Originally posted by Fishermage

LOL. malthus = the most disproven guy in the history of socioeconomic thought.

I'd love to know how you can disprove what basically amounts to supply and demand. Now, I'm not going too deep into Malthus's stuff here, because yes, the guy was a toolbox. But he did have a point in saying that too much available unskilled labor will cause employers to pay peanuts for the labor they can get. In fact, last I checked, this is the entire reason we have a border patrol and why we don't like illegal immigrants.

Also, given that the current state of the economy was directly caused by economists, I wouldn't really rely on ANY economic theory to support an argument. What I'm saying should just be common sense.

Originally posted by Varny

Yet we're still killing whales and cutting down the rain forest. I mean watching a program on Madagascar and most of the forest there has been cut down to make way for farms that grow recyclable material...

Not even any evidence towards man caused global warming.

 

California can't stop that. Also there is a freaking mountain of evidence that we are having SOME effect on the global climate.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by Draq

If you have the choice to hire 60 people at $5 or 30 people at $10, and you are a major source of employment in the area like a Super Wal-Mart, then the choice you will make is to hire 30 people at $5 and pocket the extra.

This is why we need a minimum wage.

 

This is true for most large companys. But lots of Mom and pop companys would rather have the extra hands so they can be more flexable.

 

Good point, which is why I say "IT DEPENDS." every business, every market, ever economic situation is different. therefore, prices need to be flexible enough to accommodate that. the minute the government steps in and sets a price for labor, they screw that up.

realistically, if government wanted to "set prices," they would really have to set it differently for every community. every business, every market. Governments are simply incapable of doing what is necessary to set prices. Only individuals interacting can do this.

This is why in addition to the federal minimum wage, we also have a state minimum wage. Whether or not we should leave a minimum wage entirely up to the states is an interesting discussion I'm not prepared to make, but we do need a minimum wage.

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Bingo!  So if business is about profit for owners/shareholders and in order to maximise their profit margin they need to control their overhead or cost of doing buisiness there in lies the conundrum.  If business is about making profit for the shareholders and they don't give a squat for their labor force why would I pay my unskilled labor any more than I wanted... every dollar I save is one more dollar of potential profit right?  Because I am most likely not going to provide them any health insurance or 401k.  Again more potential profit for my stakeholders.  Right?

Because if you aren't paying enough to even get unskilled workers to show up you will have no workers. If your company is paying $2h and another company shows up paying $4h your previously unskilled workers will leave your business to go make more money. Eventually if you want to keep your workers or hire more you will have to pay the same wages as others around you or even go higher. This is driven by the economy not by a law forcing people to pay an MW. Everything that is right about the economy is about it being a free market. We don't have a free market anymore. At least not like what it used to be.

You seem to think your company works in a vacuum and can just totally shit on their employees. It won't happen because companies get bad names for treating people poorly or bad wages and people leave or don't go there seeking employment.

 

Right now do companies paying less than MW have a problem getting employees?  Well maybe when INS does a sweep.  I'm confused, is there or is there not a glut of unskilled labor out there?  I do not see that I will have any problem filling my vacancies at $2.00/hour, its about my profits, bottom line.  You seem to think that the unskilled labor pool has a strong negotiation platform, they don't; sure some will go to the $4/hour business but then their position will be filled - they are a dime a dozen and easily replaced.  So no I will not have to pay my workers a higher wage - if its about profit I just need to produce an equitable or superior product and with lower overhead I could sell it at a lower price.  How much I pay my unskilled workers will have no impact on my companys success.  If you disagree prove it with actual facts and not economic theory. 

I suppose in theory you could continuously run your company below what everyone else is but you would have an extremely high turnover rate and be constantly paying to train new illegal workers. This in turn would make your product inferior to others. Also the backlash of people railing against your company's business practices would probably drive you out of business. As people would probably boycott your product.

1. Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage (24 years before minimum wage laws were enacted), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. (Using the Consumer Price Index, this was equivalent to $111.10 per day in 2008 dollars.) The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing in their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs. Ford called it "wage motive." The company's use of vertical integration also proved successful when Ford built a gigantic factory that shipped in raw materials and shipped out finished automobiles.

2. Wages in the 1910's
    child in textile mill.................$3.54/week
    housekeeper..........................$5.00/week
    girl in sweatshop...................$8.76/week
    meat packer............................$9.50/week

    Ford auto worker, 1913............$2.00/day
    Ford auto worker, 1914............$5.00/day

After Henry Ford installed his assembly line in 1914, workers quit their boring and monotonous new jobs in droves. Ford instituted a $5.00 per day wage as an incentive for them to stay. This higher wage drove wages up all across the country. Not just in the local area but the WHOLE country.

    average salary, 1912................$592/year
    average salary, 1914................$627/year
    average salary, 1916................$708/year

Those average salary numbers are countrywide. Amazing what one company paying good wages can do!

3. Minimum wages were first proposed as a way to control the proliferation of sweat shops in manufacturing industries. The sweat shops employed large numbers of women and young workers, paying them what were considered to be substandard wages. The sweatshop owners were thought to have unfair bargaining power over their workers, and a minimum wage was proposed as a means to make them pay "fairly." Over time, the focus changed to helping people, especially families, become more self sufficient. Today, minimum wage laws cover workers in most low-paid fields of employment.

4. According to the model shown in nearly all introductory textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers. One such textbook says:

"If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. ... The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. Other, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force."

Maybe we don't need to repeal the minimum wage but it doesn't need to continuously go up as others believe. Damn this was way longer than I intended and might even be unreadable. Hell, I don't even know if a made a point LOL.

 

An entertaining and facinating bit of history, that.  However, it's also irrelevent. Businesses have always competed for SKILLED labor. These are the mechanics, the engineers, the degree holders that make FAR more than minimum wage as it is, and whose jobs require both training and experience. But there is no shortage of UNskilled labor. A dog could probably run a cash register at wal-mart. 

And I'll see your textbook and raise you Malthus's essay on the oversaturation of unskilled labor in the world. Malthus said the low wages we see are a direct result of the massive unskilled labor resources the world has today. It's all about competition, but the competition is between laborers, not between employers. Rather than the highest bidding company winning labor, the lowest bidding worker wins a job.

In the history of video games, only two perfect games have been made. These are Sonic 3 and Knuckles and Star Fox 64.

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Draq

If you have the choice to hire 60 people at $5 or 30 people at $10, and you are a major source of employment in the area like a Super Wal-Mart, then the choice you will make is to hire 30 people at $5 and pocket the extra.

This is why we need a minimum wage.

No, because Costco moves into the area and pays $7h upsetting the people at Super Wal-Mart. They then discuss wages with the boss or go and try to get hired at Costco. 

The fatal assumption here is that walmart and costco would be competing for labor.

If you have the choice to hire 60 people at $5 or 30 people at $10, and you are a major source of employment in the area like a Super Wal-Mart, then the choice you will make is to hire 30 people at $5 and pocket the extra.

This is why we need a minimum wage.

In nearly every single player game, especially RPGs, I'll look up the best way to defeat a boss, then purposely do something different just for the challenge.

You get the US Economy.

If God created the universe, who created God? The answer: Phoenix Wright.

Well I can never pick a favorite. So here's my top 3.

Etrian Odyssey
Sonic Rush
Mega Man ZX
 

Yeah i don't care if the thread is a month old. Page 2 threads are fair game, if you ask me.

Y"know, if the government is really that worried about finding mexican drug cartels with marijuana money (which is a fat lie, I've known at least 5 people who grow the stuff, probably more), you'd think the best thing to do would be to legalize the stuff let us actually compete with them. Think of the american jobs that it would create!

But no, it's actually all tobacco lobbyists who don't want competition.

 

Yep. Brominated vegetable oil. Check the label.

Originally posted by tvalentine

Originally posted by Draq

Originally posted by tvalentine

Originally posted by Draq

That video is made by hippies for hippies.

I'd like to see marijuana legalized (and tobacco outlawed for that matter), as much as anyone. But if you really want it done, start sending petitions. Real ones, not online ones. With actual human signatures. Polticians listen to one thing, and that's VOTES. If you get a 10,000 signature petition and send it to your state senator, they'll have no choice but to seriously consider it.

If they don't? THAT is when you turn to the internet to tell on them. Write in a letter to the editor, or a guest opinion stating how dissatisfied you are with their decision. Elect someone who will actually get the job done.

Do research! Find the people you need to be campaigning against. Who has shot down legalization efforts in the past? Get some names going.

Threads and videos like these amount to nothing more than whining. If you show this to your congressman, they'll ignore it entirely. But if you show it to them with a 10,000+ signature locally distributed petition? They'll listen. They may not agree, but they'll definitely listen.

 

if it was even relatively easy as you think it is, it would be legal by now. I'm just getting other people's opinions on the subject .... because that is what forums are for, sharing opinions and knowledge. Thanks for playing welcome to the interweb forums.

 

My opinion is that the video was a waste of time and effort.

 

really? When alot of the world still thinks marijuana causes loss of brain cells, lung cancer, addiction etc someone who makes a documentary showing articles, and facts is a waste of time? Who else is supposed to tell people about it, the government? lol....

@your edit: To legalize something that has been illegal since the 1930's .... that is very easy. It took massive amounts of violent crime and public outcry to reverse the alcohol prohibition ..... A couple petitions and phone calls is very easy compared to it.

Times have changed since the roaring 20s. We have that newfangled telyvision and the interwebs now. Public outcry is a lot easier now, we don't have to couple violent crime with it.

