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.
As long as the top doesn't forget to feed the bottom ...
Supply and demand for labor does not guaranty that wages will sustain life.
You keep coming back to this point, that the payer of wages is responsible for sustaining the life of the worker. Why is the worker not responsible for managing his life such that he can sustain it on his own, rather than looking for ways to compel employers to pay above market wages?
That is absolute nonsense. There are no assistance programs that make people so comfy that they prefer to stay home, but I'm sure you will counter that with a Heritage Foundation list of 150 + welfare programs out of which almost no one receives more than 2 or 3 benefits.
I worked with poor women with young children in Nevada and every one of them would have gladly accepted employment if they had transportation and childcare. A family of three in Nevada receives a whopping $383 a month in welfare, subsidized housing has a 6-10 year wait list in most areas so they either sofa surf, share an apartment or live in weekly motels. The only other benefits they receive are SNAP, medicaid and if they have an infant- WIC which has a cash equivalent of about $40. There are real obstacles to overcome for a poor person, especially one with small children to entering the workforce. And there is a 5 federal limit to welfare benefits and many states limit it to 12 or 24 months.
No, it's not nonsense. The availability of ANY assistance program (we can argue about the magnitude of the various programs, but it doesn't change the essence of the argument) serves to make the opportunity cost of working higher than it would be in the complete absence of such programs.
You keep coming back to this point, that the payer of wages is responsible for sustaining the life of the worker. Why is the worker not responsible for managing his life such that he can sustain it on his own, rather than looking for ways to compel employers to pay above market wages?
Maybe because there are no feasible alternatives to supporting oneself other than working for hourly wages. It's not like this is 1760 where you could open a blacksmith or cobbler shop with almost no capital investment, nor is it 1840 where you can homestead your land and grow whatever you need to live on. And it's nothing like the 40's and 50's when unionization made it possible to collectively bargain for wages. Your libertarian nirvana is not working out so well for people who have to struggle to feed their families, the deck is very strategically stacked against them.
You keep coming back to this point, that the payer of wages is responsible for sustaining the life of the worker. Why is the worker not responsible for managing his life such that he can sustain it on his own, rather than looking for ways to compel employers to pay above market wages?
Because it's illegal. Housing has legislated minimum sizes...
No, it's not nonsense. The availability of ANY assistance program (we can argue about the magnitude of the various programs, but it doesn't change the essence of the argument) serves to make the opportunity cost of working higher than it would be in the complete absence of such programs.
Maybe because there are no feasible alternatives to supporting oneself other than working for hourly wages.
Are you not aware of the very large number of people in this country that support themselves without working for wages?
Quote:
Your libertarian nirvana is not working out so well for people who have to struggle to feed their families, the deck is very strategically stacked against them.
If we were in a libertarian nirvana, I and those like me wouldn't have large portions of the fruit of our labors taken from us at the point of gun, in order to provide goods and services to those that didn't earn them.
How is opportunity cost relevant if one of the options is not even really possible? The choice has to actually exist in the first place. If the wages cannot sustain life, then the condition does not hold.
It doesn't "debunk" anything. But it does serve to demonstrate that opportunity cost is another economic concept that you don't understand.
It isn't about having some heart at least as far as I'm concerned. It is about getting money flowing.
In my view, economics is about heart, money is already flowing at record rates, just not the way we'd hoped for. All the classical theories were developed, not as a guide to riches, and the concentration of wealth, but moreover, a theoretical process of banking, investing, and trade that allows for those who utilize such constructs to have an orderly system that addresses all those facets in a manner consistent with societal well being. None that I can think of were brought to the fore with any malice, intended or unintended. Some see the theoretical composition as a sterile thing devoid of all humanity, but on further inquiry we see the struggle of most classical economists to bring some human consideration into the mix.
Robert Heilbroner wrote about the philosophical aspects of economic theory, in his view the general welfare was an important piece of the economic theory as a thing to be put into a practical application, he and others have dispelled the notion that economics is a kind of pure science with steadfast tenants and ironclad systems that must resist all attempts to change them. We have a less than pure form of capitalism, it has morphed from a very individualistic form to one that must be inclusive of every citizen in order for it to survive. The iron fist of old Euro economies paved the way to today's socialistic governments and economies that have a greater spread of benefit. But not everyone cares about the general welfare of this nation, at least not at this time..
Maybe because there are no feasible alternatives to supporting oneself other than working for hourly wages.
There are plenty of feasible alternatives. The fact that you choose not to explore them doesn't negate them.
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.
