An Inconvenient Truth

[the.crooked]

i am way to high to respond right now. will do tomorrow.

[angelofdeath]

from one of the masters...

 

Outlawing Jobs

 

by Murray N. Rothbard

 

 

There is no clearer demonstration of the essential identity of the two political parties than their position on the minimum wage. The Democrats proposed to raise the legal minimum wage from $3.35 an hour, to which it had been raised by the Reagan administration during its allegedly free-market salad days in 1981. The Republican counter was to allow a "subminimum" wage for teenagers, who, as marginal workers, are the ones who are indeed hardest hit by any legal minimum.

 

This stand was quickly modified by the Republicans in Congress, who proceeded to argue for a teenage subminimum that would last only a piddling 90 days, after which the rate would rise to the higher Democratic minimum (of $4.55 an hour.) It was left, ironically enough, for Senator Edward Kennedy to point out the ludicrous economic effect of this proposal: to induce employers to hire teenagers and then fire them after 89 days, to rehire others the day after.

 

Finally, and characteristically, George Bush got the Republicans out of this hole by throwing in the towel altogether, and plumping for a Democratic plan, period. We were left with the Democrats forthrightly proposing a big increase in the minimum wage, and the Republicans, after a series of illogical waffles, finally going along with the program.

 

In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.

 

All demand curves are falling, and the demand for hiring labor is no exception. Hence, laws that prohibit employment at any wage that is relevant to the market (a minimum wage of 10 cents an hour would have little or no impact) must result in outlawing employment and hence causing unemployment.

 

If the minimum wage is, in short, raised from $3.35 to $4.55 an hour, the consequence is to disemploy, permanently, those who would have been hired at rates in between these two rates. Since the demand curve for any sort of labor (as for any factor of production) is set by the perceived marginal productivity of that labor, this means that the people who will be disemployed and devastated by this prohibition will be precisely the "marginal" (lowest wage) workers, e.g. blacks and teenagers, the very workers whom the advocates of the minimum wage are claiming to foster and protect.

 

The advocates of the minimum wage and its periodic boosting reply that all this is scare talk and that minimum wage rates do not and never have caused any unemployment. The proper riposte is to raise them one better; all right, if the minimum wage is such a wonderful anti-poverty measure, and can have no unemployment-raising effects, why are you such pikers? Why you are helping the working poor by such piddling amounts? Why stop at $4.55 an hour? Why not $10 an hour? $100? $1,000?

 

It is obvious that the minimum wage advocates do not pursue their own logic, because if they push it to such heights, virtually the entire labor force will be disemployed. In short, you can have as much unemployment as you want, simply by pushing the legally minimum wage high enough.

 

It is conventional among economists to be polite, to assume that economic fallacy is solely the result of intellectual error. But there are times when decorousness is seriously misleading, or, as Oscar Wilde once wrote, "when speaking one's mind becomes more than a duty; it becomes a positive pleasure." For if proponents of the higher minimum wage were simply wrongheaded people of good will, they would not stop at $3 or $4 an hour, but indeed would pursue their dimwit logic into the stratosphere.

 

The fact is that they have always been shrewd enough to stop their minimum wage demands at the point where only marginal workers are affected, and where there is no danger of disemploying, for example, white adult male workers with union seniority. When we see that the most ardent advocates of the minimum wage law have been the AFL-CIO, and that the concrete effect of the minimum wage laws has been to cripple the low-wage competition of the marginal workers as against higher-wage workers with union seniority, the true motivation of the agitation for the minimum wage becomes apparent.

 

This is only one of a large number of cases where a seemingly purblind persistence in economic fallacy only serves as a mask for special privilege at the expense of those who are supposedly to be "helped."

 

In the current agitation, inflation – supposedly brought to a halt by the Reagan administration – has eroded the impact of the last minimum wage hike in 1981, reducing the real impact of the minimum wage by 23%. Partially as a result, the unemployment rate has fallen from 11% in 1982 to under six percent in 1988. Possibly chagrined by this drop, the AFL-CIO and its allies are pushing to rectify this condition, and to boost the minimum wage rate by 34%.

 

Once in a while, AFL-CIO economists and other knowledgeable liberals will drop their mask of economic fallacy and candidly admit that their actions will cause unemployment; they then proceed to justify themselves by claiming that it is more "dignified" for a worker to be on welfare than to work at a low wage. This of course, is the doctrine of many people on welfare themselves. It is truly a strange concept of "dignity" that has been fostered by the interlocking minimum wage-welfare system.

 

Unfortunately, this system does not give those numerous workers who still prefer to be producers rather than parasites the privilege of making their own free choice.

 

This is Chapter 34 in Rothbard's Making Economic Sense.

 

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

 

Copyright © 2006 Ludwig von Mises Institute

All rights reserved.

[angelofdeath]

alright, last one. sorry.

