Say Anything Blog

Sowell brings up good points about objective value. Carry that thinking over to the arts… a CD or DVD consists of maybe a quarter’s worth of raw materials…add to that a living wage for the time it takes to produce it and ask a liberal if charging anything more than that is “price gouging”.

Or, if they’re art collectors, offer to pay a “fair” price for any painting they own. Cost of canvas, paint and a “living wage” should make even the Mona Lisa affordable!

Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.

Suppose I hire a person to work for a wage that they are willing to accept.  The government interfers and says that that agreement between two private parties is illegal. In that case I have the choice whether I am better off with or without that person.  In some cases I may decide that I am better off without that person at that wage.  I’m out an employee and the employee is without a needed job.

Under that premise we should abolish the portions of the Common Law that address Voidable Contracts.  A person is worth whatever the employer can sell the product or service the employee.  That of course is based on demand for the product or service the employer has chosen to market.

Successful businesses abide by “The 2.63:1 Rule.” - An employee must bring in $2.63 of value for every $1.00 he/she recieves for the business to justify their employment and a continuance in the current product of service.  That is NOT a formula to determine pay, that is the formula to simply keep the doors of the business open.

Under that premise we should abolish the portions of the Common Law that address Voidable Contracts.

I don’t get ya.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I think (he wasn’t very clear) that freerepublican is obliquely referring to the doctrine of unconscionability in contract law (formerly common law, but now recognized primarily through statute).

It allows one party to void a contract because the contract is so grossly unfair that to enforce the contract would be a miscarriage of justice.  IIRC, it always requires substantive unfairness (the terms have to be unfair) and procedural unfairness (the parties had to have grossly disparate negotiating power).

A common scenario involves some moron (IQ:50-60, in the good old days of psychology) that signs a three inch thick sales contract for something smallish (usually a refrigerator, for some reason); despite being assured it’s standard fare, the contract gives the seller security on the idiot’s house. Idiot is late on a payment, seller seizes house.

I’m guessing that’s the legal doctrine that was being alluded to.

I forgot the important part:

Idiot furrows his heavy, protruding brow in anger, hires a lawyer, sues, and the court voids the contract as unconscionable and gives the house back to Idiot.

It is to our advantage as a society to assume that both parties to a transaction are willingly and knowledgeably participating in that transaction, unless it can be proven otherwise in a court of law. Unfortunately, lefties tend to assume exactly the opposite.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

So freeps claiming that a person who takes a low-paying job can’t go ahead and void the contract themselves?

Doesn’t the minimum wage worker have the ability to walk off the job the minute they’ve got a better job offer?

It’s the employer that has a hard time replacing a poor performer.  You can’t just fire the majority of workers because they’re women, or over 40 or a minority.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

TW: Of course!  As he often does, Free is citing a law designed to protect a very small minority as some sort of general principle which is applicable here in a general sense, and that just isn’t relevant to this discussion.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Actually, I was alluding to the fact that within contract law, if the judge, as an agent of the government, decides that one of two or more parties involved in a legal contract was not within full capacity at the time of signing the contract, the judge can void a contract.

Now, as always, it is a judgement call, but from what little I know of Business Law (only took 3 semesters), there is a lot of leaway.  Typically the most often cause of voiding a contract by a judge is SUI (Signing while Under the Influence).  A person who wants out of a contract can claim he was totally wasted and was duped into signing an agreement and because that individual lacked the capacity to make the otherwise legal contract he can wiggle out of it.

The analogy I was trying to get at was the statement:

The government interfers and says that that agreement between two private parties is illegal.

Common Law has set a precident that the government can interfer with any agreement, and the nanny state mentality has stretched that basis into every aspect of life.

For example, I as an hourly employee have NO RIGHT to tell my boss I will work overtime for my base wage.  I have no right under the law to give up that portion of my wage.  Even if I write a document and sign it myself, that is not a legal agreement even though both parties agree and neither objects.

OK, I don’t really see a connection between your post and my post, but whatever.

Under pretty much any circumstance an employee has the opportunity to cancel their employment contract any day they decide not to show up to work. 

The employer still has the obligation to pay any accrued wages and benefits. 

