national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad?

[Rassah]

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.

Yes, I am using China, a communist dictatorship, which, despite that, STILL has very plainly visible market forces at work in their labor sector. Labor there is "free market," even if the rest of the business isn't. It's why our capitalist corporations invest there.

[Rassah]

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

What happened?  Things got too hot for ya?

My job got outsourced back in 2001, I saw the whole India thing coming (and especially saw that although I was a rare computer nerd way back in school, EVERYONE was a computer nerd by 2001), and decided to switch to finance instead. So... yes

Oh, also, 10 years later, I found out about #1 on this list in my Tech Management MBA class http://www.techslog.com/archives/2006/10/8_expensive_it_blunders.html
That was the project they considered me for and had me start on (I was a web developer there), which they then quickly decided to outsource to someone else shortly after laying me off. Schadenfreude!  

[cbeast]

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.

Yes, I am using China, a communist dictatorship, which despite that STILL has very plainly visible market forces at work in their labor sector. Labor there is "free market," even if the rest of the business isn't. It's why our capitalist corporations invest there.

Whose corporations are doing this? Germany's? France's? Italy's? Please be more specific?

[cbeast]

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.

I was using the definition of science used by every scientist on the planet. You now resort to ad hominem which tells me your hypothalamus is heating up. How does that make you feel?

[myrkul]

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.

I was using the definition of science used by every scientist on the planet. You now resort to ad hominem which tells me your hypothalamus is heating up. How does that make you feel?

Ad hominem attacks? Where? Telling you that you're fantasizing instead of using science is not an ad hominem.

And, on that note, welcome to my shit-list. Bye-bye, princess.

[cbeast]

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.

I was using the definition of science used by every scientist on the planet. You now resort to ad hominem which tells me your hypothalamus is heating up. How does that make you feel?

Ad hominem attacks? Where? Telling you that you're fantasizing instead of using science is not an ad hominem.

And, on that note, welcome to my shit-list. Bye-bye, princess.

lol

[Rassah]

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.

Yes, I am using China, a communist dictatorship, which despite that STILL has very plainly visible market forces at work in their labor sector. Labor there is "free market," even if the rest of the business isn't. It's why our capitalist corporations invest there.

Whose corporations are doing this? Germany's? France's? Italy's? Please be more specific?

Yes. Also America's, Russia's, Japan's and other's. Though it's getting a bit less competitive now, since China's wages have started to go up a lot (free market competition for workers and all)

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.

I was using the definition of science used by every scientist on the planet. You now resort to ad hominem which tells me your hypothalamus is heating up. How does that make you feel?

Wait, are you saying that every scientist on the planet believes that their scientific calculations only work on a chalk board, and don't apply to the real world???

[cbeast]

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.

Yes, I am using China, a communist dictatorship, which despite that STILL has very plainly visible market forces at work in their labor sector. Labor there is "free market," even if the rest of the business isn't. It's why our capitalist corporations invest there.

Whose corporations are doing this? Germany's? France's? Italy's? Please be more specific?

Yes. Also America's, Russia's, Japan's and other's

Russia's time is coming, but not yet. They are still recovering from communist dictatorship. The other countries have protectionist trade laws that make such imports not so beneficial. They may do it to some degree, but not nearly as much as the USA. American laws tend to swing like pendulum. It is very likely that future investment in China will be based on things other than labor cost like in Japan and Korea. In fact, it's starting to happen. China is starting to invest in American labor as do the Koreans because our labor is very cheap. This won't last. If it was successful, then Chinese companies would be owning business in Germany, France, and Italy as well. I'm surprised you didn't mention Mexico. There is a marvelous model of cheap labor and its awesome benefits.

[FirstAscent]

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.

Myrkul is the last person on Earth who should be posting supply demand curves. He has demonstrated a total lack of understanding of their context and how to apply them. I don't think he ever advanced beyond Econ 101 theory. He doesn't understand how to apply human psychology to their interpretation.

In the case of diminishing resources, he completely fails to understand how standard analysis of a supply demand curve actually produces the opposite result of what usually happens when human psychology is added into the mix.

In the case of wages, he again fails to understand the elements of human psychology. He doesn't understand how low wage earners might have hopes and dreams (no matter how small) which will affect how they interpret misleading comments from employers who might lead the employee to believe that if they work hard, and do well, there might be a raise in the near future.

[FirstAscent]

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.

On the contrary, your Econ 101 charts are over simplified mathematical relations which simply don't apply universally. Thus, your insistence that they do is a fantasy you cling to. Get your nose out of the books preaching libertarian dogma with its preselected examples to make you feel good, and start reading texts whose audience does not show a higher than normal correlation to libertarian readers, and you'll be on your way to a more honest and less biased understanding of the world around you.

[myrkul]

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.

On the contrary, your Econ 101 charts are over simplified mathematical relations which simply don't apply universally. Thus, your insistence that they do is a fantasy you cling to. Get your nose out of the books preaching libertarian dogma with its preselected examples to make you feel good, and start reading texts whose audience does not show a higher than normal correlation to libertarian readers, and you'll be on your way to a more honest and less biased understanding of the world around you.

