Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Corporate Wage Theft Is A Bigger Problem Than Property Theft" video.

  1. The min. wage was created in favor of unions. Unions use it as a negotiating power.
    3
  2. " I meant that the Federal will support and ENCOURAGE workers' unions and collective bargaining by passing legislation" Like the min. wage which killed jobs for low skilled workers. "I thought you Libertarians weren't huge union fans" Unions are a way for the workers to negotiate better working conditions and wages in a free market society. It is no different then consumers refusing to shop at a place they disagreed with. It is the free market at work. When government gets involved it opens the door for corruption. Funny how social democrats talk about money in politics but never talk about the money union workers donate to democrats.
    3
  3. Piers, there will be no violation because if you agree to work at $5/hr then you will get paid that much.
    3
  4. "Yes because $5/hr is definitely something people can live off of" The vast majority of people earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor. The vast majority of min. wage jobs are part time. The workers who typically earn the min. wage are part time workers and are young. They are teens who live with parents who are just entering the work force, or someone who works part time while having someone else living with them who earns more. A teen can work for $5/hr. Here is the trade off for both parties. Employer: That worker has no skill or experience That worker is a high risk It is possible that worker can grow and become productive in which they will pay time more Employee: They can't work anywhere else Flexible schedule They get a job and develop skills It is a trade off of both people. "Who's to say they won't try their best to pay less than that? " The average hourly earning in the US is around $24/hr. Less than 4% earn the min. wage. Businesses already pay more. There will be workers who will be paid less, but they are right now earning $0. " I mean a corporation can agree at the beginning so they can hire them, take advantage of their labor, and then later do everything they can to avoid paying them that 5 bucks an hour. " Then that worker can quit. Now they have experience on their resume. " because we all know how easy it is to just quit your job when you're reliant on the income." People earning that low of an income typically live in a household that has a higher earner. The idea that min. wage workers work full time and are poor is a myth.
    3
  5. Harry, I have little problems with unions. But the second government gets involved is when it becomes a problem. There should not be any public unions as it is literally legalize money laundering. But if we did abolish the min. wage we will be seeing higher wages overall because of unions. Just keep government out of them. It was the government getting involved with unions that created the min.wage to begin with.
    2
  6. cj stats, the min. wage forces people out of work. If someone wants to work for $5/hr they legally can't. Thus they have no job. The min. wage is said to remove the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. That is because if you can't justify a $7.25/hr min. wage than you will not get hired. They can't justify that high of a wage because they have no skill and work experience. An employer may take a gamble on them at $5/hr, and that worker, who can't get a job elsewhere, will agree. But legally they can't. "if their was no minimum wage, every business would lower their wages" Except the average hourly earnings is around $24/hr and less than 4% of the workers earn the min. wage. Businesses already pay more. " Now that's immoral. " What is immoral is telling someone they can't work because they are not worth the min. wage.
    2
  7. samiamrg7, government force leads to waste a lot of times when the people do not control it.
    2
  8. Blood Lust, you hate my guts because you can't counter my intelligent thoughts.
    2
  9. " I read that the "poor" and "middle class" make up most of the population in this country(and the world)" Depends on what you define as "poor" and "middle class". What do you compare that too? "the same article also said we (poor and middle class) spend a larger percent of our income." Again, that depends. Also, on what? "Assuming that's is all true then yeah I think the more money that the mass population can get their hands on is better." Spending isn't good what's good is producing. We need to produce and create wealth. What creates more wealth? Giving a "poor" person more money so they can buy an extra t-shirt or having the rich invest in say a scholarship so more can go to college? Or a business paying for an employee's MBA giving them more knowledge or skill? Or a company investing in a piece of technology to produce more at a lower cost which means goods and services cost more? Compare it to this. What will build a canal faster? A bunch of workers with shovels or a few workers with backhoes? The same analogy is with the "rich" vs the "poor". The rich will invest money which grows the economy. Also, a major flaw in your argument is that you are showing why they are poor to begin with. If the "poor" earn extra money and instead of saving and investing it they just spend it immediately, then they are poor for a reason. They have bad money management skills. "Then I can take the money I make to your business" Which now has higher prices or limited hours. Why? Because people have more money but production is still the same. So as a result I have to increase prices or limit how often my business is open so I can generate the same amount of profit per hour. You have to understand what money is and what people value. Money solved two problems in economics 1. The double incident of wants problem 2. The retention of value problems Point 1: This problem is that say you built furniture, and you want to eat eggs. You have to find a person who wants furniture and sells eggs if there were no money. Instead you sell furniture for money, and you spend money on eggs. Point 2: That egg farmer will never be able to save up because eggs go bad. But your furniture will stay in about the same for the most part. But with money the value varies the same for everyone. In the end, though, you do not value money. No one does. You value goods and services. You bought eggs because you value the eggs. If someone buys your furniture they value that, not money. They just used money to solve the double incident of wants problem. Giving people more money does not increase the amount of goods and services, the things that people actually value, in the market. That is why this whole idea of "giving more money to people because they spend it" is flawed.
    2
  10. Even at that, at $9.50/hr Christina Romer said that if all of that money went to the top to the bottom, and assuming no one loses their job, and they all spend that money, it will grow the economy at best $20 billion. In a $16 trillion economy that is only around 0.1% growth. Is that really a success?
    2
  11. "The argument for the minimum wage is that it is ultimately a temporary measure until other systems (such as unions) are robust enough to ensure fair wages." What is a "fair wage"? And the immediate problem is that the min. wage is treating every employer and employee the same. Unions, without influence of government, bargain base on their job. The min. wage treats the mom and pop shop the same as the big corporation.
    2
  12. Look at it this way, the businesses could not hire them at all. Thus they will all be earning $0. In the end the min. wage is a job killer and there is not one single good reason to even have one.
    1
  13. "you yourself admitted that minimum wage has little affect on employment, " Depends. Many things influence employment. But in the end raising the min. wage does nothing to benefit the employee. "and in the system of capitalism not hiring workers is not an option. " I agree, and businesses will take actions that will hurt consumers. They will raise prices, and they can cut hours. On the latter one a store that could have been 24 hours ends up being open from 6 AM to 10 PM. Less hours being open means less convenience for consumers. In the end the business is not going to pay. They will force the employees and customer to pay. " then you also must accept that automation is replacing people regardless of the job wage." Automation is progress. Always has been. That creates more wealth and more jobs.
    1
  14. Kind of. It is more complicated then what you think.
    1
  15. "The Federal Government should be on the WORKER'S side because they are the little guy and the business/corporation is the one in charge " All a business can do is offer you a job and/or a product. One can argue that they are the little guy because if they piss off society then society will rally against them. " because it's not rich assholes that create jobs it's DEMAND that creates jobs " Demand is always there. We just need to produce the goods. People demand better goods and services. It isn't a problem of demand, it is a problem of lack of wealth being created. That is why the min. wage never does any good.
    1
  16. Yoru, liberals feel that all you have to do is raise the min. wage and things will be all better. I mean, why not $50/hr? People will be rich!
    1
  17. Mathew Mara, I sense your sarcasm. The point is that all the arguments made by the left on the min. wage are poor. When you break it down you see there is not one single good reason to even have one. But when liberals make simplistic arguments in support of the min. wage it is easy to make some to oppose it.
    1
  18. "I agree that the government is inefficient when it serves only the few, but it is also true that if you take out the government's control of the economy, then the very wealthy will still be the ones in control of the economy and they will still rig it to serve only themselves " The "wealthy" can't rig anything. All a business can do is offer you a good and/or a job. That's it. They can't force you to do anything. For as bad as liberals make Walmart sound, I never had Walmart force me to give me their money or use their services. Government has. So they can't rig anything unless they buy out government. They can only buy out government if government has power. If the government did not have the power to create the min. wage than you would not have union workers paying politicians to raise it. "That is why it is better to work to have the government (and by proxy, the economy) controlled by the people through democracy." You are not exactly correct. In the end the people should run the economy. The problem is that people have little idea what goes on beyond their own community. There is a desire to have government in the market, granted it does what the people want and spends money in a way that they get their money's worth. You only do that by keeping it as local as possible. This is why people oppose the federal government doing things but support local government. At the local community you can see if it is actually working for you. You can see if your schools are being ran well, if the government employees are working, you have more of a voice and so on. For example, how many workers are employed in the federal EPA? And what do they do? Is that really a sufficient way of spending your tax dollars? Now compare that to your local school. How many teachers do they have? Are they working well? You can answer those two questions a lot easier than the ones about the EPA as you can visit your local school and see how the teachers act.
    1
  19. samiamrg7, when I said that we have to get the most out of our resources it falls into basically two categories, subjective and objective. With objective it is clear, going to a gas station and filling up a tank to set it on fire later is a waste. Or having someone take books off of a shelf just to put them back on in the same order is a waste of time and labor. But with subjective that is where people have to perceive they are getting their money's worth. What may be a waste to some may be an investment to others. For example, if I were to spend $500 in a strip club I could view that as a good way to spend my money. But others may see that as a waste. So when it comes to government spending and government using resources it is a must that we keep it as local as possible. A local community could support spending tax dollars on another park where another community could see that as a waste saying they have plenty of parks but instead need to install a new set of stop lights. It comes down to how society perceives it. At the federal level you can't do that.
    1