Originally posted by tvalentine

Originally posted by Draq

That video is made by hippies for hippies.

I'd like to see marijuana legalized (and tobacco outlawed for that matter), as much as anyone. But if you really want it done, start sending petitions. Real ones, not online ones. With actual human signatures. Polticians listen to one thing, and that's VOTES. If you get a 10,000 signature petition and send it to your state senator, they'll have no choice but to seriously consider it.

If they don't? THAT is when you turn to the internet to tell on them. Write in a letter to the editor, or a guest opinion stating how dissatisfied you are with their decision. Elect someone who will actually get the job done.

Do research! Find the people you need to be campaigning against. Who has shot down legalization efforts in the past? Get some names going.

Threads and videos like these amount to nothing more than whining. If you show this to your congressman, they'll ignore it entirely. But if you show it to them with a 10,000+ signature locally distributed petition? They'll listen. They may not agree, but they'll definitely listen.

 

if it was even relatively easy as you think it is, it would be legal by now. I'm just getting other people's opinions on the subject .... because that is what forums are for, sharing opinions and knowledge. Thanks for playing welcome to the interweb forums.

My opinion is that the video was a waste of time and effort. And at what point did I say any of that was easy? Of course it's not easy. It's SIMPLE, but that's a very different word.

Originally posted by zzvicezz

Originally posted by xanphia

 

Him being a constitutional scholar

 

He was a Lecturer.  Don't overdramatize it....his role wasn't that profound. Could even say he went form teacher aide to teacher..honorable but not something to glorify.

Anne Coulter is  Juris Doctor aka Doctor of Jurisprudence

....But I bet you think less of her in terms of educational standing/or LAW then you do of him.

Haters gonna hate.

That video is made by hippies for hippies.

I'd like to see marijuana legalized (and tobacco outlawed for that matter), as much as anyone. But if you really want it done, start sending petitions. Real ones, not online ones. With actual human signatures. Polticians listen to one thing, and that's VOTES. If you get a 10,000 signature petition and send it to your state senator, they'll have no choice but to seriously consider it.

If they don't? THAT is when you turn to the internet to tell on them. Write in a letter to the editor, or a guest opinion stating how dissatisfied you are with their decision. Elect someone who will actually get the job done.

Do research! Find the people you need to be campaigning against. Who has shot down legalization efforts in the past? Get some names going.

Threads and videos like these amount to nothing more than whining. If you show this to your congressman, they'll ignore it entirely. But if you show it to them with a 10,000+ signature locally distributed petition? They'll listen. They may not agree, but they'll definitely listen.

Originally posted by xanphia

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by xanphia

Which companies? Wal-Mart? Target?

They may ask for you to pay for healthcare but they will deny you just like insurance companies.

Time for some people to unionize...

 

The insurance companies are raising their prices, it is getting passed on to ALL companies. Being an employer myself, I am being left with 2 choices here. Either 1. let some people go in order to offset the costs, or 2 raise the amount paid by employees.

I do not think you understand the impact this is having on our small businesses as well.  All that putting more pressure on businesses on the brink of bankruptcy does is push them over the edge.

I guess some people feel having no job is better than having one, because all of these burdens you place on businesses is running them out of business all together.

 

Not all companies need to offer healthcare to their workers. So I'm not sure where you are coming from. Even if they do, some companies won't pay out. I'm assuming your a small business. I'm not sure on the small business laws. I do know corporation wise the standard operating procedures. I'm sure also State regulation plays a large part.

But the unfortunate reality of unions is that all companies are EXPECTED to offer these kinds of benefits now, and with unions they can be essentially forced to regardless of what the law says. This is the problem that was facing the UAW and General Motors. The UAW is such a strong union that they fought for the very best benefits. But now GM can't afford to pay them a competitive wage with foreign car companies, even though the total value of the benefits and current wage is higher than that of the foreign companies. The result is layoffs and outsourcing. It's hard to outsource a grocery store, but I haven't seen more than 3 cashiers on duty at the local wal mart here in months.

The status of Hero's Journey is officially "We're out of money."

Simutronics is currently seeking funding for the HJ project, the Hero Engine sales haven't been enough to sustain it.  All development on HJ is currently on hold indefnitely. This is not to say it's "dead" but in the current economy it's not easy for a company to get loans and investments.

Before you write off HJ, wait for the following things to happen:

1. Bioware releases The Old Republic. Seeing a Hero Engine based game in action should spur a new generation of licensees. Without absolute proof that it is a superior product, companies will be hesitant to invest in HeroEngine, especially in a recession.

2. The recession ends. Because of the recession it's becoming harder for people to get loans and investments. A subscription MMORPG is not a wise investment in an economy where people might not have the money to burn on entertainment.

 

Dumb argument is dumb.

Numbers please.