Quebec Student Protests: "It’s the older generation that’s entitled, not students"

• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-05-28 19:54

  Quote from paladin;874611:

  Outside of the whole welfare thing
  are you implying minium wage is a bad thing?

  
  
  Minimum wage is great... if you already have the job. For the unemployed, minimum wage is awful. Businesses can't afford to hire as many workers, and job seekers are prevented from willingly working for a lower wage that the business would be willing to pay.
• paladin wrote on 2012-05-28 20:22
  you do know why minum wage is in place right
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-05-28 20:25

  Quote from paladin;874628:

  you do know why minum wage is in place right

  
  
  To make sure that a certain 9.8 or so percent of our work force can get a job more easily! Oh wait...
• paladin wrote on 2012-05-28 20:54
  Who told you that jibberish O:
  Its meant to decrase povert at work
  you can have 95 people on welfare + 5 workers or 100 workers on welfare take your pick
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-05-28 21:15

  Quote from paladin;874637:

  Who told you that jibberish O:
  Its meant to decrase povert at work
  you can have 95 people on welfare + 5 workers or 100 workers on welfare take your pick

  
  
  Implying that removing minimum wage and other regulations would require more people to go on welfare. However, the problem of low wages is solved by simple supply and demand. If regulations are cut, then businesses would be easier to start and maintain. As a result, in the long run, competition between businesses will push wages up. The more you exploit your workers, the easier it is for your competition to take workers from you. That being said though, since that is a process that takes a long time, I am not in favor of removing minimum wage all at once. Rather, it should be phased out slowly so that the market has time to adjust itself smoothly.
  
  It is also interesting to note that the reason people feel the need to raise minimum wage is because of the "rising cost of living". However, we would not see a uniform "rising cost of living" if it were not for the government devaluing of money by means of manipulating the money supply. The prices of individual items would fluctuate based on the supply and demand dynamics for that item, but there would be no general "rate of inflation".
  
  The point is that the free market is not the enemy, and the government is not the messiah.
• paladin wrote on 2012-05-28 21:28
  That theory about more you expliot your workers the easier it is for competiors would work if the entire industires were not using the exact tatics with slight variations
  If it makes profit buisness will use it
  nothing has ever proven if one company can hire dirt cheap wage workers,another company cannot do the same
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-05-28 21:36

  Quote from paladin;874651:

  That theory about more you expliot your workers the easier it is for competiors would work if the entire industires were not using the exact tatics with slight variations
  If it makes profit buisness will use it
  nothing has ever proven if one company can hire dirt cheap wage workers,another company cannot do the same

  
  
  The world's population is 7 billion... not infinity! If one business hires a worker, that's one less potential worker for every other business in the area. Thus, businesses need to bid workers away from other businesses. The reason I can't just walk into a store and buy everything for a penny is because the store does not have an infinite supply of goods. Competition between consumers over limited goods pushes the price of those goods up. The job market works in the exact same way.
• paladin wrote on 2012-05-28 22:11
  *points to china*
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-05-28 22:23

  Quote from paladin;874676:

  *points to china*

  
  
  Keep in mind that the free market aspects of China have a long history of Communism and Imperialism to reverse. As we speak, foreign corporations are setting up shop in China, and as this trend continues, the standard of living of their population will slowly rise to the level of any developed industrial nation. If you personally know anyone who lived in China under Mao, feel free to ask them where they would rather work; in a sweat shop, or in a Communist labor camp.
• paladin wrote on 2012-05-28 22:25
  Ya got me there
  But regaurdless
  Pulling social security out will not suddenly convice people to start saving,people are stubborn
  Buisenese only cares about money,they wont bid for workers unless they have to
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-05-28 22:33

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;874608:

  Implying that people don't know that social security exists?
  

  
  
  that's not important
  they don't know how it works.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-05-28 22:49

  Quote from paladin;874689:

  Ya got me there
  But regaurdless
  Pulling social security out will not suddenly convice people to start saving,people are stubborn
  Buisenese only cares about money,they wont bid for workers unless they have to

  
  
  True, but at the very least, there ought to be an easy convenient way to opt out of social security. That way, the people who have enough foresight to actually save money will have more control over their money by not having to pay into the system.
  
  There's no guarantee that people will become significantly more responsible if social security is cut, but it's still worrying that so many people are relying on social security to see them through old age to the point where they make very little of their own savings. And then when the system doesn't have enough money to pay everyone, they just blame the system instead of taking responsibility for their own poor financial stewardship.
  