I don’t see what that has to do with a judge having to nullify a contract.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Free: It is also not binding to sign away any of your Constitutional rights, but what does that have to do with this discussion of people being paid what they are worth?

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Robert,

I was addressing Whistler’s statement of ”The government interfers and says that that agreement between two private parties is illegal.”

My point was, the wage floor is not the only way that the government interfers with agreements between two private parties.  I then went into other ways that they interfer, if those examples are irrelevant then whatever. 

I just think this total fixation on this one of many ways that the government interfers is just out of proportion to the overall problem from a business standpoint.

Also, the notion that only 2% of people make the wage floor as an excuse why it it shouldn’t be changed really doesn’t matter.  It’s not going to be scrapped anytime soon so why not tie it to the CPI and take the political advantage supporting it holds out of the equation entirely?

It’s not going to be scrapped anytime soon so why not tie it to the CPI and take the political advantage supporting it holds out of the equation entirely?

In the first place, two wrongs don’t make a right.  In the second place, that would make it “eternal”, and each time it comes up for a vote, under the present situation, there is a chance that sanity will prevail and it won’t be increased.  That’s two good reasons not to change the present system.  It should be scrapped, as you say, and so the way it is now leaves that door open for a saner time in the future.
To answer the first case, it’s still irrelevant to the question being posed in this thread.  One way for the govt to interfere doesn’t justify other ways for the govt to interfere.  It’s additive.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Great idea freeloader.  Let’s make a guaranteed raise an entitlement too.

What a great plan to further screw up the country you’ve discovered.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

In the first place, two wrongs don’t make a right.  In the second place, that would make it “eternal”, and each time it comes up for a vote, under the present situation, there is a chance that sanity will prevail and it won’t be increased.  That’s two good reasons not to change the present system.

Well, there are business advantages to a formulaic system, namely knowing exactly how much they have to increase their prices and being able to spread them out annually rather than trying to gear up for a 40% increase in a compressed time period. 

Would it not be better economicly to plan for a 4% yearly increase rather than 40% every 10 years?  What little impact the wage has would be drawn out and coushined.

My take is that a person can be against the wage floor’s existence and still work to make the conditions in which it exists more bearable without accepting the validity of the policy itself. 

I can argue that if we are forced to live with it, then it should have minimal impact to business owners WITHOUT arguing that it is right to have it.  That is essentially my stance.

I must take note that you’ve got absolutely no qualifications whatsoever to be telling a business what their costs must be.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Would it not be better economicly to plan for a 4% yearly increase rather than 40% every 10 years?  What little impact the wage has would be drawn out and coushined.

You just don’t get it; I’m not a defeatist.  I don’t accept the inevitability of an ever-increasing govt interference in the labor market.  Unions are declining, and so should this crap.
You want to institutionalize wage-based inflation.  Incredible!  That isn’t a “business plan”, it’s foolishness.  Having to look at it in its real form is part of voting it down.  Making it less painful is just a way to commit economic suicide without realizing it.  If you don’t already know about it, ask someone who knows about “frog-boiling”.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

I must take note that you’ve got absolutely no qualifications whatsoever to be telling a business what their costs must be.

I’m not telling a business what their costs must be.

What hole did you pull that conclusion out of?

---

If I owned a business and and paid workers the bare minimum allowable by law, I would rather know what the increase was going to be and have it be on schedule and with a smaller impact than sit around crossing my fingers for 10 years then wake up to a 40% increase.  Is that out of line to ask for some stability?

You want to institutionalize wage-based inflation.

The Government causes inflation by printing more money and spending more than they bring it.  Employers, employees, and consumers do not cause inflation.

Unions are declining, and so should this crap.

Politicians trying to buy votes make the laws, not the unions.

If I owned a business

Why don’t you try it and then come back and peddle your nonsense?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Why don’t you try it and then come back and peddle your nonsense?

Oh, so because I don’t own a business I can’t have an opinion?

Looks like we need a word equal to “chicken-hawk” for economics now.

The Government causes inflation by printing more money and spending more than they bring it.  Employers, employees, and consumers do not cause inflation.

