Bitcoin Forum

Let's not let our currencies be traded in denominations under $10. Everybody gets paid a decent wage now because they couldn't possibly be paid any lower per a unit of their time. They would have to buy goods in larger amounts but it's always good to prepare right?

We would also need to outlaw units of time greater than one hour.

I think that's in the Patriot Act.

OMG YOU COMMUNIST FASCIST!!!

Don't worry, my friend.  In several years, there will be so much inflation that it wouldn't even be economical for the Fed to waste the cotton and ink to print denominations lower than $10.

Atlas is obviously not being serious, but his sully argument is no less silly that the argument in favor of the minimum wage. If the minimum wage actually raised the standard of living of the poor, why not make it $100/hr? why not $1,000?  Wages are determined by productivity and job seekers who's productivity is below the minimum wage level are simply not hired. They have no way to gain on-the-job training (unlike all the interns in Nancy Pelosi's office) that will raise their skill level, productivity level and ultimately their wage level. Just because the argument's too complex for your average knee-jerk liberal to comprehend, doesn't make it wrong. Just because the minimum wage is well-intentioned, doesn't make it right.

<--- I have a load of these that I am not using anymore.

Minimum wage should be denominated in terms of sustenance.  For instance an hours wage is worth the cost of a quart of milk, a loaf of bread, and a pound of butter.  This eliminates the inflationary issue because if the price of food goes up, so does your wage.

Because that's idiotic and not sustainable.  Slippery slope fail.

In what area, in what store?

...but doesn't a man deserve to live at $100 an hour? There should be enough wealth to for everybody to live at such a wage. We just need more central planning. Nothing math can't solve... and maybe a gun or two.

the area where the worker lives.

an average of all stores in the area.

minimum wage should be set at a level where the basic needs (food, housing, clothing, etc.) for a family can be met with the pay from a single full time job.

OK, and let's say that that is... $10 an hour. (just a number I pulled out of thin air)

What happens to the workers whose skills are only worth $9/hr? $8? $5?

What happens to the employers who had 6 workers working at $5/hr?

Does he pay 6 workers twice as much, or does he cut back and pay 3 workers what he used to pay 6?

Regulation nationwide ofcourse!

If we're pipe dreaming then dream big and stop nit picking.

They'll now be paid $10/hr, obviously.



After lots of bitching and threatening during the political debate over the new minimum wage law, when the rubber meets the road he'll just man up and take a less massive chunk for himself and shell out the extra to the workers.

better question : why did he have 6 workers when he apparently only needs 3?

Well, Lets say this employer is a restauranteur. Here's what will happen: (And I speak from personal experience here)

First, the employer will look to raise his margins, cutting back on quality ingredients, or cutting back on the ingredients themselves (Can anyone say 'McDouble'?)
If that doesn't work, He'll cut back on the hours he allots to the management to parse out to the workers. He doesn't want to fire anyone, but if he goes broke, he can't pay anyone. This results in poorer service, longer lines, and more pissed off customers.
If THAT doesn't work, He'll start letting people go.

Huh. 'Man up' didn't show up in there anywhere. Nor could it, in low-margin industries like Fast Food.


He had six so he didn't have to work them to death.

Oh, yes- because YOU know what's sustainable in someone else's business. You must have gone to Princeton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem)