More Americans Die of Poverty than Terrorism

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Why does the market act rationally?

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

Or more importantly, for whom does the market act?

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

Why is there an assumption that the market acts for the benefit of the workers?

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.

"The market" freaks the fuck out when someone makes a typo in a computer program and "the market" panics when Steve jobs sneezes. "The market" isn't a rational actor.

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.

The 'free market' without regulation causes a lot of problems. Until the people with the power decide they don't want it anymore, I don't really see the reason to give them more.

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.

He thinks minimum wages hurt workers, I think a lack of minimum wage would hurt them more.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

Fair enough - but questions like "Who does the market favor?" or pointing out that the market shits its pants when Steve Jobs does something really seem like you're misapplying microecon theory, or confusing it with common usage of "market" and "rational" (which are massively different than the econ usages).

If you're not, that's my bad, and clearly a limit to the message board medium and my own idiocy.