Minimum Wage destroys jobs--again!

[Tony]

I use a variety of operating systems, including windows. But I still choose to use Windows, and should I choose not to, NOTHING Gates could do could force me to use it.

I didn't mean you as in you Ziggurat (or whatever your real name is) but you as in the "man on the street", "joe-six-pack" ect.. Understand?

Wealth is not ONLY dollars, yes. But damned straight if you've got a lot of dollars, you're wealthy.

That's what I was saying. Let me re-iterate that I'd consider leasure time a form of wealth.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Wealth is not ONLY dollars, yes. But damned straight if you've got a lot of dollars, you're wealthy.

Not if you have a lot of Confederate dollars.

DR

 

[burnvictim77]

Better question: is it right to boost your profits at the expense of the poor?

You've got to love rhetoric.

What does this even mean: at the expense of the poor.

 

[burnvictim77]

Then it's really not at the expense of the poor, is it?

Poor people take on the expense of purchasing food, yes? This statement of something being 'at the exspense of the poor' has no significance outside the platitudes of vote-for-me politics.

 

[burnvictim77]

Personal satisfaction?

I don't get paid for my writing, yet I want to improve how I write. I like to see that my writing skills improve, simply because it enables me to communicate my thoughts, ideas and arguments better.

I also like to improve on other things, too, without getting paid for it. Money is a drive, but it isn't the only motivation I have for improving myself.

Frankly, I find those who are only driven by a need for money rather pathetic. Is that what they want to spend their lives on? A blind hunt for money, more money?

Don't you play the piano because you like it? Don't you ever practice, even though you don't get paid for it?

All these things have value to yourself. However, where we generate wealth is by producing something that someone else values. No one would work at McDonalds for the personal satisfaction of it, unless there were severely mentally derranged.

 

[burnvictim77]

That may be preferable to me, but that's still not wealth. Which is why nobody talks about all the wealth that unemployed people have in the form of free time.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Cheesejoff]

Gee, it's just amazing how the predictions of economics just keep coming true, despite the claims of many on this board to the contrary. Like, the claim that the Minimum Wage doesn't destroy the jobs of the very people it's purporting to guarantee higher wages for.

Is it right for a company to increase it's profits by firing redundant workers, and if so, why?

 

[CFLarsen]

All these things have value to yourself. However, where we generate wealth is by producing something that someone else values.

Not to sound haughty or anything but...when I improve my writing, it also has value to others, since others read what I write.

Is "wealth" only generated in currency? Are we not getting "wealthier" by becoming (hopefully, when people read what I write) more knowledgeable?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Not to sound haughty or anything but...when I improve my writing, it also has value to others, since others read what I write.

Is "wealth" only generated in currency? Are we not getting "wealthier" by becoming (hopefully, when people read what I write) more knowledgeable?

Yer killin' me, Claus, but I'll give you a hearty "Amen, Deacon!" on the principle of hope. One can always hope that one's quillwork has more value than as bird cage lining. 'Tis the hope of any of us who fancy ourselves scribes.

DR

 

[burnvictim77]

Not to sound haughty or anything but...when I improve my writing, it also has value to others, since others read what I write.

Is "wealth" only generated in currency? Are we not getting "wealthier" by becoming (hopefully, when people read what I write) more knowledgeable?

Not in any tangible, economic sense. Now, it may indirectly inspire others to become better producers (though, I'm not sure what sort of a book one would have to write to accomplish that, and it doesn't sound like one I'd read if that's the case). And indirrectly improve the economy, increasing overall wealth in our system. But your writing, itself, is not wealth until someone else values it with dollars.

I think you are conflating two different kinds of value. Wealth is more specific. It is something that people will trade for.

 

[burnvictim77]

Is it right for a company to increase it's profits by firing redundant workers, and if so, why?

Yes, it is right. If workers have nothing to offer a company, there is no job. Likewise, it is right for a worker to quit when the company is not giving them a job they desire, be it for its value for learning, income, or satisfaction.

Voluntary contracts. No one is the slave of the other.

 

[Tony]

All these things have value to yourself. However, where we generate wealth is by producing something that someone else values.

