national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad?

[johnyj]

Correct and happy to do that. Machines should do basic tasks, humans should do complex tasks - like programming the machines.

Some good programmers can make a program to replace many talent workers, and those workers do not have the same skill to do programming, this is a long lasting changing phase until everyone start to learn programming in their primary school

And, even they learn it very early, there is still barrier of time. Today's software system already reach the complexity that no one can easily understand, thus become very risky. Since those people who started to work with computers in 70's have worked 50 years in this area, that is a life time of learning and practise, it means any future programmer will not make any usable program after at least 20 years of learning, since all the simple program has already been made everywhere for free

Basically you're a lazy person.

The more you work, the less you spent, and the more you hurt economy. Saving is a illusion, there is not a lot of things can be saved without depreciate quickly

[Axios]

Correct and happy to do that. Machines should do basic tasks, humans should do complex tasks - like programming the machines.

Some good programmers can make a program to replace many talent workers, and those workers do not have the same skill to do programming, this is a long lasting changing phase until everyone start to learn programming in their primary school

And, even they learn it very early, there is still barrier of time. Today's software system already reach the complexity that no one can easily understand, thus become very risky. Since those people who started to work with computers in 70's have worked 50 years in this area, that is a life time of learning and practise, it means any future programmer will not make any usable program after at least 20 years of learning, since all the simple program has already been made everywhere for free

So you want to stop progress because of a bunch of retards? Awesome philosophy. Oh and today's systems are easy to understand. Really easy.

The older systems are much harder to understand, because they're written in crappy old assemblers. Citibank is using IBM TPF, what a piece of shit that thing is. It doesn't even have a normal database or apis or anything remotely usable.

Basically you're a lazy person.

The more you work, the less you spent, and the more you hurt economy. Saving is a illusion, there is not a lot of things can be saved without depreciate quickly

That's wrong. I work hard, I make a lot of money, I spend a lot of money. This year I spent 4 weeks in Europe: Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Monaco, Russia. I also was in FL, CT, Canada.

[myrkul]

An extreme example of no minimum wage laws was the cotton farming industry in the Southern US states before the Civil War.

A minimum wage law prevents people from reaching a mutual, voluntary agreement on the price of labor, if that agreement would fall below a certain price. Thus, it is a price floor. Your example is more akin to an extreme example of taxation (taxing the laborer 100% of their wages)..

No. You are wrong. There was a mutual voluntary agreement on the price of labor to be zero by the employers.

But not the "employees," so it was neither mutual, nor voluntary.

[Rudd-O]

Saving is a illusion, there is not a lot of things can be saved without depreciate quickly

The golden irony of saying this on a Bitcoin forum, of all places.

[Rudd-O]

I've noticed that a few of you continue responding to cbeast.

Why?

It's pretty obvious that he doesn't know how to actually have an argument.  Guy's as intellectually dishonest as they come.  You can palpate it here.

Observe his behavior.  If you advance an argument, he refuses to respond to the argument.  If you refute something he says, he ignores the refutation and proceeds to advance another flawed hypothesis, which he never backs up or substantiates with any evidence-based argument whatsoever.  He's playing whack-a-mole with increasingly crazy Goddidit-style hypotheses and fallacies like arguments from emotion, just so he doesn't have to accept the observably true statement that minimum wages hurt poor people.  From what I could tell from the brief quotes in others' responses, he's still doing this -- throwing words your way to busy you up and provoke you.

If he's obviously not having a conversation with you, why, then, do you give him your attention?  To contaminate the thread with more stupidity from him?  Cos that's what engaging him accomplishes: it fills the thread with more and more stupidity that he happily makes up to cling to his beliefs.

There's nothing you can do to change this sad man's mind.  Nothing.  He's married to the idea that organized violence (in this example, against employers) can make the world better.  That kind of person cannot be persuaded.  Just add him to your ignore list, and note that he's in your ignore list whenever he intervenes in threads you're commenting (this is only so new forum members won't waste their time with him either).

Talking to a man in denial doesn't work.  Ostracism does, if you actually ostracize idiots.

[FirstAscent]

I've noticed that a few of you continue responding to cbeast.

Why?

It's pretty obvious that he doesn't know how to actually have an argument.  Guy's as intellectually dishonest as they come.  You can palpate it here.

