Well seeing as he's been on this point without actually establishing how it's relevant to the situation, as it's a hard case to make that America has literally capped out on it's resource limits (And by extension of a global market, the resource limits of the entire world), I felt it better to try and get to the source of the matter rather than him throwing longer and longer essays at me without addressing the point.
United States Raising the minimum wage
- Thread starter Terthna
- Start date
Well seeing as he's been on this point without actually establishing how it's relevant to the situation, as it's a hard case to make that America has literally capped out on it's resource limits (And by extension of a global market, the resource limits of the entire world), I felt it better to try and get to the source of the matter rather than him throwing longer and longer essays at me without addressing the point.
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
That has nothing to do with what he just said chief.
Who here has said anything about the economy being maxed out? Besides you I mean. I have merely said "limits exist". Followed by you seeming to claim I'm breaking basic economic laws by you breaking basic economic assumptions. You want to talk about something totally different than what I'm talking about, which is fine, except you keep confusing me with whoever is in your head, and everytime I try to ground you to a specific point, you jump back up to maximum abstraction, at the level where anything and everything may or may not be true.
So, do you want to discuss reality, grounded in the particular, or abstract theory totally disconnected from reality?
If you think I misrepresented him, by all means recap what you think he said and I can address it properly. Would that make you feel better?
Limits exist. If we have not hit the limits, more people means more production invalidating your entire "Limits exist" diatribe from applying to immigration.
So that's the reality, chief, unless you have examples of when American immigration caused direct negative economic effects
Okay. So let me return to the initial example, which you dismissed. When you have a 100 people with a 100 km, and then you increase it to 200 people with 100 km, did people get land poor or land richer?
Did the initial 100 people benefit as rent payers when you add an additional 100 rent payers competing for the same land?
Were the first hundred made worse of or better off?
Second, do you recognize that diminishing rates of return exist in the real world?
"The law of diminishing returns states that in all productive processes, adding more of one factor of production, while holding all others constant ("ceteris paribus"), will at some point yield lower incremental per-unit returns.[1] The law of diminishing returns does not imply that adding more of a factor will decrease the total production, a condition known as negative returns, though in fact this is common.
A common example is adding more people to a job, such as the assembly of a car on a factory floor. At some point, adding more workers causes problems such as workers getting in each other's way or frequently finding themselves waiting for access to a part. In all of these processes, producing one more unit of output per unit of time will eventually require increasingly more usage of the input, due to the input being used less effectively.[2] Another well-studied example is throwing more headcount at software development, yielding Brooks's law.
The law of diminishing returns is a fundamental principle of economics.[1] It plays a central role in production theory.[3]"
Did the initial 100 people benefit as rent payers when you add an additional 100 rent payers competing for the same land?
Were the first hundred made worse of or better off?
Second, do you recognize that diminishing rates of return exist in the real world?
"The law of diminishing returns states that in all productive processes, adding more of one factor of production, while holding all others constant ("ceteris paribus"), will at some point yield lower incremental per-unit returns.[1] The law of diminishing returns does not imply that adding more of a factor will decrease the total production, a condition known as negative returns, though in fact this is common.
A common example is adding more people to a job, such as the assembly of a car on a factory floor. At some point, adding more workers causes problems such as workers getting in each other's way or frequently finding themselves waiting for access to a part. In all of these processes, producing one more unit of output per unit of time will eventually require increasingly more usage of the input, due to the input being used less effectively.[2] Another well-studied example is throwing more headcount at software development, yielding Brooks's law.
The law of diminishing returns is a fundamental principle of economics.[1] It plays a central role in production theory.[3]"
SJW indoctrination center is a way of putting it. The absolute fact of the matter is that college professors are among the most left dominant places in the entire country. For example,
American Family News
American Family News (formerly One News Now) offers news on current events from an evangelical Christian perspective. Our experienced journalists want to glorify God in what we do.
onenewsnow.com
What universities do have conservative or Republican professors have it at incredible ratios of around 10-1, excluding military universities it bumps to 14 to 1. With the way people are and especially on more subjective studies you are inevitably going to be served a heavily slanted bias on campus in terms of what ideas and views you are exposed to in the classroom. It's pretty much a fact that universities are heavily left-biased in culture and exposure to ideas and in lectures by professors. Personally I see them more as a "Part you from tens of thousands of dollars of your or your parents money for a piece of paper that shows you are literate and are capable of doing some work" center for the primary means, the indoctrination comes secondary and as a by product from the professors being human beings in positions of power told to educate the populace on the world around them, so obviously they will end up educating them on their views of the world.
In my own experience (at a fairly "woke" university), the professors I had were decently reasonable about presenting readings and ideas in a fair and unbiased manner, and not shutting down discussion — but it's difficult to make the natural sciences political, and health humanities/policy there does slant towards pro-globalism. (Then there was the women's studies institute, which hosted the mandatory "don't rape" orientation that threw tons of shade on us guys, but that's another can of worms.)
The bigger problem, I felt, was that there was an extremely vocal minority of students who learned enough about particular issues to get attached and emotional about them and make signs and slogans, but not enough to really understand the full picture and all its nuances (or were willfully ignorant of such). The preferred debate tactic of these students was to gather en masse and drown out their opposition with volume and vitriol. They liked to picket conservative/Republican student organizations and pro-Israel student organizations, and for the most part the university leadership had a fairly hands-off approach to it all — perhaps because it's an absolute PR nightmare when student protesters start storming and occupying the administration buildings. And other students were afraid to call them out lest that anger and hate be poured onto their own heads, and they be branded all kinds of -phobic and -ist.
With my experience, some are some aren't. Its also not so difficult to make science political, especially at the GE level. had one professor for example who started the semester talking about how she wanted to teach us not only science but to analyze politics scientifically and used the gun deaths stat of over 30,000 as an example, and when I questioned her on whether that included suicides, knowing it didn't, she said it was just murders. Professors hold captive audiences and have relatively high autonomy. all it takes to insert random politics where it doesn't belong is a desire to do so.
Last edited:
LifeisTiresome
Well-known member
Agreed. No arguments back just laughs and calling people idiots.
I honestly don't see whats so hard to accept that Colleges are indoctrination centers. Where is all this intersectional shit taught from? College cause parents unless already woke aren't teaching it. Who most advocates all this woke shit? Young people and young people are going to college to be taught cause their parents don't know this intersectional shit. And if they did know? Its cause they are college educated.
I have seen people call children being taught by their parents or religion as indoctrination so why not college as well? Again, Oberlin college had kids throwing tantrums in cafteria throwing food into the floor, whining about cultural appropriation of food and talk of unleashing the students by the administration.
Last edited:
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
Wow, could you be a little more obtuse?
You threw in an inappropriate comment, someone called you on it, and now you're pretending that the people who called you on it are commenting on your argument, not your inappropriate side comment.
This might be more effective if what you said wasn't literally one click away in text, genius.
40thousandninjas
Active member
Raising the minimum wage will do nothing to actually raise the economic production of minimum wage workers. It would create unemployment among those most vulnerable. Whether that means deciding to hire immigrants under the table or stimulating investment in automation, isn't particularly important. It would make more people unemployable.
It's a terrible idea, especially at the federal level and a simplistic solution proposed by idiots who don't know any better.
Always remember TANSTAFL.
It's a terrible idea, especially at the federal level and a simplistic solution proposed by idiots who don't know any better.
Always remember TANSTAFL.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Raising the minimum wage means more unemployment, more needless automation, more outsourcing, more people dependent on government programs that teach them not to work and that the Government will care for them like cows at an automated trough in a factory farm.
Eliminate the minimum wage, and own up to the externalities with federal stamp programs which have to be purchased into to give people an incentive to work. Tie all welfare to purchase, unless you buy in or are profoundly disabled, you get nothing, but even being a casual day labourer can get you a decent life if you go to the post office and cash in your wages for food, utility, transport and rent stamps. The only free thing should be surplus bulk food delivered directly to recipients by the Post Office. (i.e. instead of paying farmers not to plant, plant every field, government buys the surplus and ships it to the poor.)
The minimum wage is a disaster which helps promote a slave and dependency mentality in Americans.
Eliminate the minimum wage, and own up to the externalities with federal stamp programs which have to be purchased into to give people an incentive to work. Tie all welfare to purchase, unless you buy in or are profoundly disabled, you get nothing, but even being a casual day labourer can get you a decent life if you go to the post office and cash in your wages for food, utility, transport and rent stamps. The only free thing should be surplus bulk food delivered directly to recipients by the Post Office. (i.e. instead of paying farmers not to plant, plant every field, government buys the surplus and ships it to the poor.)
The minimum wage is a disaster which helps promote a slave and dependency mentality in Americans.
Personally I think raising the minimum wage is a good idea in theory; wages haven't increased in tandem with inflation like they should have, and have been comparatively stagnant for decades. At one point, minimum wage could be considered a living wage; now though? Not even close; and the situation is further complicated by the existence of welfare. Not only are labor costs being subsidized with your tax dollars, via programs like food stamps, but oftentimes getting a job paying minimum wage would just makes things worse. Heck, take me for example; I'm on disability, and I'd actually lose money if I tried to get a job paying minimum wage.
Unfortunately, in practice raising the minimum wage nets you results like this:
Which basically puts us between a rock and a hard place. If we raise the minimum wage, automation becomes cheap enough to be the preferred alternative to hiring low-skill workers; if we don't however, more and more of your tax dollars will go towards paying people to work in jobs that shouldn't exist.
McDonalds to Replace More Human Employees With Drive-Thru AI
How's that $15 an hour looking now?summit.news
Wait, a drive-through AI?
I wish them luck with that.
A drive-through AI will not eliminate more than one or two employees. In addition, it would need to be monitored by at least one employee or manager, so the savings there is minimal. And really, if they wanted to replace the drive-through guy, they could have done so decades ago with a touch screen. It's not exactly difficult to assemble one of those meals. $15 an hour across the entire country is batshit insane, because of different costs of living standards, but this won't allow stores to replace people with machines. Rather, I expect that it would cause them to shut down redundant stores within close proximity to each other.
Of course, $15 an hour might allow those stores to get some decent workers again. Entry-level work right now is full of a light of morons who don't show up on time (if at all) and barely do anything when they do. Of course, that's a Maryland problem right now and Maryland is probably in a unique situation. Right now, even places like Wendy's and BK are offering $12 an hour. Between taxes and land prices, you can't get anyone competent through the door and $10 an hour.
Of course, that's because even shit apartments here will cost you $1,700 a month and with taxes, you're basically netting $8 an hour. And because of minimum wage laws, most employees won't be consistently scheduled 40 hours because managers would rather run a train wreck with low staff than give up their bonus. So you're not likely to make more than $1,200 a month, except in peak months. It is literally not worth your time, unless you're a 16 year old kid and they feel more entitled than the adults who actually need higher paying jobs.
So what you end up with is understaffed stores with workers who generally don't give two shits and those that do generally leave for better places to work. But that's in Maryland, where land prices are getting so high that even shitholes like Laurel and Jessup at $1,700 a month and decent locations costing well over $2,000. If you pulled a minimum wage hike in most of the Mid-West, where rent can be between $500 to $800, you're going to shut down entire businesses overnight.
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
there's a nice illustration of the minimum wage that I should totes go look for... it involves houses on boats.
almostinsane
Well-known member
I work at a place that would be unprofitable with the proposed minimum wage hikes. Please hold back on it until I work my way up to a position where I make 14-15 an hour.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
And keep fermenting a socialist revolution? Sorry, that's the sad truth. It is either start rising the minimum wage now, essentially have Huey Long's UBI precursor enforced at gunpoint, or basically cause a situation where it would look like the October Revolution of Russia... the majority of the military backing the revolution and all.
And the military's gonna back it! The MAJORITY of them! Fuckin news to me that I am apparently going to be magically transformed into a bolshevik if we don't back the fuckin minimum wage hike, which like, doesn't even affect us at all outside reserves and guardsmen. Apparently we are all going to turn our guns on the government because other people, not us, but starbucks baristas and wallmart cashiers need more bucks for an issue that literally does not affect any of us directly one iota.
Last edited:
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
Personally, at this point, the only good option is the Huey Long UBI precursor. Aka 'tax the shit out of the rich'...