Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

It may not be necessary, but I think that higher minimum wages seem to work well in practice. A lot of cities have experimented with the idea, with generally good results. I can see how setting a wage floor would throw a system out of balance in theory, but I prefer to know how well it works in practice before making any judgement. Before putting in place any such measure, I'd like to see smaller scale applications under a variety of circumstances. For that matter, I'd be quite happy to leave such wage floors, if any were applied, to be determined by individual cities and municipalities, maybe small states. This leaves local governments able to determine what is most appropriate for their particular circumstances. I don't think that any measure should be put in place at the federal level unless it has been proven over time to be safe and effective.

I think that unionization, if it is employed, should be used to the benefit of the employer to whatever extent is possible. Workers have a vested interest in the success of their company, and its profits directly affect their wages and the future of their jobs. This would be the more intelligent way of going about it. Try telling that to the workers, the short-sighted morons. They don't have the vision to see three inches in front of their noses.

Denmark, the Netherlands, Estonia, and Ireland have us beat, actually. The EU may have a higher unemployment rate overall, but Poland is a major nosebleed here, along with others. The Polish are all imbeciles, and the EU should really consider disciplinary action against the maggots. I'd have the jokers expelled altogether and have them declared a rogue state.

I'd rather go with tried and tested methods and leave frankensteinian ideas for the pleasure of more adventurous states and municipalities. In fact, I think that municipalities should be encouraged to experiment, thus limiting the number of jobs, livelihoods, and lives we're putting on the line without impeding progress.

Theory, bah. Communism was a theory, and look where it got us.

Well, yes. I think that this has been proven over the course of history, and I think that state intervention should be pursued with caution if at all.

I wasn't heralding France as an economic success. I was just saying they have a nice rail system. It's really cool, from what I've heard.

Of course. All that France proved with the rail system was that a government is capable of putting together a really nice rail system. I'd love to take a spin on that thing one day. I've heard it's really nice.

I'm not sure either way. I'm just not willing to allow the government to play Frankenstein. I really don't think that the government is a particularly good vehicle for innovation, and I can't think of a single reason that it would be. They may be good for hastening or streamlining application, but even this isn't always true.

I don't think that they work well in practice. Even though labor is inelastic, it has been seen in practice that minimum wages tend to push out those who need the job the most. Not only that but even some studies indicate that minimum wages might not even be that effective at fighting poverty. As a means of fighting poverty though, I would claim that they are weaker and less directed and that both are bad.

Well, it is true that unions are not the great evil that some would like to see them as, however, I do not think that it is necessary to buttress unions as some claim. The secret ballot exists preventing corporate attacks on individual workers. Workers if they have union control might simply fight the company for greater percents of this profit but not do so necessarily in regard to the best moves for the entire corporate structure. I never stated that workers were the blind ones, however, unions in the past have discriminated and it would not surprise me that they might do so now, especially given that they have less incentive than employers to bring people they don't like into the union.

Depends on what variables you are looking at. I mentioned several. The US beats all of those nations in a lack of long run unemployment. The US doesn't beat Ireland at unemployment rate however, I think that this is because of the large growth going on in that nation as it is noted as one of the tiger nations, Estonia is also a part of that group of tigers, however, the US is top in innovativeness for all nations though according to Nationmaster. Really though the EU has a lower unemployment rate due to other members such as Germany and France as well, Poland alone isn't everything. Really, I am arguing just that our combination of labor statistics is quite good and our methods are tried and true rather than requiring frankensteinian ideas as you phrase it. Basically, I just say liberalize the labor market and give small directed welfare to a few people and that this will work and will have a very very small chance of frankenstein ever showing up.

I never mentioned any single untried or untested method. We currently do have an EITC. Many noted economists support it as well. It is not a frankensteinian method, in fact, I would consider your methods frankensteinian if anything as my methods go along with markets and yours tend to clash with them.

YES, and the theory was attacked by another theory as being wrong. That is what we are discussing! If the theory was wrong as a theory and it was enacted, then the entire theory was bad. Which is why I brought it up.

Definitely caution.

Well, right, governments put a man on the moon. They can do well at getting one directed goal accomplished.

Well, socialism is a government frankenstein and it does require a government to be a good vehicle for innovation and that is a major part of the problem. Government has horrible feedback mechanisms for an economic structure.

Whatever, AG. Your reasoning isn't crap like some people I've butted heads with on this subject matter, and I don't see this particular discussion going anywhere in particular. When I say "frankensteinian," however, what I'm referring to is implementing ideas on a large scale that haven't been thoroughly tried and tested, both in theory and in practice. This includes both "socialist" and pro-market ideas, look you. Some people may accuse me of being anti-progress because of this, but I believe in allowing ideas to gain some credibility before implementing them. Rushing headlong to privitazation is what junked the Polish economy, and this is why they're all ret*d swine. I find them wholly disgusting. The Tigers are a bit of a special case, but it's widely argued that the source of their economic success was based upon the focus on harmonious labor relations that I was talking about earlier.

Well, I am glad I am not crap. Right, well, I simply saw it as anything that could potentially create a monster. Some pro-market ideas are somewhat untested, I think that labor market ideas are not exactly in that group but I could be wrong. However, to propose an elimination of the minimum wage is not some far out there idea. I stated earlier to another person(and possibly to you) that 47% of people in the American Economic Association think that abolishing the minimum wage is a good idea. Right, well, I do not consider my ideas to lack credibility, there have been economists advocating the abolishment of minimum wage laws for many many years. I also would not consider the Polish economy junked either and think that what they really need is to liberalize more structures such as employment laws and tax codes, both of which are holding them back. They may have a high unemployment rate but they don't have s**t growth like many many other nations do and they do have a good inflation rate as opposed to other nations that one knows about. Really, they are doing a hell of a lot better than Russia, which hell has been held back by horrid governmental problems. If their privatization weren't done so corruptly they might be better off. I am not so sure about the tigers being due to harmonious labor relations though, I would argue that it is liberalization as many of the baltic tigers became successful during a time of great liberalization, in fact, one of those countries modeled itself after policy suggestions taken from Milton Friedman's book capitalism and freedom. With Ireland we see similar things as low taxes allowed for investment and growth. With the Asian tigers we see that they have good economic freedom as well but they are the ones that are more noted for the good labor relations. I think that markets are the reason why much of this growth occurred, but there might be methods used to attract foreign capital and things of that nature that could help.

That was a bit long, but yes, we could butt heads for quite some time without getting anywhere.

Whatever. Keep yourself well-read, think your views through, etcetera. Good work. Encore. Again, I think that a capitalist system with positive labor relations works better than anything else. If you don't like labor unions, I expect that you will agree with my feelings on positive labor relations: poor labor relations lead to hostile unionization, which hurts both the company and the worker. The Polish are useless bastards.

Right, well, I don't think that companies should have bad labor relations, however, I think that companies can keep positive relations without having to accept unions and that the entire unionization process is a matter of corporate self-interest than a matter where outside encouragement shouldn't go in any direction. Companies can easily see that happy employees are productive employees.

Right, well, the Poles will improve things. They are better than the Russians, and the Russians used to have a superpower.

Bah, worthless Poles. They only decent thing they ever produced was Alfred Korzybski.

I wasn't talking about unionization. Liberalization works the same for workers as with any other enterprise, though, and economic freedom improves their performance for the same reason. Sometimes unionization assists in this.

My algebra 2 teacher was of polish decent. I liked her.

Ok, well, yes, liberalization allows for more competition and it allows for even weaker seeming operations to rise up and put their effort in there. Unionization can help with giving workers a voice and by working with companies, it can also hurt, and although unions are not universally bad they are not universally good either and many arguments are made by professional economists that labor unions reduce wages for non-union workers, and that unions push for minimum wages so fervently because of positive effects on wages created by the removal of low wage competition and of course many unions do use their clout to create inefficient situations. I do not tout the staunch anti-union line though.

We are likely talking somewhat past each other despite both knowing the subject well enough to know each others points.

Sort of. My point is that whether unionization is good or bad depends upon the approach taken to it. The same goes for any economic system. I don't really care which system it is. Think like an engineer.

Well, I think that certain economic systems can be bad ideas, just like I think that putting a bunch of sharp objects in a baby stroller is not an intelligent way to improve safety. If a system naturally has horrible incentive problems, poor feedback mechanisms, and lacking innovation both theoretically and in practice then I think we have enough knowledge to condemn the idea as we may condemn the idea as having less potential as its competitor at the least, if not to be an impossibility to pursue while maintaining our other virtues. The best theoretical arguments for socialism came down to emulating capitalism using aspects of neo-classical theory to do the planning. The ideas were still were not winners.