That’s right; govt does, by mandating a higher price than the market dictates.  Econ 101

Whether you realize it or not, unions are made possible by the govt, in that the govt exempts them from the anti-trust laws that apply to everyone else.  I was referring to the preference in the workplace for non-union conditions.  In fact, if it weren’t for govt employee unions, membership would be much less than it is.  It was part of a larger argument that as the free market becomes more prosperous, things like trade unionism and minimum wage laws naturally tend to vanish, unless mandated by govt.  Sorry you missed that.  Everyone knows that the unions don’t make laws.  Duh.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Looks like we need a word equal to “chicken-hawk” for economics now.

Nice try at obfuscation, but having basic knowledge of economics is not the same as having done military service.  Reading a few books doesn’t give you any idea of what is involved in running a business, so don’t be too offended if you get “dissed” when you attempt to pontificate about what meeting a payroll involves.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Oh, so because I don’t own a business I can’t have an opinion?

Looks like we need a word equal to “chicken-hawk” for economics now.

It’s actually more about your arrogance in NOT listening to business owners.

Since you don’t want to learn by listening I thought you might learn by actually experiencing the pleasures of government regulations.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Free: Not only would what you propose be counterproductive for everyone but the political class, but it wouldn’t work the way you theorize.  This “labor tax"(which is what it is, in reality) would lead business owners to trim the number of employees to match the tax, and would result in changing the nature of retail itself.  In a sense, it is already happening; the rise of discount stores(with very few service personnel) coincides with the escalating labor costs from worker’s comp, unemployment, healthcare and the like.  Business owners like to run their own business, not have the govt dictate to them what their expenses are going to be.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Reading a few books doesn’t give you any idea of what is involved in running a business, so don’t be too offended if you get “dissed” when you attempt to pontificate about what meeting a payroll involves.

Well, I know that the attitude that “the payroll” is a liability is the first step toward a failed business.

This “labor tax"(which is what it is, in reality) would lead business owners to trim the number of employees to match the tax, and would result in changing the nature of retail itself.  In a sense, it is already happening; the rise of discount stores(with very few service personnel) coincides with the escalating labor costs from worker’s comp, unemployment, healthcare and the like.

Paying more in wages is not a tax.  The money remains in circulation in private hands and will find its way right back to the business if the product or service it provides continues to valued.

In a perfect world the employer would be able to give what they pay now in tax directly to the employee in exchange for an equal reduction in tax liability.

Paying more in wages is not a tax.  The money remains in circulation in private hands and will find its way right back to the business if the product or service it provides continues to valued.

If any of that were true, then we could simply generate wealth by raising the minimum wage to $50/hr.  You just don’t get economics, do you?  Any time you pay more for something than it is worth, resources are misallocated, and that is true of the so-called minimum wage, at any level.  When the govt imposes an price increase(of labor, in this case), it is essentially a tax.  It takes money from one citizen and gives it to another.

“When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always be assured of Paul’s vote.”

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Well, I know that the attitude that “the payroll” is a liability is the first step toward a failed business.

Not even close; the payroll is an expense, which needs to be justified by the income it generates.  Duh.  If govt can just reach into your pocket and increase your expenses without a corresponding increase in value, something has to go, and the overpaid employees become a liability.  It’s not rocket science.  Keeping employees on who don’t earn their keep is the first step toward a failed business.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

When the govt imposes an price increase(of labor, in this case), it is essentially a tax.  It takes money from one citizen and gives it to another.

Still better than it going thru the government, them taking 70% off the top in administrative fees and sending it off to someone that didn’t it.

If the only two choices are traditional welfare tansfer payments that are a total waste and don’t do 5% of what they are intended to do, or having people who actually are working for something to get a little more, I think philosophically the latter is a more defendable position.

Why do we claim to want to cut taxes?  So that employers and those with money will be able to afford to invest it in venture that will make them even more and that investment inherently creates more jobs.  We don’t advocate tax cuts so that they can sit on that cash and do nothing for no one; that would be political suicide.

Not even close; the payroll is an expense, which needs to be justified by the income it generates.

Payroll is neither a liability or expense, it is an investment in the hopes that the employees will produce value more than they use.

freeloader once again you’re completely wrong.