 

For the Public Good

 

by Vedran Vuk

 

 

Why is it that companies are responsible for being both the cause of and cure for poverty in this nation? I have grown particularly tired of individuals who have little understanding of business operating costs advocating hikes in wages. The actions of companies are, after all, simple actions by any human. There is no inherent abnormal evil within a corporation.

 

The most common argument claims that companies have a nearly infinite amount of money; shareholders will not lose more than a few pennies apiece with a wage raise. Surely, K-Mart could afford to pay employees two dollars more per hour.

 

I guess these wage advocates are partially right. Yes, companies could pay their workers more. But companies do not act any different than the average consumer or wage-raising advocate. Why would any person pay more for a good than they value it?

 

The ability to raise wages lies in the hands of both consumers and companies. Suppose consumers began tipping a dollar to every employee who works for a business. A checkout clerk at Wal-Mart would make $20 to $30 an hour from this form of exchange.

 

Yet I have never heard any defenders of the poor advocate such a system. This consumer behavior would raise wages for the poor ten times more than the few cents or dollars suggested by minimum wage laws. Consumers would have the ability to improve the welfare of low-skilled workers directly.

 

In fact, I could use the same argument that minimum wage advocates use. How much is one more dollar tipped to a gas station attendant going to affect you when you have already pumped $40 into your tank? No person can truly argue that a dollar would be too much. Yet no one willingly gives the extra buck. If individuals are so concerned about low wages, then they should start tipping every low paid worker possible. One dollar is not too much. Come on, it is only a tiny percentage of anyone’s total paycheck. It is the same argument used against businesses, applied to the consumer.

 

What most people do not realize is that they behave exactly like "evil" corporations.

 

Who wants to pay more than they have to for anything? These defenders of poverty ask corporations to make decisions that no one would make on their own.

 

Suppose you went into a grocery store and saw bananas for $3. Would you go up to the cashier and say, "I think I will pay $5 even though the price tag says $3"? The fact is that we are all always looking for a better deal. This search for better deals is the cornerstone of a market economy; it promotes competition among companies.

 

Despite this obvious fact, large portions of the population still think big businesses should pay employees more. Few people understand that employees are just like other goods. They hold a certain value relative to the business owner's needs. A minimum wage law can push the minimum wage to $8 an hour but this does not change the fact that the worker may be valued at $6 to the company. The government can push the minimum wage law to a million dollars an hour, but any push in the minimum wage will not change the value of a worker. Instead, when the minimum wage is raised, unemployment occurs. The company will not pay $8 for something it values at $6.

 

Let’s take this back to the consumer perspective. Say you are going to the grocery store and you want to buy a tuna steak. You value the tuna steak at no more than $6. You like tuna steak but not so much that you would pay over $6. You are happy to accept any price up to $6, and the lower the better. Now you get to the grocery store and see the tuna steak is $8. You don’t value the tuna steak at $8, so you don’t purchase it. You most likely acquire an alternative. Similarly, a company will not employ a person at $8 if they are only worth $6.

 

Consumers do not pay more for a product than they value it. Yet companies are expected to pay more for an employee than the employee is worth. "When it’s a company, it’s ‘evil’; when it’s me, it’s ok", is the logic. Wage advocates are telling us that a person is "evil" if they desire to pay no more than they value a particular good. A person is immoral because they do not purchase a tuna steak at $8 even though they value it at $6. This idea is absolutely ridiculous!

 

The role of raising wages is always placed on corporations despite the fact that consumers also control the outcome. This same mentality is applied to taxpayers. Plenty of socialists talk about the "public good" and the "collective." The productive members of society should pay high taxes for the "public good" so that the unemployed can have a better standard of living through redistribution.

 

Once again, why must it be the taxpayer who takes the action for the "public good"? Could I not also say that the unemployed person should get a job for the "public good"? If he or she finds a job, the burden on the rest of society is lifted. But I have never heard a socialist advocate the unemployed finding employment for the "public good." It seems that all actions that require benefiting the public good should be placed in the hands of taxpayers and corporations. The responsibility of an individual for the public good and, most importantly, his own good is out the window.

 

The actions are equal. One action requires a taxpayer taking the action. The other action involves the unemployed person taking action. However when we examine this situation closer, it is obvious that the two sides are not equal actions.

 

When the taxpayer has his money stolen by the government, he only benefits the "public good" and the fairyland "collective." When the unemployed person gets a job, he benefits himself as well as the "public good" and the fictitious "collective." There clearly seems to be greater gain in choosing the latter option. The latter option has two benefits while the first has only one.

 

Looking at the two suggestions, it is necessary to analyze how these policies would be implemented. The socialist nut cases supporting these absurd ideas want to tax the rich. There is no asking going on here. The idea is to forcefully and coercively tax individuals for the "great collective."

 

Libertarians are not coercive or forceful in their suggestions. Libertarians advocate natural market incentives without government subsidies. No libertarian, for example, suggests forced work farms for the unemployed.

