gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Rudy Canoza on 18 May 2007 14:39 Jeffrey Turner wrote: > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >> Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>>>>>> Eeyore wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's not why it exists though is it ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why minimum wage exists? No one can explain why that exists >>>>>>>> except due >>>>>>>> to some misguided altruism at other's expense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just because YOU can't understand the explanation, Bill... >>>>>> >>>>>> The explanation is organized labor. >>>>> >>>>> Well, organized labor explains wide American prosperity and the growth >>>>> of the middle class, anyway. But you'd prefer something Malthusian, I >>>>> suppose? >>>> >>>> It's an infringement on the employer and employee relationship. It is >>>> also monopolistic when it is across entire industries. You wouldn't let >>>> a company control everything without oversight but you'd let a union. >>> >>> Not entirely, but your system didn't have a very good track record. An >>> infringement of the employer's ability to exploit the employee isn't a >>> bad thing. >> >> What does "exploit" mean? For some definitions of that, there is >> "exploitation" even if you pay someone $30 an hour, say if the CEO makes >> millions. Don't Communists think that if you don't get the entire value >> of your labour, you are being exploited? > > There may or may not be. There is no such thing as "exploitation". Your use of the word relies on some undefined and undefinable notion of "fairness", so you're just begging the question again. You do that a lot. > Some reinvestment is always necessary. But > profits and sacrifices should be shared Who says they should be? According to whose formula? Ah, yes, of course - according to the formula of the self-anointed visionaries! The tyrants, that is. > and everyone should have some > say in how things are done Who says they should? Based on what? > based on their own expertise. Gobbledygook
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 18 May 2007 14:46 Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > > >> Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> > >>> Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>> > >>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Eeyore wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's not why it exists though is it ? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Why minimum wage exists? No one can explain why that exists except due > >>>>> to some misguided altruism at other's expense. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Just because YOU can't understand the explanation, Bill... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The explanation is organized labor. > >> > >> > >> Well, organized labor explains wide American prosperity > > > > > > No. > > Well, at least you're terse in your ignorance. > 1) Most Americans are not members of labour unions therefore membership in labour unions isn't a contingency to American prosperity. 2) There are plenty of countries not doing as well as the US economically that have far more powerful trade unions, see France. -- "There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed and drug into buses in the middle of the night." "How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.", George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"
From: Brent P on 18 May 2007 15:16 In article <134rmaf9jljvrb9(a)corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <1179427123.321229.149360(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >> >>>As to the minimum wage, there is no debate about having it. Rather, >>>the debate is about the amount. There is no denial that the minimum >>>wage results in some loss of jobs. But there also is no denial that >>>the minimum wage increases wages for many people above and beyond what >>>the free market would pay. >> >> And prices some people too high for the lowest rung of the job market, >> leaving them as dependents of the government (taxpayer). > > But if there's work that needs doing someone will hire them and train > them. Not when there is someone else (an illegal alien) willing to do it for less
From: Rudy Canoza on 18 May 2007 15:20 Brent P wrote: > In article <134rmaf9jljvrb9(a)corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner wrote: >> Brent P wrote: >>> In article <1179427123.321229.149360(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> As to the minimum wage, there is no debate about having it. Rather, >>>> the debate is about the amount. There is no denial that the minimum >>>> wage results in some loss of jobs. But there also is no denial that >>>> the minimum wage increases wages for many people above and beyond what >>>> the free market would pay. >>> And prices some people too high for the lowest rung of the job market, >>> leaving them as dependents of the government (taxpayer). >> But if there's work that needs doing someone will hire them and train >> them. > > Not when there is someone else (an illegal alien) willing to do it for less And not when some alternative mix of inputs, such as more capital equipment and/or a few higher-skilled/higher-waged workers in place of a larger number of low-skilled/low-wage workers, is feasible. What jeffy and others like him fail to understand is that if it costs more to get the work done than the revenue brought in by having the work done, it either will be done by some other, economically viable means, or it won't be done at all.
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 18 May 2007 15:44
Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>>>Rudy Canoza wrote: > >>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >>>>>>>Eeyore wrote: > >>>>>>>>"Fred G. Mackey" wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>That's not why it exists though is it ? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Why minimum wage exists? No one can explain why that exists except due > >>>>>>>to some misguided altruism at other's expense. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Just because YOU can't understand the explanation, Bill... > >>>>> > >>>>>The explanation is organized labor. > >>>> > >>>>Well, organized labor explains wide American prosperity and the growth > >>>>of the middle class, anyway. But you'd prefer something Malthusian, I > >>>>suppose? > >>> > >>>It's an infringement on the employer and employee relationship. It is > >>>also monopolistic when it is across entire industries. You wouldn't let > >>>a company control everything without oversight but you'd let a union. > >> > >>Not entirely, but your system didn't have a very good track record. An > >>infringement of the employer's ability to exploit the employee isn't a > >>bad thing. > > > > What does "exploit" mean? For some definitions of that, there is > > "exploitation" even if you pay someone $30 an hour, say if the CEO makes > > millions. Don't Communists think that if you don't get the entire value > > of your labour, you are being exploited? > > There may or may not be. Some reinvestment is always necessary. But > profits and sacrifices should be shared and everyone should have some > say in how things are done based on their own expertise. > So everyone gets to be CEO for a day? -- "There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed and drug into buses in the middle of the night." "How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.", George Axelrod, "Bus Stop" |