Observe his behavior.  If you advance an argument, he refuses to respond to the argument.  If you refute something he says, he ignores the refutation and proceeds to advance another flawed hypothesis, which he never backs up or substantiates with any evidence-based argument whatsoever.  He's playing whack-a-mole with increasingly crazy Goddidit-style hypotheses and fallacies like arguments from emotion, just so he doesn't have to accept the observably true statement that minimum wages hurt poor people.  From what I could tell from the brief quotes in others' responses, he's still doing this -- throwing words your way to busy you up and provoke you.

If he's obviously not having a conversation with you, why, then, do you give him your attention?  To contaminate the thread with more stupidity from him?  Cos that's what engaging him accomplishes: it fills the thread with more and more stupidity that he happily makes up to cling to his beliefs.

There's nothing you can do to change this sad man's mind.  Nothing.  He's married to the idea that organized violence (in this example, against employers) can make the world better.  That kind of person cannot be persuaded.  Just add him to your ignore list, and note that he's in your ignore list whenever he intervenes in threads you're commenting (this is only so new forum members won't waste their time with him either).

Talking to a man in denial doesn't work.  Ostracism does, if you actually ostracize idiots.

Start a blog: People I Ignore on the Bitcoin Forums: Essays on People I Disagree With.

[Rassah]

Since those people who started to work with computers in 70's have worked 50 years in this area, that is a life time of learning and practise, it means any future programmer will not make any usable program after at least 20 years of learning, since all the simple program has already been made everywhere for free

If there's one thing I learned back when I was working as a programmer, it's that you have to constantly learn new things every six months or so, and any skills you've obtained as little as two years ago are practically useless.
The other thing I learned was that with programming, the main thing to learn is computer logic and how it all works. After you manage to wrap your head around that, the rest is just ever-changing syntax (language), and new tools to make your life easier.

So if you learned programming just two or three years ago, you're likely not too far off skill-wise from someone who's been doing it for 50 years (sorry old-timer egos), and if you learned programming 50 years ago, and dropped it for a few decades, chances are you'll be able to pick it up again easily, since you already know the hard part (PC logic).

[johnyj]

Since those people who started to work with computers in 70's have worked 50 years in this area, that is a life time of learning and practise, it means any future programmer will not make any usable program after at least 20 years of learning, since all the simple program has already been made everywhere for free

If there's one thing I learned back when I was working as a programmer, it's that you have to constantly learn new things every six months or so, and any skills you've obtained as little as two years ago are practically useless.
The other thing I learned was that with programming, the main thing to learn is computer logic and how it all works. After you manage to wrap your head around that, the rest is just ever-changing syntax (language), and new tools to make your life easier.

So if you learned programming just two or three years ago, you're likely not too far off skill-wise from someone who's been doing it for 50 years (sorry old-timer egos), and if you learned programming 50 years ago, and dropped it for a few decades, chances are you'll be able to pick it up again easily, since you already know the hard part (PC logic).

I work daily with many different programmers, some of them has been working with computers for 30 years, they still do not have a clue how the system works as a whole. If they do not understand the system from the binary level, e.g. how 0-1 level change will affect the registers, they will never get a clear picture, unfortunately, most of the programmers belong to this category, they just program at user level, which is just a game player who plays other's game

Back to the topic, programing is still a good job, but I see for each programmer hired, 3-4 traditional workers will be fired, and since his salary (and consumption) can not be 4x of those fired workers, the total consumption of the society is on the way down. I think in the latest 100 years, every such a wave of efficiency lift generated a huge recession

[cbeast]

An extreme example of no minimum wage laws was the cotton farming industry in the Southern US states before the Civil War.

A minimum wage law prevents people from reaching a mutual, voluntary agreement on the price of labor, if that agreement would fall below a certain price. Thus, it is a price floor. Your example is more akin to an extreme example of taxation (taxing the laborer 100% of their wages)..

No. You are wrong. There was a mutual voluntary agreement on the price of labor to be zero by the employers.

But not the "employees," so it was neither mutual, nor voluntary.

Sure, they had a choice to work or die. Many volunteered to choose life and some chose death. Just like minimum wage folks do now, though actuarial statistics show that their lifespan is lessened.

[myrkul]

An extreme example of no minimum wage laws was the cotton farming industry in the Southern US states before the Civil War.

A minimum wage law prevents people from reaching a mutual, voluntary agreement on the price of labor, if that agreement would fall below a certain price. Thus, it is a price floor. Your example is more akin to an extreme example of taxation (taxing the laborer 100% of their wages)..

No. You are wrong. There was a mutual voluntary agreement on the price of labor to be zero by the employers.

But not the "employees," so it was neither mutual, nor voluntary.