An investment is money you put away looking for a future return.

Payroll is an expense that must be matched against revenue.

You really have no idea what you’re talking about.

Again I encourage you to set up shop next to Walmart and use your superior theories to run them out of business.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

An investment is money you put away looking for a future return.

Put it away? Not really, you generally buy something hoping you can sell it for more later.  Not really “putting it away.”

Payroll is an expense that must be matched against revenue.

Payroll is an investment in people that if you did your research and are selling the products and/or services you should be, will lead to a return on investment.

Again I encourage you to set up shop next to Walmart and use your superior theories to run them out of business.

Naw, I’m an abolitionist. 

Isn’t it funny how we are in Iraq to give them freedom and don’t give a crap about the lack of freedom we all profit and save from. Sad.

Freeloader do you want to successful companies that follow your formula?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Payroll is neither a liability or expense, it is an investment in the hopes that the employees will produce value more than they use.

This is pure gibberish.  Free, I have said it before, and now must say it again: You talk like a Marxist.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Freeloader do you want to successful companies that follow your formula?

Rephrase in a wording that makes sense.

Isn’t it funny how we are in Iraq to give them freedom and don’t give a crap about the lack of freedom we all profit and save from. Sad.

What are you talking about?

Once again it’s clear that you have no idea of what you are talking about when it comes to business.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

sorry do you want to give examples of successful companies that follow your formula?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Isn’t it funny how we are in Iraq to give them freedom and don’t give a crap about the lack of freedom we all profit and save from. Sad.

More gibberish from you, Free. 

Profit is defined as what is left over after all expenses are paid. 

Our freedom to make or not make transactions is responsible for the vast wealth-creating ability of our economy.  We are free to supply as much of the existing demand as possible.  Econ 101.

“Putting away” money for investment purposes means that it doesn’t get spent on consumer goods.  Duh.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

You talk like a Marxist.

Please direct me to the strain of Marxism that supports the abolishment of the corporate tax.

I ddin’t know they existed.

Duh Marxists never had a corporate tax.  Stupidest comment ever.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

sorry do you want to give examples of successful companies that follow your formula?

Uhh, any company that makes money views their employees are investments in the companies future.

I don’t know of any business that succeeds by treating their employees as just another commodity.

Duh Marxists never had a corporate tax.  Stupidest comment ever.

Or was the lack of private ownership simply a 100% corporate tax?

No successful companies treat payroll as an expense.  They also do development of said employees but they demand productivity out of each employee.

They pay the employees based on that productivity.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

So you’re claiming that Walmart taxes the profits out of their branch stores.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Payroll is an investment in people that if you did your research and are selling the products and/or services you should be, will lead to a return on investment.

There’s one.

Why do we claim to want to cut taxes?  So that employers and those with money will be able to afford to invest it in venture that will make them even more and that investment inherently creates more jobs.  We don’t advocate tax cuts so that they can sit on that cash and do nothing for no one; that would be political suicide.

There’s another.

You see, Marx believed that labor was intrinsically valuable, instead of the truth that it is only valuable when teamed with capital and ingenuity.  Workers are really worthless without a demand for their output, and without the infrastructure that gives them a venue in which to use their talents.  You seem to miss that entirely, instead clinging to the old obsolete Marxist idea that labor is some sort of investment.  That’s just wrong.
As far as taxes go, you support a “labor tax” that is guaranteed to be inflationary.
BTW, and excess money supply is the result of govt interference, not the cause of inflation; govt causes all inflation, mostly through taxation and regulation.  Only taxes and regulations can increase the cost of a product without a corresponding increase in value.
Even your definition of inflation requires the govt to spend money it doesn’t produce.  Understand?

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

So you’re claiming that Walmart taxes the profits out of their branch stores.

Do what now? I’m lost, tell you how you got to this statement.

You said that Marxist countries have a 100% taxed their businesses.

Walmart pulls all of their profits from their branches.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Or was the lack of private ownership simply a 100% corporate tax?