Irrelevant. Claus was answering a question as to his motivations for improving himself.

 

[shanek]

Is it right for a company to increase it's profits by firing redundant workers, and if so, why?

Yes, because it frees up both capital and labor that can now be used on other things and generate even more wealth in the economy. Redundant busywork doesn't contribute anything.

 

[shanek]

Since people have taken it upon themselves to completely distort what I was saying (as usual), let me put it this way:

Why would anyone take on the stress and hard work of, for example, managing a company when he could be doing any number of other things--maybe almost as fulfilling--that are far less stressful and risky?

 

[Tony]

Yes, because it frees up both capital and labor that can now be used on other things and generate even more wealth in the economy. Redundant busywork doesn't contribute anything.

I agree with Shane here.

 

[Tony]

Why would anyone take on the stress and hard work of, for example, managing a company when he could be doing any number of other things--maybe almost as fulfilling--that are far less stressful and risky?

Because he is irrationally pursuing money at the expense of his health and happiness. Seriously, if he has an option to go for something that entails less "hard work" (ie, more freedom), less stress and less risk but almost as fulfilling (if it's really fulfilling, it's hard to image it being more stressful and requiring more hard work, but whatever), then he is a sucker for sacrificing his long term health and his personal happiness for money (because there really is no dollar amound you can put on health and happiness). If it's money he is after, I say he's better off doing gay porn.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yer killin' me, Claus, but I'll give you a hearty "Amen, Deacon!" on the principle of hope. One can always hope that one's quillwork has more value than as bird cage lining. 'Tis the hope of any of us who fancy ourselves scribes.

Yep. Yet, writing can change the world, and for the better. So why not try?

Not in any tangible, economic sense. Now, it may indirectly inspire others to become better producers (though, I'm not sure what sort of a book one would have to write to accomplish that, and it doesn't sound like one I'd read if that's the case). And indirrectly improve the economy, increasing overall wealth in our system. But your writing, itself, is not wealth until someone else values it with dollars.

I think you are conflating two different kinds of value. Wealth is more specific. It is something that people will trade for.

Writing can definitely change the world in a very tangible, economic sense. New ideas is the basis of an improved economy: Hey, here's an idea, let's try that!

Economy isn't like science, we can't predict an outcome the same way we can make scientific predictions. But we can try out ideas, and those can only come from people who put forth such ideas. Usually in writing. Which, on the surface, is not producing "wealth". But in reality, it is.

 

[burnvictim77]

Because he is irrationally pursuing money at the expense of his health and happiness. Seriously, if he has an option to go for something that entails less "hard work" (ie, more freedom), less stress and less risk but almost as fulfilling (if it's really fulfilling, it's hard to image it being more stressful and requiring more hard work, but whatever), then he is a sucker for sacrificing his long term health and his personal happiness for money (because there really is no dollar amound you can put on health and happiness). If it's money he is after, I say he's better off doing gay porn.

The economy sure isn't better off though. And it seems that millions of Americans would rather do a job as a manager than gay porn. So for them it presents a value. So that's what they do.

Free Market.

 

[Tony]

The economy sure isn't better off though.

Ahhh, you're an Econommunist. I see where you're coming from, but the interests of the individual are more important than the interests of the economy to me.

And it seems that millions of Americans would rather do a job as a manager than gay porn.

That doesn't mean they're not idiots.

Free Market.

Pixies, fairies, trolls, viable communsim, god, unicorns. It's fun to spell out mythological creatures.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Why would anyone take on the stress and hard work of, for example, managing a company when he could be doing any number of other things--maybe almost as fulfilling--that are far less stressful and risky?

But that all depends upon the individual.

For example, a person managing a company may not, from his or her perspective, evaluate that activity as hard work or overly stressful. Some people are simply born to it and love it. I'll bet Sam Walton loved it. I'll bet Al Gore loves traveling the world for his environmental cause. I'll bet Oprah loves what she's doing. Other activities may in fact be seen as stressful and hard work to the driven company manager or self-marketer. Perhaps because they are seen as boring or unchallenging or trivial.