Sure, they had a choice to work or die. Many volunteered to choose life and some chose death. Just like minimum wage folks do now, though actuarial statistics show that their lifespan is lessened.

I don't think you understand "volunteer." "Work for me or die" is not a voluntary choice. It is coercion. It is also, I might add, the choice presented by the tax man.

[cbeast]

An extreme example of no minimum wage laws was the cotton farming industry in the Southern US states before the Civil War.

A minimum wage law prevents people from reaching a mutual, voluntary agreement on the price of labor, if that agreement would fall below a certain price. Thus, it is a price floor. Your example is more akin to an extreme example of taxation (taxing the laborer 100% of their wages)..

No. You are wrong. There was a mutual voluntary agreement on the price of labor to be zero by the employers.

But not the "employees," so it was neither mutual, nor voluntary.

Sure, they had a choice to work or die. Many volunteered to choose life and some chose death. Just like minimum wage folks do now, though actuarial statistics show that their lifespan is lessened.

I don't think you understand "volunteer." "Work for me or die" is not a voluntary choice. It is coercion. It is also, I might add, the choice presented by the tax man.

You are splitting hairs. We are talking about sets of populations, not individual cases. The population of today's minimum wage workers suffers much the same choices as enslaved peoples. It's funny that most (if not all) civilized people get this and you don't. I hate pull the ad populum card, but this is a moral issue.

[edit] when you pulled the tax man argument it brings up red flags that you may be a libertarian with an overactive hypothalamus.

[myrkul]

You are splitting hairs. We are talking about sets of populations, not individual cases. The population of today's minimum wage workers suffers much the same choices as enslaved peoples. It's funny that most (if not all) civilized people get this and you don't. I hate pull the ad populum card, but this is a moral issue.

Minimum wage laws create the problem you are railing against.

Minimum wage laws are a price floor. Price floors, when they do anything, create a surplus in the controlled commodity.

A historical (and current) example of a price floor are minimum wage laws; in this case, employees are the suppliers of labor and the company is the consumer. When the minimum wage is set higher than the equilibrium market price for unskilled labor, unemployment is created (more people are looking for jobs than there are jobs available). A minimum wage above the equilibrium wage would induce employers to hire fewer workers as well as allow more people to enter the labor market, the result is a surplus in the amount of labor available. The equilibrium wage for a worker would be dependent upon the worker's skill sets along with market conditions.

[Rassah]

Back to the topic, programing is still a good job, but I see for each programmer hired, 3-4 traditional workers will be fired, and since his salary (and consumption) can not be 4x of those fired workers, the total consumption of the society is on the way down. I think in the latest 100 years, every such a wave of efficiency lift generated a huge recession

Not true. Just as machines freed up farmers, and those farmers went on to do other jobs, after programs free up traditional workers, they will go on and do other jobs as well. Despite HUGE advances in technology in the 20th century, and many many jobs being replaced or made obsolete, the unemployment rate has largely remained the same. That suggests that plenty of new, more higher level (and leaner/white-collar) jobs were created, as well as that people have to work less (need fewer jobs) in order to stay prosperous (e.g. we don't bust our backs on farms of in factories from 6am to 9pm any more)

[Rassah]

The population of today's minimum wage workers suffers much the same choices as enslaved peoples. It's funny that most (if not all) civilized people get this and you don't. I hate pull the ad populum card, but this is a moral issue.

Please re-read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127908.msg1377300#msg1377300
When there are minimum wage laws, there are more workers than jobs, and thus minimum wage workers are forced to compete for their job, because there are lots of unskilled workers who are ready and waiting to take their place. In places in China, as in my linked example, there are no minimum wage laws, and thus way more jobs that workers, meaning employers have to compete for workers instead. End result is workers are actually important, are treated better, and have a choice to change jobs if they want to, because there are plenty of employers willing to hire them on.

[cbeast]

You are splitting hairs. We are talking about sets of populations, not individual cases. The population of today's minimum wage workers suffers much the same choices as enslaved peoples. It's funny that most (if not all) civilized people get this and you don't. I hate pull the ad populum card, but this is a moral issue.

Minimum wage laws create the problem you are railing against.

Minimum wage laws are a price floor. Price floors, when they do anything, create a surplus in the controlled commodity.

