Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know its hard to interpret emotion in a type written comment, but it's not rocket science nor is everything a conspiracy.
I don't see where Benicar was doing anything more then giving Frank some basic reading links of the almost same discussion, maybe the idea was to have Frank argue something new in regards to it, or help him in his arguing to see where some of us others have already responded. Maybe to bring something new to the argument, I mean Frank does seem intelligent enough to possibly do so.
...Can't two people hold the same views, and use the same arguments to support their position?...
...Why are you being so defensive?
It's a long story. Ultimately I caught someone using a fictional male persona when their IP address showed up in a multi-step "Honey Pot" trap I had. Coming to a sudden realization that more than one invented personalities were being used by a single individual to be deceptive really changed my outlook.
That was the defining moment that gave me a little more vigor...
Frank, after reading your comments, particularly on this thread, I couldn't help but notice the striking similarity between your arguments and those of a former member Rockmadinejad. In fact, he emphasized the same aspects of economic principles. He even shares your belief that the absence of illegals would actually reduce the number of jobs, and that no job "belongs" to a citizen. While I disagree with you, I certainly commend you for your time and effort, especially the graphs. Anyway, I thought you might be interested in reading a few of his posts.
They are interesting, thank you for the links. I'm skimming through this right now and I can see that there are some similarities, but this Rock fellow seems to be coming from a different side than myself. For example,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock
These are all exaggerations, but of course NOT ONE of these problems couldn't be helped by legalizing them. It allows you to impose minimum wages on them, fully tax them (they already pay large amounts of taxes, but you ignore that) you could prevent them from freeloading off of any health care, etc.
I'm not sure if this was an isolated incident, but it seems odd that he propose imposing minimum wage laws when many of the jobs created by illegals would be lost again by setting a price floor on their wages. As I stated in the first post, there are citizens who are more than willing to take many jobs illegals currently do. However these jobs are below the minimum wage and so even if they wanted the jobs citizens would have to work under the table. There is a large grey market in the USA where people do work under the table, but not as prevalent as would be needed to retain these jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockie
I'm not a libertarian, nor am I in college. Most of the people here agreeing with me disagree with me about countless aspects of labor law.
I support a large number of labor laws, but most of them are either excessive or misguided.
Child labor laws are exactly the kind of labor law that makes 100% sense - children are almost never in a position where they can reasonably consent to a contract. Slavery, of course, is not an agreement between individuals, so it does not have a role in this discussion.
I'd have to disagree with Rock on child labour laws. There is always the issue of children, or anyone who is physically weak, being coerced into slavery, but I wouldn't warrant that enough reason to ban child labour. My grandparents were drunks and my mother entered the work force when she was ten or so in order to buy food for herself. A law banning her from work would have certainly killed her. A child being forced to work is always a shame, but there are times when it is better than the alternative. Child labour laws weren't put in place to help children, but promoted by labour unions in order to decrease the labour supply and artificially raise their nominal wages.
Even if you believe that child labour laws are needed, there is still room to argue reforming our current labour laws. Nowadays you can work in many jobs by just sitting on a desk and many young teens could make good money at part time jobs simply managing a company's facebook account or helping build a website. I've met some genius programmers over my life who've simply been unable to work because they were below the working age.
I doubt anyone seriously thinks I'm Rock, but, in case there is any doubt, I am not. Unlike Rock, who by the above linked threads, stated he wasn't a libertarian - I am and proud to be one. I am also an illegal alien and, to an extent, proud of that. I wish many times I had simply been born with citizenship, but at the same time my status has given me a unique place to grow a love for liberty. When you find yourself limited by forces beyond your control you realize just how beautiful the common supermarket is.
_______________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquidy
Questioning my ability to read? you may wish to understand the point I made first. You're claiming it was minimum wage jobs that killed the elevator workers position. I understand that, please don't attempt patronization as if you hold the only right (or wrong) answers. My point was simple, technology phased out the job, not minimum wage law. All your scenarios and your ideals espouse a race to the bottom in wages, at which inflation would have to be reduced at twice the rate.
Read the quote again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ME
As technology improved we would have seen the phasing out of these jobs anyway, but it was the minimum wage laws that killed this, and many other jobs prematurely.
