Minimum Wage --Prevents-- Wealth Acquisition!

[Boss]

Only the Bad management of a minimum wage prevents wealth acquisition.

So... today you're going to run around in every thread with this "bad management" theme? Is someone monitoring your daily meth intake?

nope; just my fallacy output; unlike those of the opposing view.

You should really have someone watching your meth intake. I think you might be "at-risk" based on your postings.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the Bad management of a minimum wage prevents wealth acquisition.

So... today you're going to run around in every thread with this "bad management" theme? Is someone monitoring your daily meth intake?

nope; just my fallacy output; unlike those of the opposing view.

You should really have someone watching your meth intake. I think you might be "at-risk" based on your postings.

dude, i really just need to watch my fallacy output; otherwise, i can't be taken any more seriously than those of the opposing view.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I was just trying to get a handle on why you felt the disconnection between productivity growth and wage growth was, itself, a problem, rather than simply why low wage growth is a problem.

It all boils down to ...

So anyway, you claimed that:

The real problem is that productivity is decoupled from income.

... and that just doesn't add up. Productivity is completely value neutral. If someone is very productive at arson, I see no reason they should have a higher income. On the other hand, if someone manages to cure cancer, but does so in an utterly inefficient manner - who really cares? Wouldn't we still want to reward them handsomely?

There's a failure in your argument : productivity and destruction of wealth (arson ) are incompatible.
A valid comparision would be :
A) Someone is very productive producing wheat.
B) Someone cures cancer in a very inefficient manner ,which I assume doesn't include killing or maiming the patient or someone else ( e.g. transfering the head of the sick into a new body ) .
Indeed I would reward both of them . The second person will probably extend the productive live of someone or save him from a painfull agony ( if he doesn't then he probably won't get much of a reward ).

The problem would be if none of them is rewarded while someone else ( e.g a bank , or even a CFO gets rewarded in spite of doing an average job ).

Back to my problem , please analyse the situation I presented and try to answer the question :

What would you do if you wanted to expand your market to local consumers?

It is a key aspect of the discussion we are having in productivity decoupling and minimum wage

 

[CultureCitizen]

Boss,
Would you want to give a try to this scenario ?

It all boils down to the economic flow model.
Assume you set up a clothes factory in a country which is a subsistence economy.
You import cotton.
You export clothes
You pay market price wages ( subsistentce levels )... in other words you take advantage of cheap labour.

Then asume global markets start going down.
What would you do if you wanted to expand your market to local consumers?

 

[Boss]

Boss,
Would you want to give a try to this scenario ?

It all boils down to the economic flow model.
Assume you set up a clothes factory in a country which is a subsistence economy.
You import cotton.
You export clothes
You pay market price wages ( subsistentce levels )... in other words you take advantage of cheap labour.

Then asume global markets start going down.
What would you do if you wanted to expand your market to local consumers?

You're getting into an area where I used to make $100/hr. to provide a complete answer. There are far too many missing variables but to lend just a small example of what such a company might consider... I would suggest looking into bartering finished product for labor.

But... If global markets for my product are down, then supply is greater than demand. If demand is down globally, you probably can't achieve demand in a subsistence economy. It might mean you are screwed.

 

[Boss]

dude, i really just need to watch my fallacy output...

110%

 

[Boss]

dude, i really just need to watch my fallacy output...

110%

 

[Boss]

dude, i really just need to watch my fallacy output...

110%

 

[dblack]

There's a failure in your argument : productivity and destruction of wealth (arson ) are incompatible.
A valid comparision would be :
A) Someone is very productive producing wheat.
B) Someone cures cancer in a very inefficient manner ,which I assume doesn't include killing or maiming the patient or someone else ( e.g. transfering the head of the sick into a new body ) .
Indeed I would reward both of them . The second person will probably extend the productive live of someone or save him from a painfull agony ( if he doesn't then he probably won't get much of a reward ).

The problem would be if none of them is rewarded while someone else ( e.g a bank , or even a CFO gets rewarded in spite of doing an average job ).

The problem would be if consumer decisions about who should get rewarded are replaced with government mandates. People know what they value, and they spend their money accordingly.

Back to my problem , please analyse the situation I presented .....

We'll get there. I know you want to move on to something else, but until you either drop your claim or defend it I'm not interested in diversion.

 

[danielpalos]

dude, i really just need to watch my fallacy output...

110%

Now you know why I don't need to resort to fallacy for my Cause; unlike those of Your point of view.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yesterday Culturecreep was arguing for a world wide libNazi bureacracy to determine which industries and products in every country were "mature" and therefore able to be engaged in free trade.

Indeed ... this worked both for south korea and China.
Though in South Korea it was actually a bargain between entrepreneurs and the government.

Read "Bad Samaritans" by Ha Joon Chang.

too stupid, you just said a world wide Lib Nazi bureaucracy worked???
also, too stupid, worldwide trade wars don't work, obviously.
Idiot liberals tried that and helped start the Hawley-Smoot Great Depression.