 

The nature of the two suggestions is entirely different in this aspect. One group advocates force while the other does not. Would not forced work farms also be solutions to unemployment? Sure, they would. But Libertarians believe that the only "collective" good worth preserving is freedom and liberty. On the other side, freedom and liberty are sacrifices to the bloodthirsty gods of egalitarianism.

 

Everything comes back to human action. You don’t pay $8 for a tuna steak you value at $6. You don’t pay a worker $8 and hour if you value them at $6 an hour. It is plain, simple, clear human nature. We cannot expect others to take actions that we ourselves would not do. To call these people immoral is to call ourselves equally immoral. The only way to realize such action is through force and coercion; no person will buy overpriced tuna steaks naturally.

 

What is best for each individual in voluntary trade is best for the market economy as a whole.

 

June 24, 2006

 

Vedran Vuk [send him mail] is a student of Economics at Loyola University of New Orleans, and a 2006 Summer Fellow at the Mises Institute.

[!@#$%]

we're pretty much fucked on this one

the funny part will be watching the reacton of all the skeptics

sinec this will almost definitely play out in the next human lifetime

 

 

we're at a crossroads of sorts, where humanity could be made or broken in the next lifetime

because the earth 'as we know it' may end up destroyed

which will really mean just getting rid of all the people so she can start from scratch again

maybe with a sudden ice age, or massive major weather and health crisis, or all of the above

we might make it to see another such crossroad, where we can either face up to our problems collectively and address them and solve them, or perish

 

i'm thinking it's gonna be perish

 

it is not the responsibility of companies, or consumers, or political parties, or religious groups, or nations etc. to resolve this

it is everyones responsibility

and not too many people or entities wanna accept that

[El Mamerro]

Don't tell me you didn't read my post. C'mon man, you can't be serious.

 

Of course I did. But I'm pretty sure you haven't read either State of Fear, it's Appendices, or Crichton's lectures, since you're really jumping straight into the volatile critics' statements, who for the most part are completely missing the point altogether. CRICHTON IS NOT SAYING GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT HAPPENING. Your post strictly addresses the fiction in State of Fear, which regardless of footnotes is a work of fiction. Here's one of the author's appendices at the end of the book:

 

Author's Message from State of Fear:

 

A novel such as State of Fear, in which so many divergent views are expressed, may lead the reader to wonder where, exactly, the author stands on these issues. I have bee reading environmental texts for three years, in itself a hazardous undertaking. But I have had an opportunity to look at a lot of data, and to consider many points of view. I conclude:

 

• 
  
• We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.
  
• Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause.
  
• We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year old cold spell known as the "Little Ice Age."
  
• Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.
  
• Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.
  
• Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. But if I had to guess --- the only thing anyone is doing, really --- I would guess the increase will be 0.812436 degrees C. There is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else's. (We can't "assess" the future, nor can we "predict" it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. And informed guess is just a guess.)
  
• I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor.
  
• Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better.
  
• I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don't know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but it is evidently a hardly perennial in human calculation.
  
• There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transportation in the early twentieth century.
  
• I suspect the people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don't think we have to worry about them.
  
• The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism. Public education is desperately needed.
  
• I conclude that most environmental "principles" (such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It is a nice way of saying, "We got ours and we don't want you to get yours, because you'll cause too much pollution."
  
• I believe people are will intentioned. But I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences.
  
• I have more respect for people who change their views after acquiring new information than for those who cling to views they held thirty years ago. The world changes, Ideologues and zealots don't.
  
• In the thirty-five-odd years since the environmental movement came into existence, science has undergone a major revolution. This revolution has brought new understanding of nonlinear dynamics, complex systems, chaos theory, catastrophe theory. It has transformed the way we think about evolution and ecology. Yet these no-longer-new ideas have hardly penetrated the thinking of environmental activists, which seems oddly fixed in the concepts and rhetoric of the 1970's.
  
• We haven't the foggiest notion how to preserve what we term "wilderness," and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conducting such research in a humble, rational and systematic way. I therefore hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmental organizations every bit as much as developers and strip miners. There is no difference in outcomes between greed and incompetence.
  
• We need a new environmental movement, with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and many fewer lawyers.
  
• We cannot hope to manage a complex system such as the environment through litigation. We can only change its state temporarily --- usually by preventing something --- with eventual results that we cannot predict and ultimately cannot control.
  
• Nothing is more inherently political than our shared physical environment, and nothing is more ill served by allegiance to a single political party. Precisely because the environment is shared it cannot be managed by one faction according to its own economic or aesthetic preferences. Sooner or later, the opposing faction will take power, and previous policies will be reversed. Stable management of the environment requires recognition that all preferences have their place: snowmobilers and fly fisherman, dirt bikers and hikers, developers and preservationists. These preferences are at odds, and their incompatibility cannot be avoided. But resolving incompatible goals is a true function of politics.
  
• We desperately need a nonpartisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware whom they are working for. Those who fund research --- whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization --- always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering the results the funders desire. As a result, environmental organization "studies" are every bit as biased and suspect as industry "studies." Government "studies" are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. No faction should be given a free pass.
  
