Goofle

That's true, many companies are giving employers fewer hours and 0-Hour contracts. Something that would only increase if there was to be a forced minimum wage that the companies would probably deem too high.

__________________

djchameleon

You know what's naive about this statement? You don't realize that the jobs just aren't out there. People go off to college do their four years and still aren't able to get a job so they flood the service industry to get something so they can get by. There are people with Master's degrees working fast food and it isn't for a lack of trying. There just isn't enough jobs out there and they need something in the mean time. Your idea/opinion about this is so naive and unrealistic based off of the current economic situation. Sure there might be a few people that ****ed up in life and made the wrong decisions but if you look at the stats. The numbers are way too large for that same situation to apply to everyone.


The companies need to stop being greedy ****s and help out their employees that are making them record profits. They will deem it too high because it is starting to cut into their millions upon millions of profits they are making. They don't give a **** about the working poor.

What you are talking about is leaning a bit towards supporting trickle down economics? If you feel the other side of the coin is any better. It's definitely not. Look how great that's been working out in the past!

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

The Batlord

And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses when they hop. Do you propose 1984-esque reeducation sessions for all CEOs to make them more labor friendly? The only thing more inevitable than greedy politicians is greedy corporations. Saying they need to "stop being greedy ****s" is so incredibly pointless that I don't know why you would even say it.

__________________

Isbjørn

As The Batlord says, they won't stop being greedy ****s by themselves. Exploitation of workers is what keeps capitalism going. A capitalist who doesn't keep down the wages of his workers will either lose against his competitors, or have to cut his own profit, which is out of the question. In order to have full employment, full housing, a decent life for everyone, a healthy environment etc., the working majority will have to abolish capitalism so that the economy can be run democratically in a way that takes people's needs into consideration rather than profits.

__________________

Frownland

Is a business doing what it wants always best for the employees?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triang...t_Factory_fire

And to think, businesses who actually treat their customers well will not have to change. There's some kind of way to make that appeal to free market boners but I don't feel like drawing the connection.

That can obviously play a role in it. It becomes naive when you ignore things like being born into poverty, needing a car/education (which are too expensive to buy while having things like food and housing) to get out of that lifestyle, inherited debt through death or marriage, mental illnesses, and extremely competitive markets keeping the inexperienced out of work all contributing to people being in poverty.

Just because it's possible to get yourself out of a situation by working three minimum wage jobs and not living any kind of meaningful life, does not mean that being there is a choice. More people face obstacles that put them in that situation, not by being a lazy bastard who wants to tek all the hard workers moneys and ripoff the welfare state. That's also not to say that there aren't people who take advantage of the system, but that's generally a small minority of the people who use these benefits.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Goofle

It's kind of like the increased taxes debate. It's not only a matter of raising the taxes of companies/entrepreneurs and funnelling that money back into the system, but what those companies do in reaction to it. Will they make that expansion, which will cost money and require workers? Will they decide to lay off staff to cover the uncreased taxes? These things aren't quite as simple as "Raise the minimum wage and everyone will be better off" or "Tax them more and we can put it back into the system".

__________________

Goofle

I'm not saying Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism would work flawlessly, I'm making their case. And I can also see that the current way of doing things clearly isn't going so well either, and going even further into socialist politics (which a few seem to be advocating) will only make things worse.

I don't know any of the solutions, and it's a damn good thing to admit.

__________________

William_the_Bloody

That's fine. I'm not opposed to classical liberalism (Hayek, Friedman) on ideological grounds, but rather because it's making people in North America poorer, in comparison to the post war period of say the 1950's to the mid 1980's, where wages were high and the cost of living was low.

If someone could sit me down and convince me that free trade, the decline of unions, (and yes!) the acceleration of the free movement of labour were beneficial to the wages of the working class I would be for it.

Goofle

Not exactly a term that applies to economic policies, but classical liberalism is obviously swell.

I have watched quite a few Stefan Molyneux videos and he's quite good at presenting a case either against Communism/Socialism or pro Capitalism/Anarcho-Capitalism. But the problem with Anarcho-Capitalism is that it hasn't actually been implemented anywhere before (that I know of) so it's hard to say it would work. Whereas Communism, Socialism and, to a lesser extent, capitalism have all failed repeatedly.

__________________

William_the_Bloody

Classical liberalism or (neo liberalism) the term often used by the left is a term used to describe those who believe in limited government and negative rights but not positive ones. Just like Social Democracy is used to describe those who believe in a mixed state economy (Socialism + Capitalism)

I have come across Stefan Molneux before in my internet travels, and I will just say that you might want to check out his credentials before buying him wholesale. I can be a fan of biology and state my opinions, but if I want to be taken seriously by academics and the media, than I should at the very least, have a bachelor's degree in the field. Same goes for economics.