What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[hadit]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Of course it does. It’s called minimum wage

Of course it doesn't.

Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.

If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.

And, of course, when government artificially raises the cost of labor, it cheapens the dollar. What used to buy an hour of labor now only buys a fraction of an hour. Your money is worth less than it was before.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Yes, it does. And, it is why firms pay the cost they do for labor.

The government can decide an employer has to pay you $15/hr,
that doesn't mean the value of your labor is $15, or $10 or even $5.

 

[hadit]

Can right wingers explain why simple poverty would not be solved with equal protection of the laws for UC at the equivalent to fourteen or fifteen dollars an hour and a minimum wage that is arbitraged based on that UC compensation wage rate?

They absolutely can, and have, several times. You just closed your eyes and refused to learn.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Slaves are

Job seekers

now? GFY back in ignoreland, dumbass. Bubbye!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and that even the unemployed could be paying general taxes to help fund UC.

Excellent idea!!

Charge unemployable bums taxes on the undeserved benefits they receive.

Can we make their tax rate 100%? The program would fund itself!!!

 

[Orangecat]

Slaves are

Job seekers

now? GFY back in ignoreland, dumbass. Bubbye!

Thanks for illustrating what an imbecile you are.

Seeya later, gump.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Do you know anyone who is good with money who is also poor?

Not personally. I only know about businesses who have entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory and still have needed bailouts in the past.

So you don't know one person who is good with money but is poor? Not one?!?!?

Besides the religious under our form of Capitalism? Why is corporate welfare institutional in our republic when management has recourse to entire departments to help them with rational choice theory?

What? I asked you a question. Why didn't you answer it? You were raised very poorly.

I haven't conducted any study. Anything I may know would only be anecdotal. What is your definition of poor? Some people are good with money and not rich.

Poor: Lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society.

Do you know any one that is poor (don't care if it is anecdotal) who is good with money.

No, I don't, beyond circumstantial evidence from accidents, corporate downsizing, etc.

So then to defeat poverty, doesn't it make more sense to teach people how to manage and become "good with money" vs. corporate welfare programs?

I agree to disagree that what you claim would defeat poverty. Isn't the anecdotal evidence of Institutional corporate welfare sufficient evidence to the contrary? If even firms who have recourse to entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory can't do it, why in the world would anyone believe individuals would be better at it?

#1) You said you don't know anyone who is good with money that is poor
#2) We don't teach people how to budget. Parents may but teachers do not.
#3) Teach everyone how to open a bank account and manage money

Do the above and you will significantly reduce poverty. Education is the key. Fish for a man and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.

 

[Blues Man]

no it isn't.

Market research is conducted on relevant factors that will affect costs of the production and distribution of a product or service and those factors include the cost of labor but not the expenses of an employee.

You are selling your labor and as the seller you can ask any price you want for that labor but there is no obligation for any employer to accept that offer.

You are responsible for making your labor worth enough so that an employer will pay you more for it.

Yes, it is. Labor is subject to market based arbitraje. All factors of cost (for labor) must be considered by labor and therefore must affect the arbitraje in that market. Some potential labor may not seek employment with a given employer or a given market simply due to those factors; which affects that market in general.

Do you even know the definition of arbitrage?

And your housing costs are not related to my production costs in any way.

 

[danielpalos]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Of course it does. It’s called minimum wage

Of course it doesn't.

Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.

If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.

Why do we have inflation? Inflation is not value.

Wages for labor did not keep up with inflation but prices for everything else still went up.

 

[danielpalos]

If a potential employee (not slave, dufus) agrees to work for $7 an hour, why shouldn't they be able to do that?

Why would they do that if they could apply for unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour and go to school to study human resources management instead?

 

[danielpalos]

In there you will find the job multiplier effect of current jobs. When you take money out of business, jobs are lost and they are not lost in a vacuum, they cause other job loss as well.

Except we are referring to the unemployed. There is no money being taken out of business. Jobs are lost for the profit seeking bottom line and that line of special pleading. You could say taxes take out money as well, yet even massive tax breaks did not solve simple poverty nor even balance the budget. Only the Rich got richer. And, the Richest don't tend to spend most of their income like the poor do and generate less of a multiplier as a result for our economy.

 

[WinterBorn]

And this is why no one takes the left seriously about economics, because they are ignorant of, and refuse to consider, the opportunity cost of taxation. They refuse to consider where the money will come from to create their socialist utopia. LOOK IT UP. Opportunity cost is a real thing, and you have to first STOP capital from circulating by taking it from someone who earned it in order to START it circulating by giving some of it to someone who didn't earn it.

Now, again I ask, where do you think the money will come from that you think will be circulating?

You appeal to ignorance of the multiplier generated by UC, 2. Most other government spending including defense spending only generates a multiplier of .8. And, I have answered this question several times. Only right wingers are annoying enough to continually appeal to ignorance instead of actually reading my mostly one liners or paragraphs, usually at most.

The money could come from general taxes so that anyone, even someone on unemployment can help contribute to that fund. The rest could come from relatively safe bond issues. Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in the particular manner implied by our Commerce Clause.

