Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993444)

I don't think I said Black people.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993444)

Upon request, yes. Not out of interest.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993444)

I still have absolutely no interest in your race baiting.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1993419)

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.

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 1993453)

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.

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1993485)

I'm not sure why you're explaining what EW says as I feel like not only do you totally misunderstand my point but I'm having no problems understanding what he is saying and disagreeing with it on my own. Nor did I ever say that all places would replace workers with sweat shops. Although you neglect to take into consideration whether people would have an option not to patronize such an imaginary place due to location or income.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1993463)

The fact of the matter is that you made a cliche' white privilege statement that implies that you have the power to engage in a topic that references race without being accused of being interested in and perceivably obsessed with race.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993509)

Yawn. I made no statements to suggest an obsession that and your logic (which includes stereotyping and generalizations) is faulty at best and at worst, racist.

I didn't announce it. Goodness you are quite dense. I personally have no interest in debating it, but you usually do due to your illogical backwards theories. If you have interest in it, go ahead. I have no interest in participating. Economics are interesting, your ridiculous conception of race is not.

It was. The entire conversation was about comparative advantage.

Originally Posted by da.most (Post 1993559)

Asians are the most qualified. Asian immigrants usually come here with nothing but at the end of the day the Asians have the highest per capita income. How do you explain that fact?

Originally Posted by da.most (Post 1993635)

What is your point?

Originally Posted by da.most (Post 1993642)

You have atttended too many angry black men rallies.

Minimum wage does not deny anyone the opportunity to get an education. The real problem is your people don't care about education and they usually quit school.


If we did away with minimum wage do you think your opportunities will increase? If so then how?

Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 1993643)

EW: Make sure you send in your Black People dues by next Thursday.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 1993643)

*cue Alanis Morissette*

It's like raaaaaaain on your wedding day....

EW: Make sure you send in your Black People dues by next Thursday.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 1993643)

*cue Alanis Morissette*

It's like raaaaaaain on your wedding day....

EW: Make sure you send in your Black People dues by next Thursday.