• I am certain there is too much certainty in the world.
  
• I personally experience a profound pleasure being in nature. My happiest days each year are those I spend in wilderness. I wish natural environments to be preserved for future generations. I am not satisfied they will be preserved in sufficient quantities, or with sufficient skill. I conclude that the "exploiters of the environment" include environmental organizations, government organizations, and big business. All have equally dismal track records.
  
• Everybody has an agenda. Except me.

 

He is against the politicizing of science, period. No faction should be given a free pass, regardless of intent.

 

Here's the other Appendix on the book. His point is clear, it's outrageous people have gone up in arms saying he doesn't believe in global warming, although given the very zealotry he speaks about, it's no surprise.

[!@#$%]

the graph gore shows that demonstrate 650,000 years worth of CO2 history and temperature variation on this planet was probably the most amazing thing in the movie

 

(they get those readings from atmospheric oxygen bubbles thatget trapped and buried, usually in ice)

 

it really adresses the whole 'this is part of the earth's natural cycle, which we know basically little to nothing about' argument, and silences it (if you're willing to believe the science)

 

there have been two warming periods

neither of which comes close to comparing with what we are experiencing now

and as far as CO2 levels, the earth has never known this concentration. pretty much ever.

 

i'm still all about personal responsibility on this one

anyone who drives an SUV (using regular ol petrol to fuel up) can just stop looking to the govt for any sort of solution because that mentality is the essence of the problem (in this country.)

 

 

..also

for crichton to say 'everyone has an agenda BUT ME'

 

gimme a fucking break. who is he to say what everyone but him does. what a complete asshole. it must be nice to sit in judgement of everyone else all day thinking you are immune.

[El Mamerro]

^Haha, it was in jest. C'mon, it's pretty obvious. He's mocking the fact that nobody wants to admit to having an agenda.

[the.crooked]

yeah man, i need to figure out a city to live in when shit goes down...

 

 

im thinkin, chicago... thats if i stay in this godforsaken country.

[El Mamerro]

I got dibs on the Serengeti.

[!@#$%]

i don't know, when you make a big list like that and it basically points a finger at everyone

and says 'i know we don't know shit'

it just makes him sound like a complete jackass [to me].

 

not too mention, he presents that list like its a bunch of facts, which they aren't

he's giving more than a few opinions up in there.

and dismissing quite a bit of actual science.

so to make a 'joke' like that at the end

doesn't sound funny

it sounds pretentious

[El Mamerro]

Definitely an opinion piece. I don't see it as anything but. His "we don't know shit" points (4-6 mainly) sound pretty straightforward to me. Do we know any of those with certainty? He's not asking people to sit back and not do shit.

 

I truly believe the dude is getting a bad rep for doing the right thing for science. People get pissed cause he picked global warming as a platform to describe the politicizing of science, but it's a solid example. I just wish people could look beyond, and just look at the big idea and how true it is.

[!@#$%]

the inconvenient truth movie does a good job of addressing the natural cycle thing

i noted it in my posts above.

i won't reiterate

because so many people are just fingers in their ears 'lalallaaa we don't know we don't know..'

at least partly because they don't trust reliable science

i think it's mostly because people just don't want to believe it.

 

 

and as a scientist, someone using global warming as a platform is amusing

because he is taking a weird stance

rather than attacking junk science that 'debates' the global warming thing, for political motivation

he's just taken the whole global warming issue as being way too political

plus to make a blanket statement like 'environmental gorups have been harmful to the environment as corporations etc have done' is just too big a generalization for me to be comfortable with.

 

 

i know how influenced science is by politrics

why not address the fact that science is not really funded by our government as it used to be

or that the government has it's own scientists for virtually everything

and they often refute solid claims because of political motivations

 

a writer doesn't have to pick one issue to talk about science and politics

they are intimately involved with each other on every level.

 

why not attack the stem cell thing instead?

at least then he coud've gotten the science/religion/politics trifecta.

 

it's real funny to me to read 'scientists know who they are working for'

i work for sick people who need help.

 

he's a moron.. standing on the outside, making judgements and observations about a massive machine with many parts

which he has never been a part of, used or learned how to use

 

he can run a lab for a decade and get back at me with that list

[El Mamerro]

i know how influenced science is by politrics

why not address the fact that science is not really funded by our government as it used to be

or that the government has it's own scientists for virtually everything

and they often refute solid claims because of political motivations

He does address it. But I'm not gonna sit here and copy paste his entire ouvre on the subject. He's attacked both sides, he's cited several examples. Unfortunately, since it's not the controversial or "weird" stance, people seem to want to ignore the fact that he has.

 

Dude just wants science to be purely objective. If evil people want to twist science to fit their needs, however detrimental to humanity they are, that's bad. If good people want to twist science to fit their needs, however beneficial to humanity they are, that's ALSO bad. That last part almost sounds like it should be OK, but it's not. It's incredibly dangerous, and it's happened before.

