actually you'd probably run a sweatshop but you just wouldn't have to stay hidden anymore

http://magazine.good.is/articles/ethical-style-there-are-still-sweatshops-in-america

The lead plaintiff made $25 an hour.

I've already thoroughly smashed the arguments for banning 'sweatshops' in numerous other threads. Banning low-paying jobs for poor people when they cant find better jobs doesn't help them, It takes away the best option they have.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Mar 15 2015 03:27pm

If you opened up a business and had the balls to offer employment starting at $1.00 per hour I'd be the first at your gates with a bucket and mop ready to tar and feather your ass and to rail you right out of town. maybe you can guess my feeling about a unprotected minimum wage?

When the price of something is offered at a lower price it makes no sense that there would be more demand for it? Sorry to break it to you but that is basic supply and demand theory.
Read a book holy shit.

I'll do you a solid:



http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp

Embarrassing indeed


It would allow a mutually beneficial deal to be struck where it was otherwise banned, yes.
No to the rest of your strawman.
The logistics of who offers the wage numbers first and if one side is open to fluid negotiations are irrelevant.


You have completely failed to acknowledge that there is in fact demand for labor.

Right now yes there are many low-skill and inexperienced workers looking for jobs.
You aren't grasping the concept of supply and demand, and how artificial wage floors and other artificially imposed costs decrease the demand for unskilled labor.

The bold is of course not true. They can turn to other businesses or possibly start one themselves, or continue to be unemployed as many of them are now.
There is no sound logic at all behind the claims that labor markets wouldn't be competitive or that wages would crash. Its unaldultered fear mongering combined with a deep ignorance of even the most basic of economics.

This all goes back to the main question.
Are unskilled and inexperienced workers more or less likely to find gainful employment if we raise the minimum wage? The answer is undoubtedly less likely.
I already thoroughly explained why that is the case in my previous posts in multiple different ways, with videos and graphs and various examples.

Feel free to hypocritically cry racist again if you don't like what i'm saying.


So you would resort to physical violence against people who offer others a wage you don't like? really classy, filth
Why don't you go out and murder people who hire interns and unpaid volunteers? Thats even less compensation than 1-7 dollars per hour.

I formally offer you $1 an hour to read an economics textbook while wearing a dunce cap.
I need a new lawn ornament to scare off other ignorant scumbags.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Mar 15 2015 06:16pm

i just pulled up one of the first hits on a google search for sweatshops in america to show that they do still exist

yes yes i'm sure you've thoroughly smashed a lot of things

and i do have my issues with sweatshops though probably for completely different reasons from you as you look out for the freedoms and rights of the business owners while i'm more concerned about the well being of the employees and the lack of better opportunities is the only reason i'm not in favour of kneejerk responses shutting down sweat shops

We agree on the issue and you still manage to call into question my intentions..

I'm concerned with both the well-being and freedom of everyone. That includes actual and potential employers, employees and consumers.
You admit they lack better opportunities and therefore would be worse off without them, and I stress those points all day.
The fact that i'm not openly hostile towards the freedom of richer people does not mean I don't care about the well-being of poor people.

Cam I've enjoyed our conversation, in a world where people didn't try to exploit each other for financial gain, where people had scruples and stuck by them. Where the laws od supply and demand worked on unemployment too.



Jobs are services not materials Holy shit man You can't make jobs appear if I said "tomorrow Cam you can hire as many people you want to work for you at unskilled labor jobs for whatever price you desire to work out with them. But what are you going to do with them that isn't being done the only thing you could hope to do is replace other business and do their jobs just with cheaper labor. In essence replace people earning 7.25 in the economy with people earning 4.25 into the economy. You haven't done anything except line your pocket with more points on the margin.







Do I really need to respond to these two lines or can we agree that they just cancel themselves out?




In today's job marker they are lucky to find a job listing, There isn't much demand for unskilled labor and what demand is there is highly applied for. You have the competition part wrong employees aren't going from employer to employer looking and choosing the best job to take. In that market they are putting applications in many places hoping one place will call them back for a second talk.