See how I state that these jobs would have been lost anyway because of technology improving? We're in agreement in that part. It's you who seems to believe that we're disagreeing on that. What we are disagreeing on though is:
(1) Whether you can in fact read. I have shown you the above quote several times now. You yourself quoted it. Yet you believe that we're disagreeing. You do know that it's possible to retain your position on illegal immigration, but at the same time realize that you might be wrong on certain details?
In an earlier thread I stated that Obama's deferment policy was unconstitutional since Congress, not the executive, had the power to legislate matters of naturalization. Someone pointed out that Congress had actually given the executive the discretion to offer deferment and I conceded. I maintained my position on illegal immigration despite being wrong on a detail. You too can concede a point without changing your over all position. In this case you wouldn't even have to concede a point since we're in agreement. You'd simply have to stop assuming we have to disagree on everything.
(2) I emphasize that these jobs would have been lost to technological advancements eventually. Minimum wage lost the jobs of elevator operators prematurely, that is to say before it was cost effective for the jobs to have been phased out because of the costs of the technology.
In other cases we see the minimum wage not only cause this premature replacement of human labour with technology, but the outright destruction of that job.
If you ultimately want to know, ask Yac, I know it is watched to make sure a new username is not coming from the same IP address as a former member had...
^^^^Totally off topic but I thought I would mention this.
If you have purchased the services of a VPN provider you can have multiple IP addresses. One VPN provider has 163 servers all over the world, monthly standard amount of servers available is 10 and you get 5 free switch a month, and then an additional charge for over 5. One day someone could be posting from the US, the next Canada, the next the UK.
^^^^Totally off topic but I thought I would mention this.
If you have purchased the services of a VPN provider you can have multiple IP addresses. One VPN provider has 163 servers all over the world, monthly standard amount of servers available is 10 and you get 5 free switch a month, and then an additional charge for over 5. One day someone could be posting from the US, the next Canada, the next the UK.
Ultimately yes, it is off-topic...
But I knew enough that the way I caught the personality (and a follow-up to ask the person) really didn't have any alternate explanation...
(1) Whether you can in fact read. I have shown you the above quote several times now. You yourself quoted it. Yet you believe that we're disagreeing. You do know that it's possible to retain your position on illegal immigration, but at the same time realize that you might be wrong on certain details?
In an earlier thread I stated that Obama's deferment policy was unconstitutional since Congress, not the executive, had the power to legislate matters of naturalization. Someone pointed out that Congress had actually given the executive the discretion to offer deferment and I conceded. I maintained my position on illegal immigration despite being wrong on a detail. You too can concede a point without changing your over all position. In this case you wouldn't even have to concede a point since we're in agreement. You'd simply have to stop assuming we have to disagree on everything.
(2) I emphasize that these jobs would have been lost to technological advancements eventually. Minimum wage lost the jobs of elevator operators prematurely, that is to say before it was cost effective for the jobs to have been phased out because of the costs of the technology.
In other cases we see the minimum wage not only cause this premature replacement of human labour with technology, but the outright destruction of that job.
What we are disagreeing on is the claim that you state that minimum wage laws have killed the job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by You
As technology improved we would have seen the phasing out of these jobs anyway, butit was the minimum wage laws that killed this, and many other jobs prematurely.
Your assertion is just that, you haven't shown that minimum wage in fact killed the jobs. We both agree technology effects that job and probably reduces the number of operators there are, but I portend that it is the economy that has reduced more vs the minimum wage laws that you claim as having killed them. Now, shall I question your ability to comprehend?
There are still elevator operators out there, many still employed as such and doing that particular job, some have been "grounded" to only work the lobby. Elevator operators are but a service job, as the economy goes, so does the service in areas that can be reduced. I work and own a service business. I have asked if you are still an economics student, you haven't answered. Which year are you in if you are?
Minimum wage laws didn't kill your scenario, simple technology costs decreased enough to be cheaper then the employee.
and again in this comment: Page 2 comment 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid
You're claiming it was minimum wage jobs that killed the elevator workers position...... My point was simple, technology phased out the job, not minimum wage law.
What we are disagreeing on is the claim that you state that minimum wage laws have killed the job.Your assertion is just that, you haven't shown that minimum wage in fact killed the jobs. We both agree technology effects that job and probably reduces the number of operators there are, but I portend that it is the economy that has reduced more vs the minimum wage laws that you claim as having killed them. Now, shall I question your ability to comprehend?
There are still elevator operators out there, many still employed as such and doing that particular job, some have been "grounded" to only work the lobby. Elevator operators are but a service job, as the economy goes, so does the service in areas that can be reduced. I work and own a service business. I have asked if you are still an economics student, you haven't answered. Which year are you in if you are?