[angelofdeath]

"angelofdeath: I am not a communist. Just because I advocate a social safety net does not mean I am a communist. I don't call you a fascist do I? And just because I don't ascribe to your view of economics does not mean I'm wholly ignorant of economics. And as you are so quick to point out your black flagbearers, it does not lend them credibilty, or the ideas you espouse, which largely are the domain of the white business class.

There are in fact fatal flaws in the logic of those articles you posted. If you are considering minimum wage and it's effects on unemployment as conditions in a vacuum, as though a scientific experiment, then you are right. But this is not a scientific experiment in a controlled environment, and those two variables are not likely to be pushed to the extremes exemplified. What is conveniently ignored in that theory is that if minimum wage were abolished, wages for all levels of earners would be undercut by scab workers, until we are at last at the lowest common denominator and we are once again, serfs. I do not need to post several articles to tell you that. "

 

first off, i never said you were a commie. just merely used the blanket statement to cover everyone who defends a non free market economy. i dont know how i could be a facist, when im the biggest supporter of small government on this board.

 

im sure to point out that 2 great economists are indeed black, because its great to see that the people who most leftists say are the most stomped on and most beneficial of a socialist society, are against it. the position has nothing to do with the "domain of the white business class." it has everything to do with simple market economics.

 

" What is conveniently ignored in that theory is that if minimum wage were abolished, wages for all levels of earners would be undercut by scab workers, until we are at last at the lowest common denominator and we are once again, serfs. I do not need to post several articles to tell you that. "

 

capitalism is about competition. im sure you have complained about high gas prices. if these evil ceo's salary was cut to 0, gas might drop 1-2 cents. you cant have it both ways. but it is not politically feasible to simply find a real answer, its much easier to point fingers and make blanket one line statements that get to the bottom of anything. minimum wage earning adults make up 2.2 percent of the job force. what in the hell is all the fuss about? the same people who call for 70% import tariffs and increased power of unions are the first to rail against high prices. who pays these extra costs? consumers. the market can do everything it needs to determine prices, wages and the like. the government's legitimate job is not to take from the mouth of labor. alot of people dont know how wealth is created.

 

the illegal immigrants some of ya'll are so quick to defend, are the "Scabs" that are "undercutting" peoples jobs. obviously if someone is willing to work for less, voluntarily, that is what the job is actually worth.

[angelofdeath]

got cut off by the edit time.

 

the basic difference between us is, you look to the State for security, and i dont. you look to the State to set the minimum wage, i look to the market. obviously, in the world of free exchange, if you actually think that minimum wage protects anything your wrong. if you think by removing the minimum wage, all wages will drop, you are wrong. if the minimum wage is repealed, and someone offers you 3 an hour for your job, you simply dont take it if you feel your services are worth more. the core principle of the market is lack of coercion. everything is voluntary. the minimum wage coupled with a welfare state created a class of dependents. dependent on the government for everything. the progressive social liberals are not interested in helping anyone, they are interested in centralizing power in the central government. think about it, its thier job. its thier vote getting strategy. it works.

[nigel7]

look i'm tired so i just got the gist of the shit your sayin about presetn uproar of usa

.......whoopty do your not in a position to change so stope complaining or suppoting wat the shit and enjoy life .for fuck sake your on the net go outside and help someone if you wanna be sympathetic.i'm a hypacrit yes but i changin you can to

[angelofdeath]

how often do you go into a store and pay 100$ for an item marked $4.99?

the 2.2 percent of the adult world who make minimum wage, due to low skills and most likely low work ethic, do not make minimum wage for long. as your skills increase you make more money.

 

Price Controls on Labor

 

 

 

by Hans F. Sennholz

 

[Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006]

 

 

 

 

Good intentions, when guided by error and ignorance, may have undesirable consequences. There is no better example than minimum wage legislation. It means to raise the wages and improve the living conditions of poor workers but actually condemns many to chronic unemployment. It forcefully raises the costs of unskilled and inexperienced labor and thereby lifts it right out of the labor market.

 

 

 

 

Yet, many politicians who neither own nor manage a business and do not employ such labor never tire of lamenting and deploring low wages and promising to raise the wage minimum by law and regulation.

 

 

 

 

The official Federal minimum presently stands at $5.15 an hour; the actual minimum is much higher. No employer can overlook the mandated fringe benefits which he is forced to pay above the minimum. There are employer Social Security taxes, unemployment and workers' compensation levies, and paid holidays.

 

 

 

 

In some industries the workers' compensation levy alone may amount to more than one-half of the wages paid. And if the employer should carry his workers' health insurance costs, employment costs may be double the minimum rate. If eager members of Congress should be successful in raising the minimum by two or three dollars an hour, many young people may be condemned to permanent unemployment.

