Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
1. Make an unsourced claim
2. "PROVE ME WRONG."
3. ???
4. Profit.
A) Ever time I've seen an apple dropped it fell shot off toward the east.
B) Do you have a citation for that?
A) Well, no but I don't know of any instances of something else happening.
B) Ah-ha! Then it is equally likely the when dropped apples fly toward the west.
A) I'm pretty sure that's not true. I guess all you have to do is find some examples of it.
B) How dare you ask for proof of my absurd and baseless claims before proving your own absurd and baseless claims? Obviously I'm the one who's right.
Of course in reality we knotw that apples fall "down" and thus wish to fly off toward the south.
Actually in retrospect my claim was probably a bit extreme and my response very immature. So I'll retract it and say this instead:
I've never heard of labor shortages actually happening due to the cause you have as an example. Could you show me a historical example of it? (which you should do any way in order to shore up your argument)
Labor shortages are one of the causes of migrant workers. Americans don't want those jobs, so farmers insource cheap labor.
That being said, you're not understanding basic economic principles. Government regulations and minimum wage serve as a barrier to competition. Sure, they might be well-intentioned, but small businesses suffer a much greater impact on their ability to compete due to them. (Walmart paying someone $8 an hour hurts much less than the local Mom 'n' Pop store having to pay that much.) If small businesses can expand and grow, they provide more jobs and greater competition against megacorporations. More jobs means more people working (and thus a lower unemployment level), and greater competition means that companies have to offer better wages and benefits to workers.
If the wages and benefits aren't sufficient for the workers, they can unionize to get the company to offer them better.
It doesn't do any good to have more jobs if those jobs pay $1 dollar an hour. People making that much have no spending power at all.
I'm glad you mentioned competition. Start enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act and many of these Mega Corporations would be much smaller and there would be more of them.
Unions? It would be nice if people could unionize but when Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers in 1981 he basicallly stripped unions of any power to help their workers. Unions in the private secter are all but dead and without the passage of The Employee Free Choice Act (which isn't likely to happen) unions aren't going to make a comeback.
The gap between rich and poor in this country is now at it's largest ever since the 1920s and is growing. This is what an unregulated "free market" does. It concentrates wealth and destroys the middle class. The standard of living....for most....in the US will continue to decline.
It doesn't do any good to have more jobs if those jobs pay $1 dollar an hour. People making that much have no spending power at all.
It would be nice if people could unionize but when Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers in 1981 he basicallly stripped unions of any power to help their workers.
This is what an unregulated "free market" does.
On top of all of this, a free market has nothing to do income tax rates. I support taxing the ultra-wealthy at a high percentage of their wealth (not because I begrudge them their wealth, like liberals do, but because we need to get the national debt under control). With higher taxes on the rich, the gap between wealthy and poor would diminish.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
First of all, people wouldn't work for jobs that paid $1 an hour. Second of all, you would see a considerable drop in prices with people making those wages (which is why imported goods are cheaper than those manufactured in the United States).
Really? Go back to what happened in the UK in the early 80s when they eliminated the minimum wage there. You'd be surprised what people might work for when there's no alternative
This is wrong on a number of levels, and Reagan was right to fire them. And this is coming from someone who hates Ronald Reagan.
Then why are unions all but dead in the private sector? Over 90% of unionized Americans now work for the Federal, State, or local governments.
No. The wealth gap is the result of corporatist policies, not the free market. Again, in a free market (not a corporatist pseudo-market like we have now), people will unionize. They can then demand fairer compensation for their labor. Furthermore, with more businesses expanding and competing, prices will decrease while quality increases. Everyone's standard of living goes up.
Go back to what I said about those with the largest amount of capital manipulating the market. If workers at a business unionize that business will offshore if it can. It also strikes me as odd that if what you say is true then why isn't the worlds largest private employer, Wal-Mart, unionized...despite numerous attempts to do so? There was one store in Canada no less that successfully unionized but Wal-Mart shut it down.
On top of all of this, a free market has nothing to do income tax rates. I support taxing the ultra-wealthy at a high percentage of their wealth (not because I begrudge them their wealth, like liberals do, but because we need to get the national debt under control). With higher taxes on the rich, the gap between wealthy and poor would diminish.
Really? Go back to what happened in the UK in the early 80s when they eliminated the minimum wage there. You'd be surprised what people might work for when there's no alternative
Then why are unions all but dead in the private sector? Over 90% of unionized Americans now work for the Federal, State, or local governments.
Go back to what I said about those with the largest amount of capital manipulating the market. If workers at a business unionize that business will offshore if it can. It also strikes me as odd that if what you say is true then why isn't the worlds largest private employer, Wal-Mart, unionized...despite numerous attempts to do so? There was one store in Canada no less that successfully unionized but Wal-Mart shut it down.
It is up to the people to fight for their interests.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No. The wealth gap is the result of corporatist policies, not the free market. Again, in a free market (not a corporatist pseudo-market like we have now), people will unionize. They can then demand fairer compensation for their labor. Furthermore, with more businesses expanding and competing, prices will decrease while quality increases. Everyone's standard of living goes up.
So, what is the difference between communism working in theory, and the free market working, in theory? What ends up ****ing up every single good idea? And how unrealistic is it to sing the praises of one over another, when the obvious answer is that neither are all that great when faced with the reality of the situation? Both work on paper, but end up failing miserably for the people forced to live under them. It just so happens that one outlived the other by a few decades and is now up for scrutiny.
Just playing a bit of devil's advocate. If the question is too much newb butthurt, then I'm sure a moderator will delete it.
I should also add that Walmart is good at union-busting. If the people were to band together and force Walmart's hand, Walmart would cave in. But because the people there are indoctrinated into corporate propaganda, too weak-willed to unionize, and/or entirely apathetic, Walmart will remain strong and union-less.
So, what is the difference between communism working in theory, and the free market working, in theory?
Communism is ripe for totalitarianism. As evidenced by the history of communist countries.
The free market places the power in the hands of individuals. And I don't support total government deregulation; I support the overall reduction of government regulation.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Communism is moronic in the extreme. The abolition of private property? Public ownership of the means of production? The notion that we can all get along and have happy feel-good time and nobody will be rich or poor? Communism directly goes against human nature. It can only work in extremely small communities of like-minded persons.Communism is ripe for totalitarianism. As evidenced by the history of communist countries.
The free market places the power in the hands of individuals. And I don't support total government deregulation; I support the overall reduction of government regulation.
Are you sure you're looking at this objectively...or realistically?