No.  Under Marxism, there is no private anything.  The State even owns the people.  A tax implies that there is at some time personal ownership.  Under Marxism, the govt never lets go of anything.  That’s why it’s called a command economic system.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

TW: Of course, no one has to buy anything at WalMart.  They can’t reach into your pocket and take your money, like the govt can.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Exactly.  You only buy at Walmart if you think you’re better off doing so.

The government has to use the threat of force to make every citizen follow their agenda.  Some people win and some people lose compared to the win win situation in free enterprise.

freeloader, that’s why the free enterprise is better.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

You see, Marx believed that labor was intrinsically valuable, instead of the truth that it is only valuable when teamed with capital and ingenuity.

Labor is intrisically valuable for the person giving it.  A persons time is valuable and a person’s effort is valuable.

The controlling factor is whether the person redeem that value by matching with an employer with the resources to compensate the individual.

Workers are really worthless without a demand for their output, and without the infrastructure that gives them a venue in which to use their talents.

That’s a very mechanical look at the value of life. 

It is almost like saying that a person is owned by the state and that that everything he/she recieves is by the good graces of the state.

You seem to miss that entirely, instead clinging to the old obsolete Marxist idea that labor is some sort of investment.

Good luck running a business without it.

As far as taxes go, you support a “labor tax” that is guaranteed to be inflationary.
BTW, and excess money supply is the result of govt interference, not the cause of inflation; govt causes all inflation, mostly through taxation and regulation.  Only taxes and regulations can increase the cost of a product without a corresponding increase in value.
Even your definition of inflation requires the govt to spend money it doesn’t produce.  Understand?

No.

Inflation is the rate above zero sum replenishment that the government prints money.

Government’s role should be to make the cost of business minimal which in turn leads to more people earning their own money and not relying on government.

The goal of lower taxes is more people earning their own way and a lower burden on government services.

Reducing the burden of, and dependency on, government services is the only way that we will ever have a hope to reduce the size of government and it’s draining effects on the economy.

The more people that earn their own way, the better.  The only argument is how that get acheived.

Labor is intrisically valuable for the person giving it.  A persons time is valuable and a person’s effort is valuable.

Absolutely wrong.  Labor is worth what someone is willing to pay for it.  That goes whether your working for yourself or an employer.

For example a person who keeps busy but produces nothing is not worth anything.

The controlling factor is whether the person redeem that value by matching with an employer with the resources to compensate the individual.

No it’s if they produce something that someone else is willing to pay for.  If buyer (employer) A. doesn’t compensate according to the market the person is free to sell themselves on the market.

It is almost like saying that a person is owned by the state and that that everything he/she receives is by the good graces of the state.

That’s your state socialism showing again.  Free people don’t think like that.

The more people that earn their own way, the better

That’s true.  Now your arguing the other side.  Government interference in the economy makes that worth.

Inflation is the rate above zero sum replenishment that the government prints money.

I somewhat disagree with R108 on this.  However certainly if the government increases the cost of producing something that is inflationary.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Why are some of you getting all zen over this? We have a market based economy and it works. Yes, some people are over compensated. That’s better than the alternative.

Why are some of you getting all zen over this? We have a market based economy and it works.

In freeloaders case he’s against the market as it doesn’t recognize what he feels is his intrinsic worth.

Of course his employers think that since he’s not producing anything they don’t need him.

Therein lies the conflict.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

That’s a very mechanical look at the value of life. No, it’s a realistic look at the value of labor.

It is almost like saying that a person is owned by the state and that that everything he/she recieves is by the good graces of the state. Actually, it’s the exact opposite.  We choose to learn and grow, and we prosper as a result, unless we choose to be useless. Duh.

Inflation is the rate above zero sum replenishment that the government prints money.

That is one form of inflation, but the overall definition is that cost increases without a corresponding increase in value.  That one covers all the bases and causes of inflation, which all produce that outcome.  In a market where price and quantity are determined solely by market forces, there can only be short-term price increases, and they are determined mostly by innovation, where the innovator temporarily has the only supply.  The higher return causes capital to move to the new product, and the supply increases until equilibrium is reached.  Only the govt can mess this up and cause long term inflation, by taxes, inflation and spending.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

A Person is Worth What He’s Paid
By The Whistler on December 29, 2006 at 01:07 pm

Unless the boss is greedy and is refusing to compensate the worker appropriately.