  Overall I'm just so annoyed by the childish mentality that demands that the government provide everything for them on a silver platter. Obviously, a crippled person who can't work and who isn't receiving any assistance from other sources should get some government money to help him out (because it's not really his fault that he can't support himself), but I have no sympathy for the guy who recklessly spends his way into credit card debt (and into poverty) and then occupies wall street to show off how trendy and hip he is by going against the "elite capitalist pigs".
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-05-29 04:22

  Quote from paladin;874689:

  Pulling social security out will not suddenly convice people to start saving,people are stubborn

  
  Not trying to seem heartless, but does it really matter if they save or not? They're making personal choices and if they can't plan ahead with the money they get, it's their problem. We really shouldn't be trying to pay for people making poor choices like this.
  
  Look, I know, bad stuff happens. But let's face it, if you've got 65, 70 years to come up with a survival plan and you aren't there yet or something manages to "mess it up" because you haven't secured it yet, it's not everyone else's problem. I can understand if you're 30, 40, still haven't worked things out yet, still having a hard time. Whatever, you know, it happens, shit happens. But if you go your whole life without ever figuring out how to take care of it, it's time to accept your situation.
  
  There are exceptions, but they're all related to other things that need fixing. Things like health care.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-05-30 00:40
  @Spartaaaaa: I agree with you on some things, but you're wrong about the minimum wage part due to two simple concepts.
  1) Trying to lure workers with better pay won't work with jobs that require no special skills since anyone can do these jobs. If someone doesn't like the terms, the company would be able to easily find a new worker. This means they can put a squeeze on them and lower their pay to levels that would prevent workers from earning enough money to make a living. And minimum wage in the US is really low, anyway--I don't think you can support yourself semi-decently on that even as it is.
  2) Companies don't hire "when they can afford it," they hire more staff when that translates into operational benefits--based primarily on demand. For example: If a store starts having long lineups at the cashier, causing some customers to reconsider shopping there, the store will hire another cashier regardless of what the minimum wage is. Likewise, if the store is always empty, then they have no reason to keep multiple cashiers, no matter how low the wage is.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-05-30 11:25

  Quote from Yoorah;875754:

  @Spartaaaaa: I agree with you on some things, but you're wrong about the minimum wage part due to two simple concepts.
  1) Trying to lure workers with better pay won't work with jobs that require no special skills since anyone can do these jobs. If someone doesn't like the terms, the company would be able to easily find a new worker. This means they can put a squeeze on them and lower their pay to levels that would prevent workers from earning enough money to make a living. And minimum wage in the US is really low, anyway--I don't think you can support yourself semi-decently on that even as it is.

  
  
  Once again, we're assuming that there is essentially an infinite supply of workers. Workers in low-skill jobs might be interchangeable, but that doesn't change the fact that if one business hires a worker, then that's one less worker for every other business in the area. Let's say that there is only one business in an area, and that every worker is dependent on that business for any sort of income. That business can easily just pay the workers one penny an hour and there's nothing the workers could do about it (assuming they can't move out of the area). But under those conditions, who wouldn't want to start a business? So let's say another entrepreneur sets up shop in town, and tries to get workers. Even if every single worker in town was employed by the original business, all the competition has to do is offer to pay two pennies an hour, and workers will flock over. If the competition offered the same wages as the original business, then there would be no reason for workers to work for him over the jobs they already have. And on and on, more competition would come in and push wages up.
  
  The reason it's hard to support ourselves with minimum wage is because of government currency devaluation (and subsequent inflation). Bureaucratic red tape is also a factor in the rising costs of living. The harder it is to start and maintain a business, the fewer suppliers of goods and services there will be, and, goods and services become more expensive. And finally, instead of raising minimum wage, why not just reduce taxes to 0% for low income families? It accomplishes the same goal as raising minimum wage, except it doesn't force some workers into unemployment.
  
  

  2) Companies don't hire "when they can afford it," they hire more staff when that translates into operational benefits--based primarily on demand. For example: If a store starts having long lineups at the cashier, causing some customers to reconsider shopping there, the store will hire another cashier regardless of what the minimum wage is. Likewise, if the store is always empty, then they have no reason to keep multiple cashiers, no matter how low the wage is.

  
  
  Right, if the increased productivity of hiring an additional employee exceeds the costs imposed by minimum wage, then they will hire. But if an unemployed worker's productivity is less than what is payed out in minimum wage, then the worker doesn't even have the option of willingly working for a lower wage. But yeah, obviously, minimum wage is not the only factor involved in unemployment.