Minimum Wage --Prevents-- Wealth Acquisition!

Burger King and McDonald's Pay Fast Food Workers $20 an Hour in Denmark


Enough to pay their bills, save some money and even go out with friends. Why can't we do that here?


Burger King and McDonald's Pay Fast Food Workers $20 an Hour in Denmark

It is an irrelevant number fruit cake, since the cost of living is 18% higher.

By the way they have no minimum wage law



Cost Of Living Comparison Between United States And Denmark

18% higher costs and their wage is 250% higher than the US? lol

Weird they have that high of pay for fast food Comps right? Those evil unions right?

Denmark- Population 5.6 mil
About the size of Maine.
FYI- Actually, Denmark's population is about 4 times the size of Maine's, we only have 1.3 million in the State....(that's why I love it here, space/room to breathe)

I meant the geographical size. You are dealing with a small country that isn't very large in size. Close-knit communities of people who know each other and grew up together... contrasted with the US where everyone is constantly moving across 3.8 million square miles, few know their neighbors or care about their community. Socialism doesn't work with 350 million people. It has only ever been successful in small isolated countries with small populations and little immigration.
 
When FDR enacted the MW back in 1933, the problem it sought to address was providing a "living wage" to people... did it work? It's 2015 and we have Democrats moaning and whining about the lack of a "living wage" so you tell me... has it worked? I would think that 82 years is enough time to objectively evaluate if a program was successful.

Looking at the rest of the countries in the world I would say it worked, if not in providing a living wage it did work by expanding the internal market and pushing industrialization. To this date the US market is still the largest in the world ( chinese boom notwithstanding).

Maybe you will not like this example , but before the American civil war, the south had plenty of "cheap" labour, while labour in the north was more expensive which drove industrialization ( clearly this was not the most important factor , but it did play an important role). The unindustrialized south didn't stand a chance against the north.

Two minimum wages are enough for DINKS ( double income no kids), but not for a single working parent with two kids.

Well, give us some examples of countries with a minimum wage where people are satisfied it is a "living wage" and we can objectively evaluate. Are they free market capitalist systems where people have the freedom and liberty to become as wealthy as they desire?

You see... It's really easy to say that without the MW, we would see people having to work for pennies on the dollar. But this is all prefaced on the conditions our economy faced in 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression, when there were no jobs and the economy had crashed. We had a huge supply of labor and no demand.

And I don't care for your Civil War example because it's irrelevant. Northern industry profited just as much off of slave labor in the South as the South. Cotton was our leading export, followed by tobacco and sugar cane... Fourth was textiles made from cotton. In other words, basically everything this country did to make money was dependent on slave labor in the South. The results of the war was that more Americans died than all the other wars combined... it was hardly a cake walk.
 
Stick with a minimum wage job and often times opportunity for advancement will present itself.
Many people have risen through the ranks this way.

That's a great point but the thread OP isn't really about that. Think of a world where "minimum wage" never existed? Think of all the types of arrangements which could be made between parties? Maybe I offer an inexperienced laborer and opportunity to train for 90 days at a pay rate of $40 a day... if he completes the training, he is hired as skilled labor making $20 hr. Or maybe I have a job that not many people want to do. When I offer to pay $7.50 hr., people laugh at me... you gotta be kidding, Boss... no way! So not having some arbitrary "baseline" to price labor, I might pay $10hr.. or $15hr. Eventually, I will offer an amount that is attractive to someone who doesn't mind the job. That's how free market systems work.

As it stands, no need for me to offer more... it's a shit job that pays shit wages because the price of labor is baselined. The corporatist has been given a free pass here... you've set up an artificial parameter they can exploit to their advantage by not increasing wages because they can always point to the minimum wage, which their pay scales are based upon. Basically, we've screwed ourselves out of being to negotiate in a free market way for the use of our labor. There could be jobs you wouldn't mind doing for $2 an hr., just so you can get experience. If you're okay with that and they are okay with it, why shouldn't you be able to negotiate it? Well, you can't now because of minimum wage.
When there was no minimum wage in the industrial era, wages were shit wages and working hours were long, people barely made enough to pay for basic necessities.Have you never studied sociology on the pre-modern industrial age?

And yet the greatest advance of the standard of living, was before the minimum wage existed.

Additionally, wages were increasing, and working hours were falling, all during the first 100 years of this countries existence, and there were no laws governing that at the time.

Now, we have millions of people who don't have any skills, or abilities, and thus can't find jobs at all, because the minimum wage is higher than the value of their labor.