Notice the myth that illegals do jobs Americans won’t do?
It is so because the employer is unwilling to pay for the true cost of labor.
If people will not work for you for $7.00 dollars per hour the answer is to increase wages in order to attract qualified workers.
But what does scrooge does? He hires illegals or pay off politicians to allow legal immigration to undercut wages.
Buh humbug!!!!!!

Of course a higher minimum wage will cause those unscrupulous employers to hire more illegals.

Of course if the government were doing their job there wouldn’t be illegals here. 

You may have also noticed that the Swift company followed the law and checked on the employees’ paperwork.  The government calls it discrimination to do any more than that.  In fact I think Swift was sued for discriminating against illegals ten years ago.

In the case of legals if an employer underpays someone that person improves themselves by taking another job.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Unless the boss is greedy and is refusing to compensate the worker appropriately.

Last time I was in California, I noticed a lot of those “greedy bosses” were offering wages above minimum wage for entry level “burger flipping” jobs. Apparently the demand for workers exceeded the supply.

I guess the bosses who were “greedier” than that had an even harder time hiring.

Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.

Gee the entry level wage here in North Dakota is generally above the minimal wage.

Of course there are people (teenagers mostly) who only are worth that much.  They have to start somewhere.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Higher minimum wages generally lead to higher unemployment among poor and minority youths. (So much for compassion!)

Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.

PE:  Liberals want minorities poorly educated, unemployed and voting Democrat.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

ellinas, and you can become “the boss” anytime you like, just start a business.
Then you might find out The Truth about how the real world works instead of constantly complaining like a child.  *child is a term used in Transactional Analysis--Dr. Eric Berne

Communism is evil

It is so because the employer is unwilling to pay for the true cost of labor.

There is no such thing as “the true cost of labor”; there is only the true value of labor.  If your boss doesn’t pay you for your true value, leave and find a job where you get what you think you’re worth.  We aren’t slaves, unless it’s to a greedy dependent class, who uses the govt as a hammer to take from those who earn it; the govt gets its cut, as well. 

Real greed is wanting someone else to pay for what you want.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

I don’t know of any business that succeeds by treating their employees as just another commodity.

When you say “I don’t know...” you are telling the truth.  I guess you don’t know anything about accounting, either.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Why do we claim to want to cut taxes?

It is not a “claim”; tax rates have been cut, and with totally predictable results, if you know basic econ.  When you tax something, you get less of it than you would have gotten without the added expense of the tax(which adds no value).  If you cut tax rates on income, you get more of it; ditto capital gains.  It’s not rocket science.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

but the overall definition is that cost increases without a corresponding increase in value.

Economics does not quantify “value” in the first place, so using that word is kindof misleading. 

“Cost” is what economics deals with because “value” is based on personal taste, state of mind, and other psychological factors.

People do not shop at Walmart because they offer better value, they buy stuff there because it is cheap.

If “value” was the determining factor, Walmart would go out of business and we would all take up woodworking and build furniture with real wood.

Value is a subjective quantity and not measurable. 

However, much of what is wrong with this country is that we value quanity too much at the cost of quality.

Economics does not quantify “value” in the first place, so using that word is kindof misleading.

More ignorant gibberish from you.  In a market without interference, value is equivalent to price.  When price is determined by factors other than market forces, there is a difference between price and value.  Black markets exist because the price of something doesn’t equal its value, one way or the other.  Markets actually determine value, and it’s the entire subject matter of basic economics.  People shop at WalMart because they perceive that they are getting good value for their money, and no one buys anything if the price isn’t a good value for them.  Duh.  I guess this is rocket science for you.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

In a market without interference, value is equivalent to price. 

Since Price is where Demand and Supply meet on the curve, is your contention that Value = Equilibrium?

robert108 on December 29, 2006 at 11:28 pm says: “....there is only the true value of labor.  If your boss doesn’t pay you for your true value, leave and find a job where you get what you think you’re worth.”
I agree with you.
Now back to where according to some"these are jobs americans won’t do”
If the boss doesn’t pay for the true value of labor should we provide him with legal immigrant workers? 
Should we open the border wider then it is now so he can get illegal immigrant workers that will work for what he pays, or should he be forced to pay for the true value of labor?
Should there be any rules that govern the relationship between capital and labor?