 

 

 

 

The rate of unemployment tends to be directly proportional to the excess of labor costs over productivity. In many European countries with official minimum wages of more than $10 an hour, the rate of unemployment is measured in double-digit rates although governments spend massive amounts on make-work projects.

 

 

 

 

Some victims readily submit to their fate and endure a life of idleness and bare subsistence. Many learn to labor in black markets where goods are produced and services are rendered in violation of minimum wage edicts and other regulations and controls. But most victims are young people with little training and know-how who tend to react angrily and violently. Their rate of unemployment actually amounts to multiples of the official rate.

 

 

 

 

And if society should be divided ethnically, youth training and productivity may be lower yet and its rate of unemployment may approach 100 percent. Such a labor situation is laden with anger and fury which not only breeds high crime rates but also, at any time, may turn to violence by mobs of unemployed youth. The recent riots of French youth clearly resembled the riots of unemployed Americans in Watts in 1965, in San Francisco in 1966, Detroit and Baltimore in 1967, Chicago and Cleveland in 1968, and in Los Angeles in 1992.

 

 

 

 

The situation is most dangerous and explosive in cities and states with state minimums even higher than those set by the Federal government. Minimum wage legislation had its beginning in states long before there was a New Deal that made the Federal government the primary labor legislator and regulator. State governments continue to lead the way in raising labor costs; state rates of unemployment tend to indicate the political strength of the minimum wage movement.

 

 

 

 

Few economists have the courage to point to labor legislation and regulation as the very cause of mass unemployment. A few who muster the courage may emphasize the infinite demand for labor but are ever mindful that its costs set limits to the demand.

 

 

 

 

Few employers, if any, knowingly buy labor that costs more than it produces, just as few workers are likely to purchase consumer goods which, in their judgment, cost more than they are worth. Yet, economists who dare to point to labor legislation and regulation as important causes of mass unemployment are criticized, denounced, condemned, and vilified as callous and ruthless agents and spokesmen of greedy employers.

 

 

 

 

Why people can't get work:: $22

 

 

 

 

 

Politicians may draw applause and win an election with numerous wage promises and other assurances no matter how unrealistic they may be. Some politicians undoubtedly are Machiavellians who are fully aware of the evil consequences of such policies but continue to promise them in the hope of garnering the votes. They may point to new employment programs such as public works, neighborhood youth corps, job corps, and other benefit corps.

 

 

 

 

Some politicians may be candid and sincere but cannot be reached with economic reasoning. They are utterly unaware of inexorable economic principles but very eloquent in all matters of politics and law. With their eyes glued on the wants and needs of workers and their families subsisting on minimum wages, they place their trust in political edicts and in the power of the police to enforce them.

 

 

 

 

To alleviate minimum-wage unemployment is to restore freedom in the labor market; it would permit the cost of labor to readjust to labor productivity and offer employment to every young man and woman willing and ready to work. A free labor market would welcome young people, which not only would exhort and restore the spirit of work but also improve labor skill and know-how. The labor productivity of American youth soon would rise and exceed the ominous minimum levels that presently condemn millions to idleness.

 

 

 

 

Freedom has a thousand charms even in the labor market.

[angelofdeath]

While those recieving the bare minimum of $5.15 may only constitute 2.5% of the workforce' date=' I can assure you the number of working poor is much higher. Besides, who needs to abolish minimum wage when corporations are outsourcing and shipping jobs overseas anyways? We have, in effect, a defacto loss of minimum wage standards. Offering jobs to the lowest bidder is already in effect, we don't need to further stratify the wealth gap here in the US by making it official.

 

what is poor? what is the poverty line? is poor really poor? dont most 'poor' people have cellphones and air conditioning? it is not the job of anyone else, to pull anyone's weight in society. do you realize if these evil corporations did what y'all want? you wouldnt have any political stance at all anymore. if they became the glorious welfare subsidies that the left wants.

 

 

Services..... Serfs.... that's all we are going to have left, catering to the more priveledged among us. Textiles - gone; Manufacturing - zombie state; IT - on the way out the door.

 

serfdom, slavery, is what america is today. we are tax serfs. we are slaves to the State, to provide for others. the bumper sticker..."keep working, millions on welfare depend on you." about sums it up pretty nice. this is not freedom. yeah. manufacturing jobs are gone. one of my political hero's rails about this constantly. while i'd like to see as much labor and capital kept in the US as the next guy, you can successfully thank the democratic party for jobs disappearing. with thier high regulations, union lobby, high taxation, and general anti capitalism stances.

what is the solution? put up a 60% tariffs on all imports? sure this will help. this will help the union lobby as well, as salaries will go up 60%. and so will the price of goods. think gas prices are bad now? HAHA

[angelofdeath]

"Writing some new rules for globalization would shore up low-end workers, too. Some Democrats advocate linking trade pacts to labor rights, by, for example, requiring countries that want favored trade status to allow workers to form unions. The idea isn't to eliminate low-wage competition -- an impossibility, in any case -- but simply to blunt its sharpest blows, particularly on less-skilled, predominantly male factory workers."