Oh look, now Wikipedia has libertarian bias. 

[augustocroppo]

Myrkul is the last person on Earth who should be posting supply demand curves. He has demonstrated a total lack of understanding of their context and how to apply them. I don't think he ever advanced beyond Econ 101 theory. He doesn't understand how to apply human psychology to their interpretation.

At least Myrkul is good applying (bad) analogies...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[FirstAscent]

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.

On the contrary, your Econ 101 charts are over simplified mathematical relations which simply don't apply universally. Thus, your insistence that they do is a fantasy you cling to. Get your nose out of the books preaching libertarian dogma with its preselected examples to make you feel good, and start reading texts whose audience does not show a higher than normal correlation to libertarian readers, and you'll be on your way to a more honest and less biased understanding of the world around you.

Oh look, now Wikipedia has libertarian bias.  

Are you referring to the definition of a supply demand curve? If so, it's supposed to say exactly what you would learn in Econ 101. It's a chart and a mathematical relation. Duh. I wouldn't expect Wikipedia to deviate from the mathematics. Nor should it. And I wouldn't expect your favorite libertarian texts to expound upon it when the cold hard theory of it supports the values of libertarians.

But out in the real world, where other factors apply that the supply demand curve function does not have inputs for, it can (and does) breakdown. Therefore, only an individual (that would be you) who doesn't understand those other factors and real world scenarios where the curve breaks down would cling to the function for any scenario that he believes fits his desired outcome.

[Brunic]

It's a tool, like any other economic tool. I don't think the debate is about if there should be minimum wage laws or not, but how do you adjust that tool. No minimum wage law means you remove one tool from your economic tool box, and I think it's pretty stupid. Civilization is built by making and using more tools, not less.

Minimum wage laws has proven to be beneficial, and is a direct counter to slavery. The problem of the minimum wage law is when a massive external group is available to work at slaves wages, on the short term, you lose jobs. But at the same time, at long term, I think it's beneficial, since people are forced to find and create jobs with more or different value. It forces the quality of jobs to go up, not down.

I see the minimum wage law like a seal of quality of the labor of a country. Minimal wage here is 9.90$/hour, so, in a way, our government guarantee that his citizens labor provide value for at least that amount.

The only massive problem I see is when you have a minimum wage too high and your country can't provide enough high-value work. For example, if the quality of education and skills level goes down while keeping the minimum wage too high, you can't keep up with the technological progress, and your labor get over-valued. Easy solution would be to provide free education up to university level, but hey, you know how politics work, right?  

[Rassah]

Whose corporations are doing this? Germany's? France's? Italy's? Please be more specific?

Yes. Also America's, Russia's, Japan's and other's

Russia's time is coming, but not yet. They are still recovering from communist dictatorship. The other countries have protectionist trade laws that make such imports not so beneficial. *words*

Oh godamnit, no! I said corporations are investing in China, you asked which countries' corporations, and I replied that corporations that are based in Germany, France, Italy, America, Russia, and Japan are all investing in China. Not that other corporations are investing in those other countries, but that all countries around the world are investing in China.

Also, Mexico is way to f'in expensive to outsource to. Their labor is way too expensive, for the same reason that China's is getting expensive. It's why we stopped outsourcing to Mexico and started to Outsource to China and India. It's also why we're slowing down outsourcing to China/India, and exploring the options of outsourcing to Kenya and the rest of Africa.

[Rassah]

Myrkul is the last person on Earth who should be posting supply demand curves. He has demonstrated a total lack of understanding of their context and how to apply them. I don't think he ever advanced beyond Econ 101 theory. He doesn't understand how to apply human psychology to their interpretation.
...
In the case of wages, he again fails to understand the elements of human psychology. He doesn't understand how low wage earners might have hopes and dreams (no matter how small) which will affect how they interpret misleading comments from employers who might lead the employee to believe that if they work hard, and do well, there might be a raise in the near future.

There's really not all that much psychology in economics. You are referring to behavioral economics here, specifically market inefficiencies due to asymmetric information. The boss has all the information - he won't be giving them a raise, and the employee doesn't have all the information - he falsely believes there may be a raise when that's not true.
I don't know where you picked that up, but if it was in an actual econ (or securities&investment) class, they would have told you that market inefficiencies are just mere blips in economics, having some short-term effect, but generally not having any long term ones. The employee would believe his boss the first time. After a few month, he will be skeptical the second time. The third time, both employee and employer will have the same information, which is that the boss is full of shit, and the market inefficiency will be gone, as will be the employee, and anyone else he may have shared this with. The most an employer can do is distort the market a bit for a short while, and likely not more than once or twice before getting a reputation for being dishonest.

[cbeast]

Whose corporations are doing this? Germany's? France's? Italy's? Please be more specific?

Yes. Also America's, Russia's, Japan's and other's

Russia's time is coming, but not yet. They are still recovering from communist dictatorship. The other countries have protectionist trade laws that make such imports not so beneficial. *words*

Oh godamnit, no! I said corporations are investing in China, you asked which countries' corporations, and I replied that corporations that are based in Germany, France, Italy, America, Russia, and Japan are all investing in China. Not that other corporations are investing in those other countries, but that all countries around the world are investing in China.

Also, Mexico is way to f'in expensive to outsource to. Their labor is way too expensive, for the same reason that China's is getting expensive. It's why we stopped outsourcing to Mexico and started to Outsource to China and India. It's also why we're slowing down outsourcing to China/India, and exploring the options of outsourcing to Kenya and the rest of Africa.

Just to be clear, we are talking about investing in China to take advantage of cheap labor and cheap imports, right? Both must exist for a corporation to find an advantage. We still have cheap imports from Mexico, just not so cheap labor anymore. We used to do the same with Korea and Japan. Again, this may be a good opportunity for opportunists to take advantage of China, but I have a feeling that China will not react the same way as Korea and Japan. In fact they are building their factories in specialized zones. This way they get trained labor forces that are geographically based. It is an ideal way to plan for possible nationalization of these factories. So go ahead and use China as a gleaming example of unrestricted capitalism via no-minimum-wage. Time will tell. I am still skeptical. I will classify using China to make you argument as special pleading.

[Rassah]

Just to be clear, we are talking about investing in China to take advantage of cheap labor and cheap imports, right? Both must exist for a corporation to find an advantage. We still have cheap imports from Mexico, just not so cheap labor anymore.

Yes we are. But, if you mean cheap exports FROM China, which are then imports INTO your own country, then cheap "imports" and cheap labor are practically the same thing. The import is cheap precisely because it was manufactured with cheap labor. Mexico doesn't have cheap labor any more. Try to find something that says "Made in Mexico." You'll have a lot of trouble, and if you do, it won't be something cheap.

We used to do the same with Korea and Japan. Again, this may be a good opportunity for opportunists to take advantage of China, but I have a feeling that China will not react the same way as Korea and Japan. In fact they are building their factories in specialized zones. This way they get trained labor forces that are geographically based. It is an ideal way to plan for possible nationalization of these factories. So go ahead and use China as a gleaming example of unrestricted capitalism via no-minimum-wage. Time will tell. I am still skeptical. I will classify using China to make you argument as special pleading.

Time has told. China (and India) is an example of unrestricted capitalism when it comes to wages, and has shown that, when companies have to compete for employees, wages do go up, and working conditions do improve, even without minimum wage laws. Whatever the government decides to do later is irrelevant, because it would not be unrestricted capitalism, and it will have nothing to do with the point of "free market competition for wages in an environment free of minimum-wage laws DO in fact increase wages, improve working conditions, and decrease unemployment." (And Mexico, and to a lesser extent Kenya, and Korea, and Vietnam, and South-Pacific island nations).

[Rassah]

By the way, the question of whether minimum wage laws are good or bad doesn't really have an objective answer. A job is worth a certain amount. If you put in a price floor for the job, it will be moved where there is no price floor. So the people who are destitute and need jobs to survive will get them. In that way, these laws take the jobs from those in 1st world nations who want them, and give them to those in 3rd world nations who actually need them (good?). And, really, the only thing that minimum wage laws do is give us a choice:

* Do we want to keep ourselves on a higher income plateau, above the poorer nations, and wait a very long time for them to catch up to the rest of us well-paid individuals
* Or do we drop ourselves from our place of financial privilege, join them at the bottom, and quickly raise all our collective wages through market competition by sharing and competing with all our productive capabilities equally.

It's basically a question of having us earn $7 an hour and letting them earn $1 an hour, or having all of us earning $3 to $4 an hour. This is why I consider minimum wage laws a type of FY,GM policy.

[FirstAscent]

Myrkul is the last person on Earth who should be posting supply demand curves. He has demonstrated a total lack of understanding of their context and how to apply them. I don't think he ever advanced beyond Econ 101 theory. He doesn't understand how to apply human psychology to their interpretation.
...
In the case of wages, he again fails to understand the elements of human psychology. He doesn't understand how low wage earners might have hopes and dreams (no matter how small) which will affect how they interpret misleading comments from employers who might lead the employee to believe that if they work hard, and do well, there might be a raise in the near future.

There's really not all that much psychology in economics. You are referring to behavioral economics here, specifically market inefficiencies due to asymmetric information. The boss has all the information - he won't be giving them a raise, and the employee doesn't have all the information - he falsely believes there may be a raise when that's not true.
I don't know where you picked that up, but if it was in an actual econ (or securities&investment) class, they would have told you that market inefficiencies are just mere blips in economics, having some short-term effect, but generally not having any long term ones. The employee would believe his boss the first time. After a few month, he will be skeptical the second time. The third time, both employee and employer will have the same information, which is that the boss is full of shit, and the market inefficiency will be gone, as will be the employee, and anyone else he may have shared this with. The most an employer can do is distort the market a bit for a short while, and likely not more than once or twice before getting a reputation for being dishonest.

I made one example to demonstrate that human psychology plays a role. There are other factors too. Like smiles on the employees' faces. The incentive for employers to create jobs with value. Are you familiar with David Seigel (douchebag of the year).