That's a net loss, not benefit.
 
Stick with a minimum wage job and often times opportunity for advancement will present itself.
Many people have risen through the ranks this way.

That's a great point but the thread OP isn't really about that. Think of a world where "minimum wage" never existed? Think of all the types of arrangements which could be made between parties? Maybe I offer an inexperienced laborer and opportunity to train for 90 days at a pay rate of $40 a day... if he completes the training, he is hired as skilled labor making $20 hr. Or maybe I have a job that not many people want to do. When I offer to pay $7.50 hr., people laugh at me... you gotta be kidding, Boss... no way! So not having some arbitrary "baseline" to price labor, I might pay $10hr.. or $15hr. Eventually, I will offer an amount that is attractive to someone who doesn't mind the job. That's how free market systems work.

As it stands, no need for me to offer more... it's a shit job that pays shit wages because the price of labor is baselined. The corporatist has been given a free pass here... you've set up an artificial parameter they can exploit to their advantage by not increasing wages because they can always point to the minimum wage, which their pay scales are based upon. Basically, we've screwed ourselves out of being to negotiate in a free market way for the use of our labor. There could be jobs you wouldn't mind doing for $2 an hr., just so you can get experience. If you're okay with that and they are okay with it, why shouldn't you be able to negotiate it? Well, you can't now because of minimum wage.
When there was no minimum wage in the industrial era, wages were shit wages and working hours were long, people barely made enough to pay for basic necessities.Have you never studied sociology on the pre-modern industrial age?

And yet the greatest advance of the standard of living, was before the minimum wage existed.

Additionally, wages were increasing, and working hours were falling, all during the first 100 years of this countries existence, and there were no laws governing that at the time.

Now, we have millions of people who don't have any skills, or abilities, and thus can't find jobs at all, because the minimum wage is higher than the value of their labor.

That's a net loss, not benefit.
At the Carnegie steel plant one shift worked 72 hours a week, the other shift worked 96 hours a week with one day off a year, July 4th..He cut their pay to increase profits...
The reason why the general population had wages better than before was industrialization...If these conditions as you say were the best, then why did the workers strike and demand better working conditions?

Millions that do not have skills today is because of increased population compared to the hundred of thousands that had no skills in the era you reference....
You can't trust a rich man to treat you fairly as has been well established by history....wealth is like any addiction, it only get worse as use increases...

Also 100 years ago there was a world war killing millions of workers, which is the only reason why wages rose, but so did the cost of living....
 
wealth is like any addiction, it only get worse as use increases...

And with this, Glowworm explains the logic of supporting a Socialist-Communist system whereby no one ever becomes wealthy. In order for Glowworm to feel secure, we all need to be relegated to abject poverty and our ability to succeed prevented at any cost. It's the freedom of those who are smarter than him that bothers him the most. He defiantly refuses to yield until we've created a system where he isn't expected to compete.
 
Well, give us some examples of countries with a minimum wage where people are satisfied it is a "living wage" and we can objectively evaluate. Are they free market capitalist systems where people have the freedom and liberty to become as wealthy as they desire?

That would be Australia.
The counter part would be germany which had no minimum wage until recently, but then you would probably disregard it as a socialist country.

The U.S. has a $7.25 minimum wage. Australia’s is $16.88

"Another point, which Guan Yang reminded me of on Twitter - a large number of countries, including Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, and Switzerland, don't have minimum wages at all. Most of them make up for it with widespread collective bargaining, which sets de facto minimums."
 
Last edited:
wealth is like any addiction, it only get worse as use increases...

And with this, Glowworm explains the logic of supporting a Socialist-Communist system whereby no one ever becomes wealthy. In order for Glowworm to feel secure, we all need to be relegated to abject poverty and our ability to succeed prevented at any cost. It's the freedom of those who are smarter than him that bothers him the most. He defiantly refuses to yield until we've created a system where he isn't expected to compete.

Says the libertarian fetishists


How Piketty’s Bombshell Book Blows Up Libertarian Fantasies


Libertarians have always been flummoxed by inequality, tending either to deny that it’s a problem or pretend that the invisible hand of the market will wave a magic wand to cure it. Then everybody gets properly rewarded for what he or she does with brains and effort, and things are peachy keen.

Except that they aren’t, as exhaustively demonstrated by French economist Thomas Piketty, whose 700-page treatise on the long-term trends in inequality, Capital In the Twenty-First Century, has blown up libertarian fantasies one by one.

