Look how shitty things are now with regulation. Do you know what the free market without any kind of regulation is? It's called the Great Depression.

I feel like you're exaggerating for effect here - the actors are assumed to act rationally within the context of the market.

Completely irrelevant. (Or, to oversimplify - it doesn't.)

This isn't the assumption at all. The assumption is that workers would necessarily benefit from a competitive, efficient market because they are necessary players and contribute directly to the employer's bottom line.

It's insane to suggest that employers would slash everything across the board with no outcry or consequence - would you patronize such a place? I most likely wouldn't. It's the Whole Foods concept taken to a grander scale.

I think you're confusing topics here, or you're possibly misusing "market" in this sense - this isn't about the stock market, or even one select type of business. Not at all.

You're creating a series of false dilemmas. The only two options aren't "no regulation" or "current levels of regulation" - and deregulation doesn't mean elimination of all fail-safes. Just like azgz pointed out, many types of market regulations cause market inefficiencies. Who pays for those inefficiencies? It's not rich people, in general.

It might seem counterintuitive for you to read these things, but that doesn't make them wrong - history is littered with well-meaning but ultimately counter-productive policies. It's all well and good to say that "minimum wages automatically protect workers" but that statement isn't simply correct on its face - we need to make sure it is actually true in all situations. EW is saying that minimum wage laws protect workers who already have jobs at the expense of those who don't - that could very well be literally more correct than the former.

If it is, then it's part of the unemployment (and thus poverty) problem, and not part of the solution. Much like saying "employers always pay the least" (which is blatantly and demonstrably false), it sounds correct to say "minimum wages are good for workers" but that doesn't make it true.

Not a student of history I see.

The Great Depression was caused mostly by the influence of government in the monetary/banking system (which, incidentally, is also what got us out) as well as government involvement in the market (the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff act is most notably the case here).

Unsurprisingly, the current recession we're in was mostly caused by government meddling with the monetary/banking system as well as the governments close ties with corporations which created multiple moral hazards.

Both statements are false.

From a 2004 Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Of the 2.7 percent of all hourly paid workers are at the minimum wage.

And at least a quarter of the 2.7 percent are likely living with their parents.

I believe it shows a willingness to pay more than the minimum wage while hourly. The minimum wage affects a very small amount of Americans. Furthermore, it benefits corporations to pay more than the minimum wage because it increases retention (thus reducing turnover and greater costs) and ideally produces more apt workers.

And what evidence have you seen of that? And which problems exactly?

LOL. You are educated enough to understand generalization language when you read it. I only use "some" and "many" when I'm talking around people who may miss the overall point because they are focused on the fact that I didn't use "some" and "many." I'm sure you know that Elephant Walk isn't clueless enough to believe that ALL Blacks are underpaid (although Blacks tend to be underpaid in almost all professions in relation to their white counterparts) and ALL Blacks are accustomed to being underpaid.

The average person who is underpaid is unable or barely able to buy the necessities. That's the point of this entire discussion. Many people can pay their bills but they don't have anything in the bank after they do that. Being poor is not just about being unable to pay the bills.

My discussion more relates to not any sort of "race-conscious" or anything as such, but more to statistical averages being that Blacks are generally less educated, generally more unemployed, and generally disadvantaged in other senses which gives them a cost-advantage. Clearly not every Black person is underpaid and many are overpaid (see: the person in the White House), but speaking in generalities and statistical averages.

You think that highlighting race in such a topic isn't about race conciousness. How very white privilege of you to think that.

Did you just feel like explaining yourself to someone who had already explained you?

Wrong word, but similar.

Meant race conscience, not conscious.

I don't really believe in race-conscience and I hope you don't either.

You obviously don't know what race-conscience is.

Yeah, I do.

That's why I don't believe in it.

I also know that you're unbelievably obsessed with "race" and like to go on and on about the special trappings of "race".

But I frankly don't care. I was enjoying the economic discussion.

I don't think you know what race conscience means but you clearly know what white privilege means. Hence, your randomness below....

White privilege says that racial and ethnic minorities discuss race because they are unbelievably obsessed with it. Shut the fuck up.

Someone's a bit angry today. It's cute.

No one cares about your silly racial theories, go away.

Yes, your words were so powerful that they have made me angry. Shame on you. I tell ya, being a Black woman makes me easily angered AND obsessed with race. Tsk tsk.

Oh this was a fun edit. Thank God for white people to tell Black people to go away with our silly racial theories. That's why only white people should be doing theory construction and research in the first place.

(Let the record show that Elephant Walk was the main person expounding upon race in this thread. But, again, white privilege allows him to do that and pretend to be an objective, neutral, and racially unconscious speaker. We Blacks folkseses shant be so lucky!)

I don't think I said black people.

I said yours. While you might be a member of that group, that does not mean you embody that group. Obviously.

I'm not sure I said anything in regards to who should be conducting these "studies". I frankly don't care. But if you feel that way more power to you.

Upon request, yes. Not out of interest.

I still have absolutely no interest in your race baiting.

In my experience, employers ALWAYS pay as little as they can get away with. This is why we've lost vacation days, pay more for benefits, have seen pay cuts or no raises in 2-3 years, cut tuition reimbursement, eliminated retirement matching, etc. In every non-union employment situation I've ever seen, it is common place to increase salary ranges for specific titles but not move the people who are working in that range until, eventually, people with 20 years experience are making 50 cents an hour more than new grads. And, all the while, they say "You're lucky we're not laying people off" and the companies are posting profits. It may be blatantly and demonstrably false for the upper executives who take care of their own, but it's blatantly and demonstrably TRUE for the rest of us.