More Americans Die of Poverty than Terrorism

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The 'free market' without regulation causes a lot of problems.

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.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

When employers have the option to pay wages that low, they pay them, that's also a historical fact. And it is in their benefit to do so.

Both statements are false.

From a 2004 Bureau of Labor Statistics:

According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage, and another 1.5 million were reported earning wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 2.0 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.7 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

Of the 2.7 percent of all hourly paid workers are at the minimum wage.

About half of all hourly-paid workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth were age 16-19. Among teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was 4 percent.

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.

The 'free market' without regulation causes a lot of problems.

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

[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.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by da.most

Why would someone take a low paying job when they can collect more in welfare and sit home?

Um no shit? The truth is though, most jobs pay more then welfare does.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Um no shit? The truth is though, most jobs pay more then welfare does.

Thats why I disagree with the idea of (more) welfare as a solution to poverty. Jobs that pay a livable wage is the only real solution to poverty.

[Senusret I]

[DrPhil]

Hallelujerrrrrr!

He has that "is I gon be a low wage Black Jesus, mommy?" look in his eyes.

[Senusret I]

With the high-five and Eddie Long toupee. Praise be to black baby Jesus.

[DrPhil]

It isn't just ironic on da.most's part.

[Tulip86]

Isn't that the whole idea?
Welfare is supposed to be the absolute last option (although I know for some it's an easy out). That's is why minimun wage also works... at least (a lot of) people will take working over welfare because they can make more money

[Psi U MC Vito]

Exactly. If jobs were required to pay a true living wage, the economy would probably be in much better shape.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Exactly. If jobs were required to pay a true living wage, the economy would probably be in much better shape.

How is this?

(and more importantly, of what moral standing do you have to tell someone what they should do with the produce of their labors?)

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Exactly. If jobs were required to pay a true living wage, the economy would probably be in much better shape.

Honestly, the prices of everything would just skyrocket and the people being paid the lowest amount would still be relatively poor.