 

its quite obvious. the democrats are indeed just as globalist as any republican. now they want to change trade pacts. these are the same pacts they are supposedly against. this is sacrificing US sovereignty to a global body. this is adding to globalization. it shows that they want the same thing republicans want, just with a slightly different angle to it. they want power. at any cost. they want to be ruled by a global body.

 

 

 

 

 

"Lately, there's a new name for the downward pressure on wages: the so-called Wal-Martization of the economy. Most recently, the dynamic played out starkly in the five-month Southern California supermarket strike that ended in February. The three chains involved, Safeway (SWY ), Albertson's (ABS ), and Kroger (KR ), said they had no choice but to cut pay and benefits drastically now that 40 Wal-Mart Stores (WMT ) supercenters would be opening up in the area. The reason: Wal-Mart pays its full-time hourly workers an average of $9.64, about a third of the level of the union chains. It also shoulders much less of its workers' annual health insurance costs than rivals, leaving 53% of its 1.2 million employees uncovered by the company plan. "

 

competition is a bitch isnt it? again, i dont see you voluntarily paying 100% for a 10$ item. when you start doing that, you will not be a hypocrite.

 

hey, i have a solution to all of this. lets just fully nationalize the economy. then you wont have to worry about any competition or anything. we will all be handed out the same amount reguardless of skills, the government will tell us where to shit, and then you can really talk about how capitalism is slavery. oh wait, thats right. in a socialist society, you arent free. you cant advocate a capitalist free society, but in a capitalist society you have the freedom to advocate a socialist society.

[lord_casek]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science_3

[fermentor666]

Of course I did. But I'm pretty sure you haven't read either State of Fear, it's Appendices, or Crichton's lectures, since you're really jumping straight into the volatile critics' statements, who for the most part are completely missing the point altogether. CRICHTON IS NOT SAYING GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT HAPPENING. Your post strictly addresses the fiction in State of Fear, which regardless of footnotes is a work of fiction. Here's one of the author's appendices at the end of the book:

 

 

 

He is against the politicizing of science, period. No faction should be given a free pass, regardless of intent.

 

Here's the other Appendix on the book. His point is clear, it's outrageous people have gone up in arms saying he doesn't believe in global warming, although given the very zealotry he speaks about, it's no surprise.

 

 

All you have to do is go to Amazon.com or any forum discussion on global warming and you will see people who praise Crichton for dispelling the myth of global warming and exposing environmentalists as lunatics desperate for fame and glory and "taking down the man".

 

He's made no attempt to refute this in any sort of public forum, I can't say I've seen his lectures because what the fuck should I listen to the guy who wrote Congo for? I used to like his books when I was 15.

[fermentor666]

And I'm sorry, but I don't see scientists who study global warming as "having an agenda" other than trying to warn us about global warming, which is a pretty nobel agenda.

[El Mamerro]

It's fine dude. I'm obviously not convincing you to do a little reading and find out exactly what can lead to an agenda on that side (as if anti-global warming ventures were the only funded ones), and I'm obviously not convincing you that having a noble agenda is no excuse to get a free pass in science.

 

Anyways, I just read this column which I thought dealt nicely with all the topics discussed in the various debates going on in this thread:

 

Mother Earth: Check, Please

[fermentor666]

Well, from what I can gather is that the scientists that Crichton and Co. are questioning have the secret agenda of wanting more money for funding. That's the equivalent of a Conservative conspiracy theory, only without the imagination. If that was true then it would apply to any scientific study, such as genetics, cancer research, etc. In fact, there are conspiracy theories that say there is a cure for cancer, but the pharmacuticals and doctors don't want to give it out because they're afraid they would lose their jobs and sources of income, as if there would be no other way for a doctor to switch specialties or still treat cancer patients or for pharmacuticals to make money off the new cancer drugs.

 

If scientists do research into AIDS and find a way to either cure it or negate it's effects, do you think that they would supress this information because they'd be afraid of losing funding? Believe me, I know this is a big point of debate for those who believe that global warming is not real and it's another reason why I think Crichton is doing serious damage to an environmental movement that has been supressed for decades. And it's funny, because they are funded from all sorts of different sources such as the government, universities, foundations, private groups, etc. The people who deny global warming are almost universally funded by fossil fuel corporations or groups/think tanks that have ties to them. And that's their big arguement.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what other theories does Michael Crichton have about the secret agendas of scientists?

[El Mamerro]

Whoever finds a cure for AIDS and cancer would be rich beyond their wildest dreams. I don't think continued funding would be an issue in that case.

 

Funding is only part of it, I would actually go as far as to say it's minor. The fact is that standing up for truth against a noble cause is not looked highly upon and can destroy reputations, careers, and lives. Being charged with the modern day equivalent of heresy is no joke. You don't get your head chopped off these days but your life can be ruined pretty badly. There's virtually no way to say anything against global warming without being subjected to widespread ridicule and accusations of ties to fossil fuel corps, and your post affirms that. The situation becomes much more difficult when, in contrast to, say, Galileo standing up against a noble God's "goodness to man", there's simply no way to get evidence that says global warming is not manmade, only reason to doubt it. There is no glory, no reedeming value that will command the respect of your peers for having said that.

