
most are unqualified

Faggot BO should allow pdf's. But he won't, because he's a faggot.

and?

...

Don't tell me that you're so stupid to think that a $649 iPhone costs Apple exactly $649 dollars to make? It' actually closer to 250$. (Paying the worker assembling it included)
Sure there's marketing and management to pay, but if those costs are more than it costs to make the product, that's a shit business model.

If you do not pay workers enough for reasonable living conditions, you get shit like food stamps. Which boils down to the government paying for a companies wages with tax dollars to help the worker make ends meet.

Sounds like you've never run a company before. Labor expense is only one factor, and it's not indicative of price. You have to consider total revenues first.

Maximizing profit is not the end-game of business. So long as you make $1 in profit at the end of the year, you can win on market share, which means growth, which means a higher stock price, which means happy investors.

I didn't say nothing about seizing the means of production.

Pure Capitalism and Pure Communism (Socialism) are both ideologies that don't factor in the feebleness of humanity and takes it as a given that people don't cheat or lie or try to exploit the system.

Out of everything from Henry Ford you forget that.

Alright, gotta do some more explaining. Sorry for the confusion.

My point was not that everything costs as much as the labor to produce it did. My point was that you cannot make a profit by selling things to your workers that produced it. All the money they could spend on your products is money that they got from you in the first place. Even if they did spend their entire wage on your products, you would make zero profit, and even that only if we disregard the other costs of the business. So really, it's a losing strategy.

Which would still be more effective than Communism.

You just explained pic related.

So getting no amount of the money you pay to your workers is better than getting some amount of that money. Economics, I get ya.


Still the same end result. The starved masses massacre the fat elite. Regardless of whether the elite are bureaucrats or businessmen.

Both the rich and poor are only sustained by the middle class. The pillar on which the scales rest. Too far into either side and the pillar tips over and so do the scales.

I really don't understand your assertion here.

You sell products at a markup, and a good business strategy involves productivity and efficiency goals for your workers. If you spend a total of $1000/month in wages and overhead costs, your workers better be producing $1000.01 worth of goods or more.

People make mistakes. Why should the State front the bill? Stop with your artificial enviroment you keep prepetuating. You keep increasing the issue without addressing.
NATURAL SELECTION

All I want is gold backing to return, this would solve most of the issues with the current economic system.

Pure Capitalism and Pure Communism (Socialism) are both ideologies that don't factor in the feebleness of humanity and takes it as a given that people don't cheat or lie or try to exploit the system.
Complete bullshit. A single guy lying or cheating cannot bring an entire capitalist system down, and may not even make a profit, whereas someone honest and reliable can except that. Under communism, there are positions that - if they are corrupted - will bring down everything. If the ministry of agriculture fucks up, you can have a famine killing millions, and that happened before. Not that this is the biggest problem of communism, but it's one of them. The system isn't failsafe.


Them buying your products is as good as any customer buying it, but paying them more so they can buy them is utterly fucking retarded. That's like paying your own customers.


You're beating around the bush, the simple matter is that you can't get more money out of your workers than you gave them in the first place.

Completely agreed.

And it would make you feel less silly about watching Alex Jones.

Sure you can. Just have a high enough volume and rapid price-depreciation and product-deterioration/consumption.

a better solution would be to remove the monopoly on currency

What has that faggot got to do with anything? Are you assuming I watch him because we share a single opinion on a single topic?
He's a fucking retard, that is why he isn't fleeing the government like those that actually share the truth ie. Snowden and Assange

Who owns the gold reserves?

But since the workers are getting paid more than the cost of the product will increase. You will end up where you started but with increased inflation

But what if 70% of the wealth does? Why do you think all of these people have shell companies in the Cayman's, The Virgin Islands and various other tax havens?

They are killing the system that made them in the first place.

How's that going to help? I mean, yeah, you do make a profit, technically, and the profit is as good as any profit, but the point of Henry Ford's supposed strategy was that he paid the workers more so they could buy his shit. He increased wages so the workers would give some of it back to him.

You make higher-quality products with higher-quality workers, so you command a higher price.