Well, I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with it in theory, but it doesn't seem to be functional in practice. I'm actually quite content with a mixed economy, pursued intelligently.

I have no idea what's wrong with minimum wage. Back in the days before minimum wage, there were people working over 40 hours a week who couldn't afford to live so they'd have to send their CHILDREN to work like dogs in the factories just like them. So you're wanting to go back to the dark ages?

Also, even when there was no minimum wage, I'm sure there was still unemployment. Unemployment is virtually inevitable. There's also another funny fact. Denmark has a MUCH higher minimum wage than the United States, BUT they have LOWER unemployment! It seems that minimum wage and unemployment don't have a correlation.

And, at least partially because of a united workforce and excellent labor relations, Sweden doesn't need a minimum wage at all. I like the idea of non-governmental means of eliminating the need for a minimum wage. Calling on the government to remedy all of one's ills is a little uncreative, and it ultimately impedes social progress.

Then again, I'm not against a higher minimum wage, and several cities in the US have proven it to be ultimately beneficial.

Well, the only issue is that most mixed economies are not pursued that intelligently in my mind. The role of political corruption can easily assert itself too greatly and the economic policies pursued can too easily be harmful.

Yes, and in the days before the minimum wage people we were much much poorer as this was before a lot of the modern growth in prosperity, in fact, many 3rd world countries are where we used to be and they are going through that state of economic growth that we suffered through. The minimum wage did not create the wealth that one looks at today, economic growth did, it created the differentiation in the labor market that resulted in higher paying jobs and more economic success. This can also be found in the 3rd world as more skilled workers get better paying jobs with better perks. In an economy where one is poor though, the trade-off between time and money is not so solidly set, and children have nowhere to go but the factory. In fact, in 3rd world nations not only do they have sweatshops but a big child exploitation industry where white men fly over to have sex with 13 year old virgins. This is incredibly hard to clamp down on due to the impoverished conditions. Don't claim that I am arguing against progress. I know what I argue for, I know of other brilliant men who have stated the same argument I state, the argument that the minimum wage is not ideal. I do not call out for a return to darkness and our wealth and progress but rather believe that we will have more in the long run.



I know that there was unemployment an acting economy is likely to have some level of unemployment due to the changes in labor markets, however, minimum wages can cause problems in dealing with unemployment by banning certain forms of employment thus leading to unutilized potential amongst groups such as the younger, the poorer, and other groups. Denmark has no minimum wage laws. Empirical studies usually tend to show a correlation between unemployment and minimum wages, as I stated, labor tends to be inelastic but it is still a part of the market system and supply and demand.

Sweden has their own government subsidies and stuff of that nature going through their labor market. Calling on the government to remedy all of one's ills is a little uncreative in some ways but I was advocating a directed measure and a measure that is better in theory and in practice considered by many economists better than a minimum wage. It is an idea driven by market-advocates as the EITC is a descendent of Milton Friedman's idea of the NIT, it does not affect many people that need not be impacted, as well the overall burden of the supposed social good is spread across the populace rather than adversely affecting one group and ultimately is better as if the argument is that poverty is an externality affecting the people, then the best way is to have the people pay for ending the externality. Business alone has very little to do with poverty.

Right, and I view the minimum wage as the un-innovative government remedy and one that is inefficient compared to alternatives.

Well, I'm also against a self-consciously capitalist economy. I'm not inherently against socialism. I just don't think that it's intelligent to pursue socialism as an ideal. Besides, most successful economies these days are mixed to some extent, and they don't really think twice about whether a measure is socialistic or capitalistic. They just approach problems with the explicit intention of working them out to the greatest possible advantage, by whatever means.

I am more influenced by Austrian scholars(and precursors) and by Milton Friedman I suppose and their view on the nature of capitalism in relation to the human being as such I tend to support a more capitalist economy. I don't think that the nature of current economic models is really a proof of much else because even though we can contrast great state control to mixed economies quite effectively, we do not have many purely capitalist societies in existence and not because they all really collapsed due to the inherent flaw in the capitalist system either. Right, and one of the issues with this is that I do not trust politicians to take proper acts, the US is known for well meaning interventions or not-so-well meaning interventions causing major future problems. Not only that but I tend less to trust the government approaches to problems to be ideal or effective compared to possibility of market adjustments but to more likely be short term fixes, or to come at the cost of liberty, or something of that nature. At the very least I would call for solutions that go along with capitalism rather than those that brutishly intervene.