 

If I was a scientist and I believed global warming evidence to be shakey, I sure as hell won't speak up about it unless I'm getting paid enough, cause there's no turning back after that. Think about that fact when you say that public deniers are almost universally funded by fossil fuel corporations. That's the only ones you'll probably hear about.

 

On the nuclear winter scare, a major example Crichton uses:

 

Further evidence of the political nature of the whole project can be found in the response to criticism. Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about," other prominent scientists were noticeably reticent. Freeman Dyson was quoted as saying "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but…who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" And Victor Weisskopf said, "The science is terrible but---perhaps the psychology is good." The nuclear winter team followed up the publication of such comments with letters to the editors denying that these statements were ever made, though the scientists since then have subsequently confirmed their views.

[fermentor666]

Look, a scientist has a duty to use facts and experiments to prove their theories. These guys aren't just out there saying "oh there's global warming because we say so", they're out there doing the whole job. Here's a list of some global warming skeptics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptics .

 

 

Note that I did not say ALL skeptics are funded by petrol companies, but the ones with the biggest mouths are. The reason why there are not hundreds of people writing reports and making conclusive studies negating global warming is because there IS global warming and environmental damage going on and there are studies that prove it. I can't believe you can swallow Crichton's line. This is a man that gets behind any ridiculous science he concocts, from mosquito's bringing back the dinosaurs to hyper-intelligent, secret ape societies in the Congo jungles. The man thinks that being a doctor means he's a scientist.

 

Listen, if there were people out there who could disprove the global warming theory with hard scientific data, they would be heralded as heroes because it would mean that we could keep burning coal and using hair spray on our pets. I'm sorry, but looking up to a man like Michael Crichton for scientific advice and as a leader of black sheep scientific causes is a terrible mistake. It would be like me actively preaching that every time it gets foggy, there is a greater chance of the emergance of blood-thirsty monsters and quoting Steven King's "The Mist". Sometimes I can get creeped out if it's really foggy and dark by that story, even to this day, but that doesn't mean that I'm convinced it can really happen.

 

Crichton's bad idea for a book just happened to coincide with the need for big business and SUV owners to glorify themselves as heroes. They praise him and give him an award because it suits their needs, and he takes it all in his head as being right about his fiction for once, and now he just rolls with it. Sad.

[hewentup]

For the people use Michael Cricton's book as a reference, they should read this. It shows what he got wrong or miss represented. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

[the.crooked]

I think one of the things is this. Honestly. Even if all the research is wrong, and everything we think about global warming is wrong; what is wrong with the effects of believing its real?

 

If people actually start caring about the environment again, how is that bad? I think one needs to take a step back and look at it on a larger scale rather than whether or not chrichton is right. Even if he is, this conciousness that is becoming about the environment is fucking wonderful. Cus even if we weren't fucked now, we would be somewhere on down the line.

 

That people are actually starting to think about the connection we have and impact we have to the earth, again, is great.

 

 

a rather large simplification, sure, but i just wanted to put a lil perspective into this argument. tell me mams, that you dont think the amount of attention people are starting to give to the issue of our interaction with the environment is good.

[El Mamerro]

Ferms, it's obvious you and I won't ever see eye-to-eye on this. Maybe I'm having trouble getting my points across or something, cause you really aren't responding to what I'm trying to say. You keep talking about what Crichton's stance on global warming is while I keep talking about his stance on politicized science and the importance of something as serious as global warming not falling into such a rut. If you still want to believe that Crichton's overall message is that global warming isn't real, then it's pointless to continue talking about this. Your mind is set on that being his sole intent and nothing I say can change that. I really feel like arguing your last post, but it's not my original issue and I'm not gonna be led down that road.

 

Crooked, as you can see, I'm not trying to argue global warming cause I honestly believe I'm on the exact same page as you guys on it. I think people are really starting to wake up about our environment and our effect on it, and I think that's the greatest thing ever and I can only hope it grows stronger. But just to play devil's advocate, I'll entertain your question and ask you what impact would the discarding of current fossil fuel energy technologies have on developing countries finally getting access to cheap energy methods. Meganations like China have the advantage of having enough manpower and capital to jump straight into more expensive alternative technologies, but for most poor nations that's simply not an option. Eliminating fossil fuels is quite a dramatic change that goes way beyond the trivialities of not being able to put hair spray on our pets or driving comfy SUV's.

[fermentor666]

Well, from what I can tell, your point was about the politicization of science with reference to Crichton. It seems to me and to others that Crichton is of the belief that environmentalists have some sort of agenda based on funding or something secret and that this should not be. So I believe I responded to that point.