A minimum wage does not force employers to pay low skilled workers above what they are worth to the employer; i.e. it does not compel them to hire them. An employer is only forced to pay ten dollars to those employees they actually keep and hire. Do you think it'll be low skilled people who keep their jobs in this situation?
Should a job produce five dollars an hour to an employer, we would see that job destroyed should a minimum wage law be implemented that requires a ten dollar hourly wage. This isn't a radical notion. It's the sort of thing you get taught in a Junior High economics course.
What are we arguing here? Yes, technology sees the destruction of jobs. The iceman was replaced by modern fridges. Mailmen have been replaced by the internet and emails as far as most correspondence goes. The minimum wage law however causes the destruction of these jobs to occur prematurely or to be removed outright even if they would have been optimal to have absent of minimum wage laws.
You've seen a supply-demand graph showing the effects of a price floor/minimum wage right?
What do my credentials have to do with anything? I'm not espousing any new models. This is all basic supply-demand graphs. I've even refrained from using more than a few.
A minimum wage does not force employers to pay low skilled workers above what they are worth to the employer; i.e. it does not compel them to hire them. An employer is only forced to pay ten dollars to those employees they actually keep and hire. Do you think it'll be low skilled people who keep their jobs in this situation?
To answer your question, YES (it would be lower skilled labor that would not get the job to begin with, they would be priced out of the labor market). You are assuming that low skilled minimum wage earners are going to be the ones to lose their job they already have (where before you were claiming that minimum wage killed the elevator workers job). From a business perspective it would be smarter to fire the higher paid worker (administrative employee) and retain the lower paid worker (production employee). This does 2 things, lowers the cost to the employer overall and decreases production costs and may even allow you to increase production employees, which would in turn lower production costs even further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight
Should a job produce five dollars an hour to an employer, we would see that job destroyed should a minimum wage law be implemented that requires a ten dollar hourly wage. This isn't a radical notion. It's the sort of thing you get taught in a Junior High economics course.
Outsourcing comes to mind, China, Mexico, and India. In order for your scenario to work in our economy, the cost of living would have to be lowered. Why do you think we outsource? The cost of living in China, Mexico, or India is nowhere near the cost of living in the USA. So now we go back to effect. The cost of living in these countries has increased slowly (not fast enough), to catch up to us. Some, like China, manipulate its currency to keep a competitive advantage in cheap labor. Do you propose we lower ourselves to the wages of China, India, or Mexico?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight
What are we arguing here? Yes, technology sees the destruction of jobs. The iceman was replaced by modern fridges. Mailmen have been replaced by the internet and emails as far as most correspondence goes. The minimum wage law however causes the destruction of these jobs to occur prematurely or to be removed outright even if they would have been optimal to have absent of minimum wage laws.
See above
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight
You've seen a supply-demand graph showing the effects of a price floor/minimum wage right?
Don't insult my intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight
What do my credentials have to do with anything? I'm not espousing any new models. This is all basic supply-demand graphs. I've even refrained from using more than a few.
Your credentials tell us your experience. If you are still a student, then you have virtually little to no experience and are doing nothing more than espousing basic theory of assumption. My economics teacher gave some very good advice when I was in college: economics is a study of utopia, its all an "if this is done then that should happen, it doesn't take into account the real world or any other aspects." What happens if the "if" is done but the "should" isn't? HINT: Theory is blown all to hell.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 07-31-2012 at 11:49 PM..
You sneaky dog you. You just tried to change the scenario. I already stated that the workers was earning only five dollars an hour in value for his employer. The fact that you elected to keep him means his value isn't five, but a value greater than ten dollars (the minimim wage in this example). That isn't however the example we're working in.
You still don't grasp the concept of real wages as far as your argument for a race to the bottom goes. If it were true we'd have to restrict not only illegal migrant labour, but all labour. That sounds absurd when you consider it to its extreme.
Your teacher musn't have been fond of his profession. Economics is not utopian. It presumes several things, but it is wise enough to list what assumptions they are. If a reaction doesn't follow a given action an economist re-examines his assumptions to see which one was incorrect.
Last edited by Frank_Knight; 07-31-2012 at 11:52 PM..
Reason: typo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe to bring something new to the argument, I mean Frank does seem intelligent enough to possibly do so.
