Piehole, I see your reading comprehension skills are very poor indeed. I never even referred to a "free market economy" so I am not sure why you even brought it up. I simply asked the democrats to apply free market principles in their thinking before they flood the market with low wage workers. I do understand we are talking about democrats and considering the elites of the democrat party worship Marx, its a lot to ask. I think its safe to say that different economies apply free market principles at varying levels and no market is 100% free. In the US the market gets less and less free every year.
Hey Democrats, you want wage increases? How about applying the principles of free market economics.
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
Piehole, I see your reading comprehension skills are very poor indeed. I never even referred to a "free market economy" so I am not sure why you even brought it up. I simply asked the democrats to apply free market principles in their thinking before they flood the market with low wage workers. I do understand we are talking about democrats and considering the elites of the democrat party worship Marx, its a lot to ask. I think its safe to say that different economies apply free market principles at varying levels and no market is 100% free. In the US the market gets less and less free every year.
Sorry,. I thought you meant by "Free Market Economics," Free Market Economy. I guess it is possible to incorrectly apply free market economics to a non-free market economy, but why would you? A free market economy only exists as an abstract construct in undergraduate economics textbooks. But I do agree there is no such thing , in reality, as a 100% free market econom[y/ics].
Last edited:
Well judging by your posts, you sound like a big fan of Hussein Obama and Bernie Sanders who are democrats, but what is a democrat? Certainly there is no government that practices pure democracy, hell the democrats have super delegates in their nomination process so they are not even close. We can play this game with any number of classifications, but it really gets boring. There are principles that certain markets in world practice that make them considerably freer than other markets. It used to be that employers and employees or potential employees came to an agreement about compensation based on a variety factors, mainly, the employees skill sets, the scarcity of those skill sets, and the overall value of those skill sets. If I need a burger flipper but no one wants to flip burgers, I have to offer more money. If I need a burger flipper and there is a line of people for the job and they are qualified to flip burgers, I just hire the guy who is willing to work for the cheapest that I feel is qualified. If the government(a.k.a. the democrats and the chamber of commerce) flood the country with people who are only qualified to pick strawberries and flip burgers, those jobs will not pay much.
Of course if you are a democrat you are trying to force them out of work and into the welfare system because that increases the democrat voter base. That's what $15 minimum wage and allowing illegals to vote is all about. It is by no means an attempt to help the little guy.
Yes, that's right . I am a very big fan of Sanders.
We don't need history. It been rewritten, anyway.
We can just look at the present. It's harder to make up facts about that. 15 bucks an hour in California and the people promoting it want an exemption or they'll have to lay off people.
California Labor Union That Fought for $15 Minimum Wage ...
dailysignal.com/.../california-labor-union-that-fought-for-15-minimum-...
Sep 30, 2015 - The labor union that led the charge for a $15 minimum wage hike in cities ... That Fought for $15 Minimum Wage Now Wants an Exemption.
LA union wants to be exempt from $15 minimum wage
www.cnbc.com/.../la-union-wants-to-be-exempt-from-15-minimu...CNBC
Jul 30, 2015 - An LA union wants to be exempt from the $15 minimum wage it supports. ... planning professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.
I think when you stated that nobody knows the true cost of labor, you really meant the value of labor. The cost of labor is already known. It's the value we're arguing over. And your statement that we can be sure it's above 7 bucks an hour is just opinion. Yours against millions of others who say differently. And unlike you, those others are actually putting their money behind their opinion.
You hope that businesses like Walmart go under? That's 1.4 million workers for that company alone. Putting that many people out of work will give a shot to the economy alright. A shot to the head.
edit:
As long as you're concerned about getting the cost of labor in line with the value of labor, why is it that I haven't seen any posts by you critiquing union labor costs, both public and private, as it relates to the value they provide?
We've seen companies out the wazoo go belly up with gigantic union pension costs that can't be paid. And Chicago and other cities are on the precipice right now with huge public union costs How is it that you're not agitating to lower the cost of labor to unions? It would give the economy a big shot in the arm ya know.
Last edited:
Are you referring to Biden's 1992 speech?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-opposition-to-lame-duck-supreme-co/?page=all
It may be Vice President Joseph R. Biden who dooms President Obama’s hopes of reshaping the Supreme Court and picking a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia after Republicans unearthed a 1992 speech in which then-Sen. Biden said it was “not fair” to let a lame-duck president make such an important decision.
Mr. Biden’s comments cut even deeper, with the former senator saying in his 1992 speech that not only does the Senate have the right to reject nominees, but presidents shouldn’t even try to send one to Capitol Hill in the middle of an election.
“Once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over,” Mr. Biden said in his 90-minute speech, which was so long it spanned 15 pages of the Congressional Record. “That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process.”
Let me just point out something that is very important, and it is the reason we need federal minimums set, and not go State by State. When the minimum is adjusted it can create havoc if it's not adjusted uniformly everywhere in the economy so that relative imbalances are not created. However that minimum should be set toward the low end of the range. That leaves the States and locales within States to set somewhat higher minimums. It's important that you don't have a 7.25 minimum in say Idaho and a 15$ minimum in California. This can cause problems. But it's not going to be much of a problem if the Federal minimum is say 11$/hr and there is a local minimum in San Francisco of 15$. But 15 to 7.25 is too big a spread.
The Federal minimum must come up. And I guarantee it will. There is really no choice in the matter. Congress should get on with it. The lack of knowledge about macro economics among a subset of our Congress is shocking.
No, I'm referring to the stance that affected this presidency. The one we're discussing.