How Piketty's Bombshell Book Blows Up Libertarian Fantasies | BillMoyers.com



The Libertarian devotion to the “free market” is absolute. To them, all government regulation is inherently bad because the “free market” will magically correct any and all abuses.




Libertarians believe in all kinds of fairy tales just like this.



Tech Companies Agree to Settle Wage Suit


Four big Silicon Valley technology companies agreed Thursday to settle a lawsuit in which 64,000 employees accused them of conspiring between 2005 and 2009 not to recruit each other's workers.

....During pretrial proceedings in the class-action antitrust case, emails from top executives including the late Mr. Jobs, Google co-founder Sergey Brin and then-CEO Eric Schmidt surfaced, showing the executives conferred on hiring plans, sometimes through intermediaries

Tech Companies Agree to Settle Wage Suit


THAT LIBERTARIAN FANTASY-LAND WOULD STOP THIS RIGHT BUBS? lol

 
wealth is like any addiction, it only get worse as use increases...

And with this, Glowworm explains the logic of supporting a Socialist-Communist system whereby no one ever becomes wealthy. In order for Glowworm to feel secure, we all need to be relegated to abject poverty and our ability to succeed prevented at any cost. It's the freedom of those who are smarter than him that bothers him the most. He defiantly refuses to yield until we've created a system where he isn't expected to compete.
Communism has nothing to do with greed and the need for more...
 
We spent tens of trillions on war (adjusted for inflation) has it stopped war?

As far as I am aware, we've never fought ANY war with the objective of eliminating all wars.

Inflation? WOW... such a big word for such a simple-minded idiot.

And you "think" that poverty will EVER be eliminated Bubba? lol


Your inability to acknowledge tax burdens on AGI aren't BEFORE write off of Biz expense Bubba
 
wealth is like any addiction, it only get worse as use increases...

And with this, Glowworm explains the logic of supporting a Socialist-Communist system whereby no one ever becomes wealthy. In order for Glowworm to feel secure, we all need to be relegated to abject poverty and our ability to succeed prevented at any cost. It's the freedom of those who are smarter than him that bothers him the most. He defiantly refuses to yield until we've created a system where he isn't expected to compete.


As opposed to the libertarian THEORY , like communism, both rooted in childish imaginations Bubs
 
wealth is like any addiction, it only get worse as use increases...

And with this, Glowworm explains the logic of supporting a Socialist-Communist system whereby no one ever becomes wealthy. In order for Glowworm to feel secure, we all need to be relegated to abject poverty and our ability to succeed prevented at any cost. It's the freedom of those who are smarter than him that bothers him the most. He defiantly refuses to yield until we've created a system where he isn't expected to compete.
And to add, I ran my own company(30 years) and did masonry work, I competed by doing a better job faster than the next guy.I only stopped because my health.....
 
Except that they aren’t, as exhaustively demonstrated by French economist Thomas Piketty, whose 700-page treatise on the long-term trends in inequality, Capital In the Twenty-First Century, has blown up libertarian fantasies one by one.

I haven't read the book , though I've heard comments by Stiglitz on the book: He mostly agrees on what's inside , though he is quick to point out that Piketty confuses wealth with capital . :eek:

Stiglitz by the way is one of the few economists who has openly admited NAFTA didn't work out as they had planned ( he was chief economic advisor during Clinton's administration ), and has made efforts into investigating how to make economic globalization work.
 
Last edited:
Except that they aren’t, as exhaustively demonstrated by French economist Thomas Piketty, whose 700-page treatise on the long-term trends in inequality, Capital In the Twenty-First Century, has blown up libertarian fantasies one by one.

I haven't read the book , though I've heard comments by Stiglitz on the book: He mostly agrees on what's inside , though he is quick to point out that Piketty confuses wealth with capital . :eek:

Stiglitz by the way is one of the few economists who has openly admited NAFTA didn't work out as they had planned ( he was chief economic advisor during Clinton's administration ), and has made efforts into investigating how to make economic globalization work.


Capital generally is wealth, or at least correlates closely to it. Wealth today, mostly at the top, doesn't come via land as it once did.


Yep, that CONservative Heritage Foundation NAFTA Ronnie Reagan announced the day he ran for prez in 1979, didn't work out to well for US and BADLY damaged Mexico. Glad 60% of dems didn't support it in the Congress


BJ Bill is the best conservative Prez since Ike, IMHO


"For Piketty, wealth and capital are ultimately socially constructed categories. When he refers to wealth, he is not talking about land or machines or buildings necessarily. He is talking about anything that can be traded as an asset that generates a financial return in a society at a given moment in time. In periods when people could be bought and sold like capital, those people counted as wealth. Right now, monopoly rights over ideas (patents) and media (copyright) count as wealth as well.