I understand that a new business may open up utilizing the new cheap labor, what you don't seem to grasp or care about is that in today's economy that business would only cannibalize a current company. There is no I repeat NO demand for more product/production/service in today's market place if there were unemployment wouldn't be as high as it is.

I'm sorry my meds. are affecting my typing I'll address the rest later, ...Cam at the bottom of course I'd never mean to tar and feather you it's just a very old saying . I was speaking in jest brother

So basically you have no argument but want to cry about people not having scruples and falsely portray my arguments and basic economics as only working in a utopia. sure.

Yes people are greedy. You watched that video right? Do you remember the part where he talked about potato farmers and cow farmers getting up and enduring hardships to provide products for others, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because there was an incentive for them to do so.
Incentives change and are effected by different regulations that are enforced.


So labor is a special magical unicorn where all logic dissipates?

There is no such thing as opening a new business or providing more or less goods and services?


They don't cancel each other out. You thinking the demand for unskilled labor is currently lower than we'd like does not mean there isn't a demand for that labor.
The fact that its lower RIGHT NOW with many regulations and artificially high increased costs does not mean that it could not be higher if some of those were removed.
Nor would it mean that making it more expensive wouldn't negatively effect the demand for it.
Hello?

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Mar 16 2015 06:38am

Quote

Code
The law of demand states that, if all other factors remain equal, the higher the price of a good, the less people will demand that good. In other words, the higher the price, the lower the quantity demanded. The amount of a good that buyers purchase at a higher price is less because as the price of a good goes up, so does the opportunity cost of buying that good. As a result, people will naturally avoid buying a product that will force them to forgo the consumption of something else they value more. The chart below shows that the curve is a downward slope.


Of course I understand the economics of supply and demand, I also understand the concept of an oversaturated market and that's where we are now. If you add anymore product (labor) you're just going to be replacing labor that already exists with cheaper labor. That doesn't create greater demand. You can't sell more "labor" if there isn't demand for it at any price. We need consumption and that is created by a more active economy. What regulations could possibly produce consumer activity ? You are attacking this problem from the wrong side.

What this country needs is more good paying skilled labor and unskilled labor jobs to stimulate the economy put money into the pockets of the low and middle class, the number one consumers, that's what will stimulate the economy, not lower wages. We need to infuse some of the cash that's sitting in the savings accounts and portfolios of the 1%'ers and put it back into circulation. That will stimulate spending and will generate the need for employment. Not lower wages.



Oh the magic unicorn yes that's exactly what I thought labor was, of course! That's what everyone who doesn't agree with you thinks isn't it?
See my comments up above. but sure you can open a new business but the only thing you will do at this point is cannibalize other business and replace better paid employees with lower paid ones thus lowering the economy.




The demand for unskilled labor has been met, there is a glut of unskilled laborers looking for work. Unemployment is still way too high. Those regulations you moan about are the ones that the government has put in place to protect employees from unscrupulous employers who would take advantage of them. And Consumers form bad business decisions that would or could endanger them. You can't get blood from a turnip, the labor market is already glutted with unskilled laborers looking for employment to produce a need for more production you need to produce demand.

Now how are you going to produce demand for the unskilled labor? You can't imagine it like your rainbows and unicorns princess? Hello!

Can the Norman Conquest be considered a hardship faced by white people when it was a hardship perpetuated by white people? Unless we're going by the Aryan notion that the farther North in Europe you are, the whiter you become. Real Aryans live on the North Pole. Nobody really missed the Hapsburg Dynasty....just think of them as a modern Lehman Brothers...it is appropriate, since banks are the royalty of today (because of the worship of Money)....and again, the Hapsburg Dynasty largely fell because of internal problems after a long decline and the murder of the heir (by a white fellow) while Lehman Brothers fell largely due to moral hazard being reintroduced to the markets by regulation that allowed the people who own the banks to own the insurance company (AIG) that overinsured their junk bonds, because fuck it, nobody was checking.. Napoleonic and Czarist Adventurism wasn't a racial thing, those were empire things....and the Russians don't need any certificate from anyone about their Czar, as they seemed to deal with them quite effectively and permanently. The French seem to have done pretty well for themselves, and if we are going by the Norman Conquest logic, they aren't very white anyway.