In my company, we gave everyone a $2/hr raise across the board. After 6 months, we've got better results from quality employees. The lousy employees got replaced by better new hires. Higher productivity, less shrinkage, everything is better, more profit dollars.

Henry Ford wasn't very smart, because no one needed a new car every week.

But if you're paying water-bottlers, and they buy your water bottles back in the break room, you have a good scheme going.

Taxation is theft.


I never said that increasing wages is a bad idea. It increases morale, and attracts more qualified workers, like you said. Doing it for the purpose of having them buy your things, that's a bad idea.

That cannot make up for the wages you paid them. It effectively lowers labor costs (as a bit of the wage comes back to you), but even if you ended up getting it all back, then you'd have an overall loss.

You're right. Don't ever use public sidewalks or highways, call 911, or go to a public park

it works. a miniumum wage protects workers from the venality of employers and from an erosion of their income over time (it's indexed). it means, for example that you can't pay peanuts just because you hire monkeys/nogs/immigrants.
it also seves as a baseline for other salaries and an incentive to increase them. an employer who pays the legal minimum to non-tards gets a bad reputation and soon only has tard applicants to choose from, who themselves are well paid for their contribution.
a minimum wage is part of the normal and necessary checks and balances of contemporary capitalism.

...

that's the ontheshelf cost which includes dev, manufacture, packaging, publicity, breakage and loss and transport. the object itself costs less than half of that total.

the primary responsibility of a corporation's board is to make money for the owners. all the rest is means to this end.

you really aren't thinking about this very hard. what retard is going to pay taxes and not use what they paid for? you can object to a system while still using it.

By making sure they don't get hired in the first place.

It doesn't protect against the government bringing down real wages through zoning laws (less competition among landlords) and taxation. And inflation is caused by the government to begin with.

Which means I won't hire them, at least not legally. It's painting a crosshair on immigrants that actually do want to work.

Not if you eliminate the people whose wages you'd have to increase, which is something money businesses would have to do. Case in point, automation at McDonalds.

Actually, no. If the qualified workers worked in his shitty business to begin with, then there was a reason for that, most likely a tight labor-market, or they would've left for a better job already. With the minimum wage, you make the labor-market even more tight, so they'll have even fewer chances to find a better job. Which makes them better off than the tards you mentioned, who will be the first to get fired when labor-costs rise too much.

It isn't. It's softcore socialism.

Except "making money" isn't as straightforward as quarterly profits. Market share is huge in my industry, and investors don't care about our profits. Our shareholders want the price of stock to go up, so attracting new investors means market share over profits.

Companies also have strategic goals, such as if you have a highly specialized employee profile, you want to mitigate turnover as much as possible, even if it means lower EBITDA.

I'll also remind you that companies want their employees to buy-in on the stock with 401(k), profit-share, etc.

Society requires the rule of law and property rights, at a minimum, to function. This costs money. If there were no public roads, no police, no energy policy, and no environmental laws, all of which cost money, there would be no society of which you could claim to be a productive member. if you don't want to be robbed, go live in the woods and find a grizzly's shoulder to cry on.

there is no evidence a minimum wage increases unemployment in a market economy. sauce me wrong.
zoning laws? whats that?
the minimum wage is not taxed directly. only increases in indirect taxation affect it and these are attenuated by the indexisation.
i wish. it achieves the inverse, protecting immigrants from exploitation and forcing low achieving indigenous people to re-skill.
the rest of your post is more or less answered already.

The law that people follow is customary. We have an intuitive understanding of what property is or you'd daily see people snatching purses, or trespass, or break doors in just for fun. Sure, some people do just that, but they do it deliberately, fully knowing what the law demands, and that knowledge stems entirely from interaction with others, as few people ever read the law.

The first roads weren't public, and they still did their job. Toll booths wouldn't be a thing precisely because everyone would object to them (except in areas where outsiders aren't wanted - not exactly a bad thing, considering the refugee crisis). Instead, you could buy a flat fee and use all roads that are included in it. If my gym can have such a model, then so could roads.

In Detroit, there's already a private police department because the actual police doesn't do shit. Seems to work for their clients.

And? People would be willing to pay for electricity, so an entrepreneur could step in and fulfill this demand for a nice profit.