Part of the reason for the higher multiplier is the lack of bureaucracy for UC. By changing it to welfare, you will make it a big bureaucracy.

And there will be a means test. Do you think you will be given $2,400.00 a month, forever, by simply saying you have no job? You want the tax payers to support you, and yet you refuse to prove you need the support.

 

[Papageorgio]

Again, you failed to link your evidence, you have no proof and yet you claim I have no argument, hell you have provided no facts for your argument, so show me the link. No evidence of what you are claiming, so it is FAKE NEWS!!! You would have thought you would have learned by now.

We can solve simple poverty by merely raising the minimum wage until there is no need for social services for persons willing to work and by ensuring faithful execution of our at-will employment laws for unemployment Compensation.

Go ahead, tell me how that would not work to solve simple poverty.

I need to see the link so far all I can comment is that you provided no link for proof, how can I make suggestions? So far all you have is FAKE NEWS!!! Quit trolling and send the link.

 

[WinterBorn]

If a potential employee (not slave, dufus) agrees to work for $7 an hour, why shouldn't they be able to do that?

Why would they do that if they could apply for unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour and go to school to study human resources management instead?

But they can't do that, can they? And you want the tax payers to pay for you to go to school, after funding 12 years of public education? If you goof off in public school, that is your problem not ours.

And if you are on welfare, you have access to numerous job training classes and schools.

 

[WinterBorn]

In there you will find the job multiplier effect of current jobs. When you take money out of business, jobs are lost and they are not lost in a vacuum, they cause other job loss as well.

Except we are referring to the unemployed. There is no money being taken out of business. Jobs are lost for the profit seeking bottom line and that line of special pleading. You could say taxes take out money as well, yet even massive tax breaks did not solve simple poverty nor even balance the budget. Only the Rich got richer. And, the Richest don't tend to spend most of their income like the poor do and generate less of a multiplier as a result for our economy.

Here is where you don't understand how the economy works.

You claim the richest don't tend to spend most of their income. What do they do with the rest of it? Stuff it in a mattress?

 

[Papageorgio]

IOW, the money first has to be taken out of the economy by taxes and borrowing. Until you stop pretending there is no opportunity cost associated with taking money out of the economy, you will never grasp why grand socialist schemes like that always fail.

It doesn't matter if the multiplier effect, 2 in this case, creates more economic activity? A multiplier of two means that for every one dollar spent, two dollars of economic activity is generated. You simply ignoring economics is worse (and more annoying) and means right wingers will fall for the general malfare but complain about the general welfare.

Dude, seriously, you're ignoring the fact that you are ELIMINATING the multiplier effect of that money that WOULD HAVE happened if you had not taken it out of the economy first.

Link that what you claim is true?

A multiplier is not eliminated by the additional spending that happens.

When do you provide the link I asked for?

 

[danielpalos]

and that even the unemployed could be paying general taxes to help fund UC.

Excellent idea!!

Charge unemployable bums taxes on the undeserved benefits they receive.

Can we make their tax rate 100%? The program would fund itself!!!

They would already pay general taxes like sales taxes.

Since simple poverty would no longer exist, some people who could become good with money may even learn to invest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do we have inflation?

The supply of money is increasing faster than the demand for money.

 

[danielpalos]

#1) You said you don't know anyone who is good with money that is poor
#2) We don't teach people how to budget. Parents may but teachers do not.
#3) Teach everyone how to open a bank account and manage money

Do the above and you will significantly reduce poverty. Education is the key. Fish for a man and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.

All corporate management is usually well educated and some specialize in business management.

All corporate management should have learned how to create a budget and manage their budgets.

All corporate management should know how to open a bank account and manage not only their money but also their corporation's money.

Why do we have Institutional corporate welfare?

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.”

― Calvin Coolidge

 

[WinterBorn]

Why should a salary be based on anything but the value of the labor to the employer or to the market in general?

As a person asking another for employment your labor is your product and you are asking an employer to buy that product at either and hourly wage or a salary.

What the person who is selling his labor pays for rent is not part of the equation nor should it be.

Because employers don't operate in a vacuum of special pleading, but in our first world market economy.

How to Establish Salary Ranges

1. Step 1: Determine the Organization's Compensation Philosophy. ...
2. Step 2: Conduct a Job Analysis. ...
3. Step 3: Group into Job Families. ...
4. Step 4: Rank Positions Using a Job Evaluation Method. ...
5. Step 5: Conduct Market Research. ...
6. Step 6: Create Job Grades. ...
7. Step 7: Create a Salary Range Based on Research.

How to Establish Salary Ranges

Follow these simple steps to create pay grades and salary ranges.

www.shrm.org

where in there does it say the employee's rent is part of the salary equation?

Market research that is influenced by market based arbitrage. Not everyone in a low skilled job is as ignorant as the right wing would prefer.

No one said everyone in a low skill job is ignorant. But if they managed to get to adulthood with no skills, you are not worth as much to a business.