Notice you are too stupid to address how the world can benefit from collapsing world trade by protecting and crippling the world's industries from competition.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Boss,
Would you want to give a try to this scenario ?

It all boils down to the economic flow model.
Assume you set up a clothes factory in a country which is a subsistence economy.
You import cotton.
You export clothes
You pay market price wages ( subsistentce levels )... in other words you take advantage of cheap labour.

Then asume global markets start going down.
What would you do if you wanted to expand your market to local consumers?

You're getting into an area where I used to make $100/hr. to provide a complete answer. There are far too many missing variables but to lend just a small example of what such a company might consider... I would suggest looking into bartering finished product for labor.

But... If global markets for my product are down, then supply is greater than demand. If demand is down globally, you probably can't achieve demand in a subsistence economy. It might mean you are screwed.

Thanks for you answer Boss.
The problem is oversimplistic to make my point.

Ok here are some of the posible solutions. Some of them you may like them , others not.
Since it is a subsistence economy , yes , you will have to barter in most cases, but still there will be at least some form of coin with an intrinsic value ( e.g. copper coins ) and some sort of small government.

First, you might start a micro-loans /capital goods venture. A small percentage (10% maybe) will become entrepreneurs, with that some of them will get out the subsistence level economy and eventually you'll get a sales increase.
Second, you may actually consider giving a raise slightly above the market price for your employees ( even if it is in the form of merchandise )... of course this leaves you the barter problem again.

Third , since you are importing cotton you might start a second business for growing cotton locally ( subject to market prices).

Fourth , out of your control : you may get a union. Maybe you'll have to fire some employees , which will probably go back to their subsistence level activity, but the rest will get higher wages and with that you will get consumption. If they can buy more than they can use, they'll probably buy even more products and re-sell them.

Fifth, you could provide a base market price wage, and offer aditional income to those employees who produce more : these will be your consumers.

All these solutions have a common factor in common : they provide a monetary flow into the households.
The second option provides not only monetary flow , but also capital goods ( aimed to those with entrepreneural spirit), but at this level the difference between household and corporation is really blurred : Early american families used to work this way: producing some goods at home and selling them on weekends.
Households are the ultimate consumers of goods
In the long run paying labour above market prices but below productivity prices benefits the companies.

Finally , in this example , while people have no income they are not completely poor : they are landowners, so they can produce the food they eat and they own a house ( even if it is made of clay and sticks ).
Urban settings are much harsher,... most city dwellers are not land owners.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

... in other words you take advantage of cheap labour.

100% stupid!!! everyone takes advantage of cheap labor from the NY Yankees hiring players to Walmart hiring clerks and production workers in Vietnam.

What you propose is libNazi control, not freedom and capitalism.

libNazi control of trade is just one of a 1000 controls over freedom and capitalism the lib wants because he lacks the IQ to understand freedom and capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

Good management includes solving for simple social problems. Poverty and a natural rate of unemployment can be solved on an Institutional basis by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Yesterday Culturecreep was arguing for a world wide libNazi bureacracy to determine which industries and products in every country were "mature" and therefore able to be engaged in free trade.

Indeed ... this worked both for south korea and China.
Though in South Korea it was actually a bargain between entrepreneurs and the government.

Read "Bad Samaritans" by Ha Joon Chang.

too stupid, you just said a world wide Lib Nazi bureaucracy worked???
also, too stupid, worldwide trade wars don't work, obviously.
Idiot liberals tried that and helped start the Hawley-Smoot Great Depression.

Notice you are too stupid to address how the world can benefit from collapsing world trade by protecting and crippling the world's industries from competition.

Ah , well , it worked for England, it worked for the US, then it worked for Korea and it worked for China.
Free trade works well between mature economies.
China played free trade without actually engaging in free trade.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Good management includes solving for simple social problems. Poverty and a natural rate of unemployment can be solved on an Institutional basis by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

100% stupid of course since capitalism just bailed our socialism in China and prevented another 60 million from starving to death.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Free trade works well between mature economies.

100% stupid of course since people don't engage in free trade unless they benifit from it. Ignoring the $trillions Walmart alone as saved Americans only focusing on lost jobs shows that you have been brainwashed

 

[danielpalos]

Good management includes solving for simple social problems. Poverty and a natural rate of unemployment can be solved on an Institutional basis by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

100% stupid of course since capitalism just bailed our socialism in China and prevented another 60 million from starving to death.

apples and oranges; they were more communist before. We were too capitalist before. Socialism is helping our least wealthy live better than Persons in less developed economies, instead of merely starving.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Socialism is helping our least wealthy live better than Persons in less developed economies, instead of merely starving.

100% stupid and liberal course since socialism caused 120 million to slowly starve to death!!

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is helping our least wealthy live better than Persons in less developed economies, instead of merely starving.

100% stupid and liberal course since socialism caused 120 million to slowly starve to death!!

no understanding of your own propaganda and rhetoric, dear?

(The) Socialism (of our welfare system) is helping our least wealthy live better than Persons in less developed economies, instead of merely starving.