Unnecessary. With private property on natural resources, the owners would use them responsibly (no tragedy of the commons). And with private property actually respected, polluters would owe you compensation for shitting up your health and your land. That was how the common law handled the case until the state stepped in.

Then you pay them. You already do that, just at gunpoint.

I suggest you read the following, if you find the time and really want to learn about this: daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
Not the best book on the topic, but the best for really visualizing a system without a state. I find For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty more convincing.

Finland has a minimum wage. 20% of people in employment earn less than the minimum wage.

Why wouldn't it increase unemployment? If your labor was worth the minimum wage, you'd already get paid the minimum wage.

forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/27/la-was-warned-that-a-15-minimum-wage-would-cost-jobs-in-official-report/#4952c96f4fa6

no it doesn't. what it does have is collective bargaining agreements which are binding even if you're not a union member

nigger what

Have you ever talked to a Finn? Not the sort of personality I want to bring to Freedomland and let me tell you right now, it's socialism that did it.

tell me about it. this place is fucked up beyond belief


worse, I am a Finn

At least you're not from Sweden.

But I'm a Finn, and we're "respected internationally for our high minimum wage" even though a lot of people don't get paid the minimum wage even if they work harder than the minimum wage jobs…

I'm also a nationalist, a true nationalist. I speak all four of Finland's pre-Swedish invasion languages fluently and Finnish, Russian, Tatar, Turkish, Ukrainian, Polish, Latvian, Lithuanian and two of the Saami languages. I don't speak Swedish. I could learn it, but I hate Sweden so much that I refuse to.

Sweden has nothing to do with Finland, only the fucking cuck government is pro-Swedish. I hate them. I hate shit. Fuck you.

look, you are wrong about this. there is no minimum wage set in law here. each TES has a minimum allowed wage, but that's only for the jobs that TES applies to

MY LIFE IS A LIE

Ootko sä ihan varma että minimipalkkaa ei ole? Mä saan noin 2000€ kuussa mut laskujen ja ruoan jälkeen jää tietysti paljon vähemmän, mutta tunnen tyyppejä jotka saa oikeesti vaan 100€ kuussa ja asuu kimpalla yksiössä. Ne on tosin siivoojia jotka myös tekee jotain muuta sivussa, mut silti ne aina valittaa siitä kun virallinen minimipalkka on 1000€ eikä ne saa sitä.

Katotko muuten uutisia? Miehittämättömiä lennokkeja sotaharjoituksissa, ihan varmasti Venäjän vakoojakoneita…

perus vassareita, mussuttaa asiasta vaikkei tiedä siitä mitään

en kato uutisia, mutta noita ryssien koneitahan on harva se viikko. ihan sama tbh

just givin a shout out to

>>>/biz/

Bad goy.

Damn good, sav'd!

...

That needs one more with


cause that's what we have right now.

muh non-aggression
muh utopian society

...

wtf i hate the government now

cool meme

Looks we got a libertarian who doesn't know basic economics

So you like aggression?

That's not an argument, just a shorthand for claiming you have an argument. It's like responding to "anarchy is possible" with "no it isn't!".


Educate me. How can you print create wealth by printing more money? And why didn't it work in Zimbabwe?

when having taxes to fund government services is considered aggression, then yes, I fucking love aggression.

If they are that worthless let them die
We don't need them

A. Leontiev
POLITICAL ECONOMY -
A Beginner’s Course
First published 1936, reprinted 1940.
cpgb-ml.org/download/publications/leontiev_politicaleconomy_chapter1.pdf
cpgb-ml.org/download/publications/leontiev_politicaleconomy_chapter2.pdf
cpgb-ml.org/download/publications/leontiev_politicaleconomy_chapter3.pdf

POLITICAL ECONOMY
A Textbook issued by the Economics Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R
marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/

At least you're honest, but as every government service could be provided by a free market, you're also still mistaken.


Not sure you should take economic advice from the guys that caused three million famine deaths, tbh fam.

Government is just better at doing it, hence why we see societies governed by governments not by anarchy - because it works.

If Ann employer can and wants to, great. Hell, most do. Less than 2% of the economy is minimum wage jobs. The rest are above or off the books.
Supply is key, not demand.

