Ripcontrol's America: The Problems with Minimum wage and Unions

I am dealing with this part separately since it is not really relevant to the topic.

Here let me tell you a story: 2 weeks ago, I got fired from my factory job, because I got hurt at work and filed an injury report. My boss told me to get out there and keep working, and I did for a week, hurting myself more. Although this isnt illegal, I will now at least be getting paid some workers compensation money due to their actions. Without this "evil law", my company would have been able to throw me out on the street with no job, because I hurt myself making money for them, and I would have no recourse.

In a free market, you could buy your own disability insurance to protect from occurrences like this. Workman's comp does not protect YOU. Think about what WC really does, it is designed to protect the employer. In a free market, your own insurance and the threat of a lawsuit would protect you. Even now, if you could prove that your employer made you go back to working hurt, you would have a good case.

This is the America you want? Because that is what no restrictions lead to. My former employer is making money hand over fist, even with all this "heavy handed legislation", and they would still rather fire me than allow me a couple weeks to heal. This is what you are going to get if you remove all legislation regarding employers...a nice "business friendly" environment where no one makes money except the factory owners....like China. Basically, you are arguing to turn America into China.

Your employer has that power over you for two reasons. First and foremost; You allowed it. Second and almost as important, governmental interference in the market place favors those with money who spend it to get favorable legislation.

There are some misconceptions about what constitutes a free market. It is really quite simple.
If I have something for sale, something I earned through labor or purchase, and I have a buyer that is willing to give an acceptable (to me and buyer) amount of money/goods/labor for it, we have a free market transaction.
If I need to hire labor, I have a maximum price that I can pay, in a free market, for the labor based upon the price that I can expect to get for the fruits of that labor. If the laborer does not find the price I am willing to pay acceptable, laborer looks elsewhere, and I have no product to sell.
The only free market currently is the black market, with all of the consequences good and bad. You have no protections in a free market, it is buyer beware.
But, you don't necessarily have protections anyway. One selling point of a government run market is supposed to be the consumer protections. In many ways the government has done an admirable job, but in many ways, especially as of late, the protections have been legislated to benefit the mega corporations at the expense of the small business and the consumer.
Unfortunately, if the government, federal in this case, allows cheap foreign goods that are subsidized by the foreign governments to make them cheaper than we can make at home (and often these goods are made by children or adults working 14 hour days seven days a week), then the government is DRIVING DOWN WAGES, which is the opposite of the mandate we have place upon our government...to protect the consumer and the market.

reply to post by SurrealisticPillow


Let's see what a true "free market" would look like.

If I'm a parent with too many kids to support, and I have an attractive young one (a product I created), and I can find buyers willing to pay for sex with said child, then I should be free to do so, correct?

If I'm annoyed with my neighbor, and can hire someone to beat the snot out him every week, then I am free to do so. He is free to hire a protector.

If I can grow poppies and find folks who like to use drugs, the free market dictates that no one has the right to interfere with my trade.

If a woman wants to set up a gangbang sex shop in the park and can find customers, then the free market rules, right?

If I have guns and some kids want to buy them, so long as they meet my price, then it's ok.

If I want to sell wood alcohol as vodka, caveat emptor, right?

The "free market" is a fallacy: it never existed and never will. As soon as you say, "yes, but not that...", it has disappeared.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

 

Let's see what a true "free market" would look like.

If I'm a parent with too many kids to support, and I have an attractive young one (a product I created), and I can find buyers willing to pay for sex with said child, then I should be free to do so, correct?

If I'm annoyed with my neighbor, and can hire someone to beat the snot out him every week, then I am free to do so. He is free to hire a protector.

If I can grow poppies and find folks who like to use drugs, the free market dictates that no one has the right to interfere with my trade.

If a woman wants to set up a gangbang sex shop in the park and can find customers, then the free market rules, right?

If I have guns and some kids want to buy them, so long as they meet my price, then it's ok.

If I want to sell wood alcohol as vodka, caveat emptor, right?

The "free market" is a fallacy: it never existed and never will. As soon as you say, "yes, but not that...", it has disappeared.

None of these have anything to do with free market economics. Please stop being so obtuse.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

 

Let's see what a true "free market" would look like.

If I'm a parent with too many kids to support, and I have an attractive young one (a product I created), and I can find buyers willing to pay for sex with said child, then I should be free to do so, correct?

If I'm annoyed with my neighbor, and can hire someone to beat the snot out him every week, then I am free to do so. He is free to hire a protector.

If I can grow poppies and find folks who like to use drugs, the free market dictates that no one has the right to interfere with my trade.

If a woman wants to set up a gangbang sex shop in the park and can find customers, then the free market rules, right?

If I have guns and some kids want to buy them, so long as they meet my price, then it's ok.

If I want to sell wood alcohol as vodka, caveat emptor, right?

The "free market" is a fallacy: it never existed and never will. As soon as you say, "yes, but not that...", it has disappeared.

None of these have anything to do with free market economics. Please stop being so obtuse.

Why is it obtuse? In a truly free market, wouldnt sex and drugs likely be the two most valuable commodities?

reply to post by apacheman

Actually, all of your examples have happened even though they are likely prohibited.
Free markets exist.
From Wikipedia,

A free market is a competitive market where prices are determined by supply and demand. It is primarily found in countries where economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts. Free markets differs from situations encountered in controlled markets or a monopoly, which can introduce price deviations without any changes to supply and demand. Advocates of a free market traditionally consider the term to imply that the means of production is under private, and not state control or co-operative ownership.

TRUE consumer protections are desirable in my opinion. I never advocated an extreme version of a free market. What we have now is an extreme perversion.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

 

Let's see what a true "free market" would look like.

If I'm a parent with too many kids to support, and I have an attractive young one (a product I created), and I can find buyers willing to pay for sex with said child, then I should be free to do so, correct?

If I'm annoyed with my neighbor, and can hire someone to beat the snot out him every week, then I am free to do so. He is free to hire a protector.

If I can grow poppies and find folks who like to use drugs, the free market dictates that no one has the right to interfere with my trade.

If a woman wants to set up a gangbang sex shop in the park and can find customers, then the free market rules, right?

If I have guns and some kids want to buy them, so long as they meet my price, then it's ok.

If I want to sell wood alcohol as vodka, caveat emptor, right?

The "free market" is a fallacy: it never existed and never will. As soon as you say, "yes, but not that...", it has disappeared.

None of these have anything to do with free market economics. Please stop being so obtuse.

Why is it obtuse? In a truly free market, wouldnt sex and drugs likely be the two most valuable commodities?

Child slavery is still illegal,it is not an economic policy to choose. Prostitution? Again, no free market involved, that is more of a legal issue. If you attempt to murder someone by poisoning them, it is still attempted murder whether to sold them the product under false pretenses or not is irrelevant. Illegal drugs? Again another issue. assault, conspiracy to assault is still a crime. Stop clouding the issue with criminal activities that have nothing to do with economics.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

 

Let's see what a true "free market" would look like.

If I'm a parent with too many kids to support, and I have an attractive young one (a product I created), and I can find buyers willing to pay for sex with said child, then I should be free to do so, correct?

If I'm annoyed with my neighbor, and can hire someone to beat the snot out him every week, then I am free to do so. He is free to hire a protector.

If I can grow poppies and find folks who like to use drugs, the free market dictates that no one has the right to interfere with my trade.

If a woman wants to set up a gangbang sex shop in the park and can find customers, then the free market rules, right?

If I have guns and some kids want to buy them, so long as they meet my price, then it's ok.

If I want to sell wood alcohol as vodka, caveat emptor, right?

The "free market" is a fallacy: it never existed and never will. As soon as you say, "yes, but not that...", it has disappeared.

None of these have anything to do with free market economics. Please stop being so obtuse.

Why is it obtuse? In a truly free market, wouldnt sex and drugs likely be the two most valuable commodities?

Child slavery is still illegal,it is not an economic policy to choose. Prostitution? Again, no free market involved, that is more of a legal issue. If you attempt to murder someone by poisoning them, it is still attempted murder whether to sold them the product under false pretenses or not is irrelevant. Illegal drugs? Again another issue. assault, conspiracy to assault is still a crime. Stop clouding the issue with criminal activities that have nothing to do with economics.

Illegal? So wait, now you want protection provided by the government? Isnt this completely what you are against? Prostitution is legal in some places (Nevada for instance). Are you saying that there is not an economic side to prostitution? Some states have legalized marijuana. So what then?

I dont understand your argument. You seem to favor government intervention sometimes. As Apacheman said, that is not free market. It is all or nothing.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Under a true free market, as defined by you, i.e., having a buyer and seller, nothing is illegal.