A historical (and current) example of a price floor are minimum wage laws; in this case, employees are the suppliers of labor and the company is the consumer. When the minimum wage is set higher than the equilibrium market price for unskilled labor, unemployment is created (more people are looking for jobs than there are jobs available). A minimum wage above the equilibrium wage would induce employers to hire fewer workers as well as allow more people to enter the labor market, the result is a surplus in the amount of labor available. The equilibrium wage for a worker would be dependent upon the worker's skill sets along with market conditions.

Wouldn't it be nice if the real worked like it does on a chalkboard? As smart as Newton was, even his theories don't hold up in every situation. Computer modelling gets us a little closer, but nothing in you chart speaks of laws. Laws are real world applications of theory overseen by judges and juries because simple statistics and theory don't apply in every situation. Theories about economics are surely interesting, but to be a real science they must pass experimental muster and peer review. So while you have an interesting mathematical model it is no more science than any other math. It is simply math theory, no more, no less. Math is a very important tool, but when all you have is a hammer everything starts looking like a nail. Your error is in confirmation bias.

[cbeast]

The population of today's minimum wage workers suffers much the same choices as enslaved peoples. It's funny that most (if not all) civilized people get this and you don't. I hate pull the ad populum card, but this is a moral issue.

Please re-read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127908.msg1377300#msg1377300
When there are minimum wage laws, there are more workers than jobs, and thus minimum wage workers are forced to compete for their job, because there are lots of unskilled workers who are ready and waiting to take their place. In places in China, as in my linked example, there are no minimum wage laws, and thus way more jobs that workers, meaning employers have to compete for workers instead. End result is workers are actually important, are treated better, and have a choice to change jobs if they want to, because there are plenty of employers willing to hire them on.

You use China as an example. A communist dictatorship. This is your model for the study of markets? Lets give them a couple decades to develop before using them for study.

[myrkul]

Back to the topic, programing is still a good job, but I see for each programmer hired, 3-4 traditional workers will be fired, and since his salary (and consumption) can not be 4x of those fired workers, the total consumption of the society is on the way down. I think in the latest 100 years, every such a wave of efficiency lift generated a huge recession

Not true. Just as machines freed up farmers, and those farmers went on to do other jobs, after programs free up traditional workers, they will go on and do other jobs as well. Despite HUGE advances in technology in the 20th century, and many many jobs being replaced or made obsolete, the unemployment rate has largely remained the same. That suggests that plenty of new, more higher level (and leaner/white-collar) jobs were created, as well as that people have to work less (need fewer jobs) in order to stay prosperous (e.g. we don't bust our backs on farms of in factories from 6am to 9pm any more)

Mechanization has always displaced workers, and those workers have always found something else to do. When all needs are met by a machine, well, that'll be a pretty nice problem to have.

Wouldn't it be nice if the real [world] worked like it does on a chalkboard?

I see. Economics only works if it agrees with your preconceptions, huh? Sorry, princess, that's not science. That's fantasy.

[Rudd-O]

If there's one thing I learned back when I was working as a programmer,

What happened?  Things got too hot for ya?

[Rudd-O]

The population of today's minimum wage workers suffers much the same choices as enslaved peoples. It's funny that most (if not all) civilized people get this and you don't. I hate pull the ad populum card, but this is a moral issue.

Please re-read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127908.msg1377300#msg1377300
When there are minimum wage laws, there are more workers than jobs, and thus minimum wage workers are forced to compete for their job, because there are lots of unskilled workers who are ready and waiting to take their place. In places in China, as in my linked example, there are no minimum wage laws, and thus way more jobs that workers, meaning employers have to compete for workers instead. End result is workers are actually important, are treated better, and have a choice to change jobs if they want to, because there are plenty of employers willing to hire them on.

cbeast is the wrong nickname.  The right nickname is just beast.  Cos that dude is a beast.  Like, a brute beast.

[cbeast]

The population of today's minimum wage workers suffers much the same choices as enslaved peoples. It's funny that most (if not all) civilized people get this and you don't. I hate pull the ad populum card, but this is a moral issue.

Please re-read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127908.msg1377300#msg1377300
When there are minimum wage laws, there are more workers than jobs, and thus minimum wage workers are forced to compete for their job, because there are lots of unskilled workers who are ready and waiting to take their place. In places in China, as in my linked example, there are no minimum wage laws, and thus way more jobs that workers, meaning employers have to compete for workers instead. End result is workers are actually important, are treated better, and have a choice to change jobs if they want to, because there are plenty of employers willing to hire them on.

cbeast is the wrong nickname.  The right nickname is just beast.  Cos that dude is a beast.  Like, a brute beast.

Heh, you are partly right. That is partly where my name comes from, but only when I want to win!