Bump

Then explain the USSR, Red Cambodia and Red Vietnam.

...

The point of a government is to prevent people from murdering anarchists.

Notice how they all have something else in common? All communist. But despite that, they were still more successful than anarcho-crapitalism could ever be.

user faggot

...

...

Unsubstantiated polemics. Check out their democide-rate, they all had worse ones than Somalia had during its ancap-phase. Not that I approve of the Somalia-meme. It isn't and never was anarchist. My point is your rhetoric isn't even consistent with your own worldview, you hypocritical faggots.

Bump

OK, now say it again in layman's terms. I'm approaching this from a common sense perspective, not a big words perspective.

we need decentralization if anything.
also we need to end the wage cuckery.

kool kets

are you sure you want to end minimum wage?

Except no one will work for 10c/hour, because at that point it's not even worth working. They'd either die or quit and start scavenging for food - both of which would result in no employees, therefore making your situation implausible.
You need to remember that companies are competing against each other to hire workers; if one is offering higher wages, it will draw more workers.
You also forget that many people working the lower tier jobs which are affected by minimum wage are usually taken by those in education who will move on to higher paying careers; they won't be living on this wage forever.

fair point.
I suppose my fault was appeal to emotion due to hyperbole.
I still like the idea of minimum wage, perhaps economics would be better without it but what do i know?

I don't think there is an ideal solution tbh. I was thinking of maybe a welfare state to supplement wages/provide for those seeking/unable to work to ensure they were livable, but that would give companies a legitimate reason to pay less, which would burden the tax payer more. With a minimum wage the company would likely fire workers to make up for the cost leading to more unemployed.
One idea I've heard of that could have some merit is a living wage, it's pretty socialist, and I'm not sure if it's been implemented before, but if it is at some point it will be interesting to see how it goes.

Don't bother. Liberals are too stupid to understand economics. A guy I work with is convinced that raising the minimum wage to $15/hr would increase our (salaried management positions) income. He has no clue HOW this would happen… but he's sure it would.

I believe in freedom but this is my property.

bump

This. Ford paid his staff a minimum wage because all employers pay a minimum wage. The least highly paid employee recieves minimum wage.

Kek
Faggot kys.

in today's employment market, an user's worth is not a function of his ability and training, but of the availability of similarly skilled anons. it doesn't matter how hard, how long, how recklessly you spend your life making money for your boss, your worth is governed by those wiling to do the same tasks for less.

no shit

Bump

ITT: aspergers do economics

not an argument

Do you actually think I was trying to make an argument? Aspie: confirmed

also not an argument

Sure, let's derail this retarded fucking thread.

Your post is not an argument, user

Monetary issues are central banks and inflation to the jews who are controlling the federal Reserve and the Trump administration according to the Congressional budget office will add trillions to the overblown deficit cause economics

There should be no minimum wage cuz Darwin

ITT: do-nothings pretend to know something

Then you're an idiot

This is why anarchists are imbeciles

You have way too much fucking time on your hands, user

So, something that is essential to every functioning society throughout history is akin to theft…

Stay in your basement, user. Never leave

Sweet image macro, user! That really sums everything up. Amazing!

So, which member of the Cato institute did you bite that line from?

statist logic

Call it what you want, it works

it's basic logic that if you set a price floor for labor, those whose labor is worth less than that price floor won't be able to sell it

Corporations exploit workers every chance they get. Stop making excuses for them.

...

and how does it help those poor exploited workers to make them unemployable instead?

You're really a pathetic waste if that's how you reply to his argument


And this would actually hurt small business the most
Leftists like you really tick me off

You're assuming quite a bit.


This is why you're an idiot, user.

Wealth inequality is almost unbelievable, and you're making excuses for why corporations shouldn't pay their employees a liveable wage…

do tell

Uh oh, I feel a big contrived diatribe coming…

No, I just think this is a stupid law.
Why do leftists assume everyone else hates the poor?
It's not an attractive feature

They won't be "unemployable" if the government enforces a liveable wage and addresses things like tax havens, loopholes, corporate subsidies etc.

Good thread
Make Holla Forums educated again

You have a difficult time empathizing with humans. Admit it.

how will this help those whose labor is worth less than some arbitrary 'liveable wage'?

I do agree that all subsidies, corporate and personal, need to be removed

Holla Forums is, and always will be, a hugbox of trickle-down economics. It's amazing that so many worthless do-nothings can think this way.

If you taxed corporations higher the workers would become even more unemployable, especially compared to other countries.

Explain how addressing 'loopholes' which let companies keep their profits will make more people want to go into business

I don't understand where you're coming from at all

Kek. No, liveable means liveable. If you can't LIVE on it, it's not liveable

How is that relevant?

you can live on $500 a month if you pinch every penny, but I have a feeling your liveable means something more

But wouldn't you find it even harder if you were unemployed?

Reminder zero people starve to death in America most years

I'm not saying tax them more; in fact, most liberal economists believe that our corportate tax rate needs to be lowered. The US has an insane amount of wealth, and there's plenty to go around, but because of tax havens, subsidies, and loopholes, it seems as if corporations can't pay enough.


If you're working full time, you shouldn't have to "pinch pennies"

Yes, because tax payers have to pick up the slack when workers have to rely on welfare

so you should be able to buy the most expensive everything?

no? then who decides what you should have to pinch on? this is what I mean by arbitrary

there's no evidence a minimum wage prices the weakest in society out of the job market and none either that it leads to sustained price rises in goods or services. sauce me wrong.

Yes, that's exactly that I'm saying, dumbass

Why don't we just have things balanced between the public and private sphere like we have been doing for all of history and not have to go to extremes to the detriment of half of society?

...

what are you saying then? what is your definition of liveable?

Liveable: not having to rely on safety net institutions to survive. Not having to pinch pennies to survive. Being able to live on your wage. Liveable… fucking liveable, you aspie.

there you go again

Yep, there I go. It's pretty common sense

also completely arbitrary

wew. that's going to require some research.
thnx

See: biggest cunt to ever walk the face of the earth

You completely failed to refute one word she ever said. Typical marxist sheep.

There's not much proper evidence of anything in economics, since there are no experiments, only observations

Have a dumb study that says raising the minimum wage by 10% causes unemployment to rise by 1%. So raising it from $10 an hour to $15 would potentially increase unemployment by 5 people out of a hundred

Also a couple of tables put out by the right wing
Really though I find it hard to trust anybody's data since everyone is biased and trying to indicate something or other.

But I think there's an obvious logic in economics you can use to figure what it seems like 'should' happen

Bumpinstien

This is all assuming that everything won't turn out like the turn-of-the-century oil barons.

With things like slave wages, highly unsafe working conditions, heavy price gouging, and little or no investment back into the community.

Sorry, fam, but Reaganomics don't work. Give the rich a tax break and they'll just bank it. They won't invest shit. They got rich for a reason: They don't share.

Actually, OP, at least in the first world, economics most certainly IS about your feelings, which is why every economic analysis incorporates desirability matrices as well as probability matrices.

Nobody cares if the price of shit sandwiches goes up or down if nobody wants a shit sandwich. Desirability, aka your feelings, is one of the most basic key factors in economics.

It makes perfect sense if you think about it. If you get rid of minimum wage laws and eliminate cooperate taxes the rich will be so happy they will pay everyone twice what they were making before. Starting wage at McDonald’s will be $20 an hour in no time.

Anybody that believes that current minimum wage jobs will become bidding wars on who will do it for the least amount of pay is a stupid fool. It’s not like there’s anything wrong with five guys sharing a efficiency apartment with a twin bed would happen.

We all know that the wealthy in America have the best interest of the little guy at heart and if it wasn’t for government regulation they would make our lives so much more better.

Get fucked. It may not be enshrined into law but there's no job without a union demand for a specific minimum wage. In effect our minimum wage is in the area of $17/h.

it doesn't say that. it says that for the 10% of companies paying their employees the lowest average wage, an increase in the minimum legal rate of 1% would result in a decrease of 0,18% in the workforce. for the top dectile of payers, that falls by 2 thirds.

(so a 10% increase would reduce the number of emloyees 1,8%.)

Shoulda voted Hillary!