Once you make anything illegal, it isn't a free market, but a limited one governed by the rules you happen to like.

Can't see how you can make any claim to having a "free market" if there are restrictions on what you can sell, when, where or to whom you can sell it.

It is either free or you have rules, but not both simultaneously, make up your mind..

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Under a true free market, as defined by you, i.e., having a buyer and seller, nothing is illegal.

WRONG! Murder is illegal and is not a commodity to buy or sell. Same with assault. Selling people is also repugnant beyond belief. Your examples are just plain stupid. You are using your definition, not mine.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Under a true free market, as defined by you, i.e., having a buyer and seller, nothing is illegal.

WRONG! Murder is illegal and is not a commodity to buy or sell. Same with assault. Selling people is also repugnant beyond belief. Your examples are just plain stupid. You are using your definition, not mine.

edit on 16-12-2011 by DarthMuerte because: (no reason given)

So...this is your response then? Sticking your head in the sand and insults....Great logic, I see why we should listen to all of your ideas now.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

So...this is your response then? Sticking your head in the sand and insults....Great logic, I see why we should listen to all of your ideas now.

Are you seriously suggesting murder should be legal as a commodity? It is illegal to murder someone yourself, but fine to hire someone else to do it? Murder is murder and intrinsically a crime regardless of how it is done.

There is an understanding as to what a free market constitutes in a "civilized" country, but civilized countries don't all have to agree on what markets are allowable. The people or the government determine what sorts of products can be marketed. This has no bearing on the definition and practical use of a free market.
If some of you want to argue against free market principles, you should find a better argument. You would not be taken seriously anywhere but perhaps ATS.
Probably not even ATS.

I want to thank each of you so far for responding... I will respond a little better in the next day or two....

I also appreciate everyone pretty much playing nice and that is to be commended... I can read the frustrations boiling out in every response as the items are discussed... I will be replying soon....

Ty

Well I had quite a weird dream again... I dreamed I ran for President....


In the debates

I was cussing calling both of the others names and various other things... I made it interesting

Santorum killed his campaign because of gay comments... Something about prosecuting the gays.... for being gay????

But the reason I am posting this was the info that went head to head with the O-man...

The very title of this thread...

Let us do the math...

Minimum wage times .7 (taxes)

7.25 x .7 = 5.075

Now it gets interesting....

lets say you work the 40 hours (good luck with that BTW)

5.075 x 40 = 203

That is weekly pay post taxes..... $203... yeah I make 203 an hour...

Wrong....

You forgot something...

Let us call it a productive wage...

You see you LIVE for 168 hours a week so...

we divide your $203 a week by the actual numbers of hours a week.. and..

203/168 = 1.208333333333333 (lets call it 1.21)

From here you can get really mean to your self...

This is how you can calculate the value of your actual time..... You drive to work... it is two hours total..

2.42 rougly per day... (per year the drive is costing you 125.67) (it a cost of doing business I know but...)

Eight hours of sleep... we can go on and on...


now here is what I got him on...

You see the .3 in taxes we collect....

7.25 x .3 = 2.175

times 40 = 87

times 52 = 4524

lets say 100 million people

452,400,000,000 billion dollars from hourly employees

thats billions in tax revenues...

So you ask how did they take a hot...

Easy lets raise it to ten dollars an hour in the formula

10.00 x .3 = 3.00

x 40 = 120

x 52 = 6240

x 100 million

624,000,000,000


a difference of 171,600,000,000

This is called a hidden tax... Because everything they take out is in the general fund.... it goes directly into the pockets of congress to spend... but not guaranteed on what it is taken out for...

you want the nastier part...

your cost go up.... way up... I am not 100 percent sure on how to word the math but think of it this way... when the prices go up to cover the wage increase... the government also gets a larger cut of the products you buy from the federal sales tax...

A goes up to B which is larger = the percentage tax on A is increased when it goes up to B...


The minimum wage is an artificial hidden tax... the government gets more money out of it...


So my psychic prediction is that congress will reluctantly accept a minimum wage increase as part of the settlement deal with the Democrats...

"We felt necessary to protect the american worker..."

It is not a wage but a tax...

Minimum Tax

Note:
Salary is different

the time calculations are different... get it down to hourly figure then weekly figure divide the result by 168 hours a week this is what you earn as a productive wage...