Now back to where according to some"these are jobs americans won’t do” This is another MSM lie; read up on the Swift meat packing operation after the illegal immigrant raids.If the boss doesn’t pay for the true value of labor should we provide him with legal immigrant workers? You really don’t know?  Nothing should be “provided” for any business besides enforcement of contracts and a stable currency; just the things the facilitate the operation of the market. Should we open the border wider then it is now so he can get illegal immigrant workers that will work for what he pays, or should he be forced to pay for the true value of labor? The border should be totally under our control, and no one should be “forced” to do anything in this country, except to obey the laws.
Should there be any rules that govern the relationship between capital and
labor? Besides the rules of the marketplace, no.  You need basic stuff, like I said before, but other than that, it’s sink or swim, depending on the demand for your product, your pricing and delivery of said product.  After that, it’s about management of your operation.  The govt should butt out.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Since Price is where Demand and Supply meet on the curve, is your contention that Value = Equilibrium?

You know, this is really an extremely simple concept.  Value is what people are willing to pay for your product or commodity, unless something interferes with the process(govt) in such a way that the price is set at a higher or lower level than the equilibrium price would be as set by market forces.  If the govt sets the price too low(as many totalitarian systems do with their healthcare), shortages result, since there isn’t enough profit to call forth adequate supply from the producers.
If the govt sets the price too high, as in many foreign currency markets, a black market is created for the currency at its real value.
Another example: Our law enforcement agencies would like the supply of cocaine to be zero, but demand for it creates a supply anyway, at a much higher price than it would be in a free market.  I don’t advocate any cocaine use, btw, but it is an example of govt interference in a market, and the consequences of it.
Law enforcement should be trying to reduce the demand, but they attack supply instead, because they don’t understand the power of basic economics.  What they have done in their efforts to eliminate supply without reducing demand is to raise the price and to misallocate resources.  The same thing will happen on the energy market, btw, with the attempts to artificially reduce the supply of gasoline, for instance.  Remember this: Demand is the independent variable, and demand creates value.  If something isn’t in much demand, it has little value; increased supply doesn’t change demand, it just satisfies it, and brings the price to its lowest practical level.  Decreased supply doesn’t reduce demand, it just raises the price until the amount supplied uses up all the available resources.  It also decreases the total amount of prosperity that can be generated in that particular market.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Now back to where according to some"these are jobs americans won’t do” This is another MSM lie;
robert108 on December 30, 2006 at 03:36 am

Not true Robert, not true: “When you match willing worker with willing employer on a job Americans won’t do, with a tamper-proof card that says, I’m here legally for a temporary basis,...”
President Bush November 29, 2005
Damn dude allways ready to blame the wrong people. What is wrong with you.
Get some sleep and clear your mind.

Thomas Sowell uses Derek Jeter and
G Steinbrenner as free market examples.
Major League Baseball is a MONOPOLY.
Wonder what Jeter is really worth?

I would disagree with your statement that MLB is a monopoly.

Jeter could play baseball for other leagues, such as in Japan.

or he could play other professional sports such as Hockey, basketball or football.

In a larger picture Baseball is an entertainment business.

So he could enter into other entertainment ventures such as singing or acting.  I hear they pay quite well.

Your definition of their industry is much too narrow.  Jeter has plenty of options but he’s made the free decision that he’s better off working for an MLB team.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I would disagree with your statement that MLB is a monopoly.

The MLB is a monopoly the same way public utilities are - the government has given them permission to be a monopoly via the 1922 Anti-Trust Exemption

If you end up going from the MLB to Japan, it is a demotion indicating that playing in Japan is inferior.

There is no equal substitute for MLB and the cost of entry into the league as a new team is nearly impossible without a billion dollars to put together a team, thus, it is a monopoly.

Freeloader, MLB is in the entertainment industry.  Plenty of people make due without being a fan.

Jeter has a world of opportunities.  The fact is that he’s chosen this one where he’s been quite successful.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Plenty of people make due with