So he is not tracking the history of wealth and capital in a physical sense. He is tracking the history of the distribution of asset values. The decision to track wealth this way is clearly the correct one for his project, but it already appears to be driving some confusion in the crush of reviews and reactions."

On Piketty's Capital: What Is Wealth?
 
rehashing the same arguments even when they are clearly false.

100% stupid and liberal of course. Conservatism is 2500 years and so the arguments never change. If you think one of the arguments is clearly false tell us which one and why false or admit you lack the IQ to be here.
 
he [stiglitz] has made efforts into investigating how to make economic globalization work.

Stiglitz is an open anti American liberal communist with positions like Krugmans. Global trade, intranational trade, and interpersonal trade works best when free buyers and sellers are free to buy and sell to raise their standard of living as they see fit. Protecting people, countries, and planets from competition makes their goods second rate, their military second rate, and their country second rate and defeated.

A liberal will lack the IQ t understand how freedom works.
 
ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF US HISTORY ON
RUN BABY RUN, LOL
dear,

1) I'll pay you $10,000 if you show me one conservatives who would run from such a elementary question!

2) conservatives were right that freedom works while liberals were spying for Stalin and giving him the bomb on assumption that communism works.

So how does dumbto3 like that for being on the right side of history??
See why we have to be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? IS any other conclusion possible?
 
Most liberals don't understand this because they don't really grasp the principles of free market capitalism.
And you don't seem to comprehend the FACT that free market capitalism does not exist on the planet Earth.

Nor will it in your lifetime.
 
Most liberals don't understand this because they don't really grasp the principles of free market capitalism.
And you don't seem to comprehend the FACT that free market capitalism does not exist on the planet Earth.

100% stupid since he did not say that free market capitalism existed just that he wants us to move toward more capitalism, not toward more socialism.

Do you understand now?
 
Stiglitz is an open anti American liberal communist with positions like Krugmans. Global trade, intranational trade, and interpersonal trade works best when free buyers and sellers are free to buy and sell to raise their standard of living as they see fit. Protecting people, countries, and planets from competition makes their goods second rate, their military second rate, and their country second rate and defeated.

A liberal will lack the IQ t understand how freedom works.
Oh dear your wrong on so many levels it is hard to find a starting point.

Stiglitz is an open anti American liberal communist with positions like Krugmans.
They are both left winged, but they have VERY different opinions on QE and on how the bailout should work.
Stiglitz to Obama: You’re Mistaken on Quantitative Easing

Global trade, intranational trade, and interpersonal trade works best when free buyers and sellers are free to buy and sell to raise their standard of living as they see fit.

No, and both China and South Korea have shown that is not true.
Gradual trade in specific sectors and zones is better for achieving a fast growth.

Protecting people, countries, and planets from competition makes their goods second rate, their military second rate, and their country second rate and defeated.

No, again, look at China... or SK if China if you think China is too State driven , or as Dad2three has pointed out, look at the American economy during the XIX century where tariffs above 50% for manufactures were the norm, not the exception.

"Hong (1979) documents 38 reforms designed to promote exports. Of these reforms, two stand out. In the early 1960s, Korea eliminated tariffs on imported inputs and capital goods, but only as long as these imports were used to produce goods for export. The imports could not be used for production of goods sold domestically"

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/wp08-23bk.pdf

The primary goal of export promotion was to earn foreign currency, obviously imports were discouraged.
...
"In mid-1990's Korea reduced tariff rates and import restriction on autos, high tech products and financial services."
Notice how 30 years passed before they actually reduced tariffs for consumer goods.

Trade policy of South Korea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... as allways , rehasing the same arguments without any proof.
 
ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF US HISTORY ON
RUN BABY RUN, LOL
dear,

1) I'll pay you $10,000 if you show me one conservatives who would run from such a elementary question!

2) conservatives were right that freedom works while liberals were spying for Stalin and giving him the bomb on assumption that communism works.

So how does dumbto3 like that for being on the right side of history??
See why we have to be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? IS any other conclusion possible?

YOUR dodge of the question, AGAIN Bubba, IS noted. When are you wiring my $10,000?



POLICY DUMBDUMB
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top