[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is part of the tragedy of the commons.

Congratulations, you gave me my first WTF moment in ten words or less. Let’s explore this.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Wal-Mart doesn't sell things for cheap because people love deals and Walmart loves slim margins, they sell things for cheap because people NEED things for cheap. The people who shop at Walmart are looking for deals because they have tight budgets, and need things like dish soap, and tupperware containers and snacks for their kids lunches.

Let me get this straight. We are in a minimum wage thread. A consumer has X many after-tax dollars to spend on needs or perhaps even wants. This consumer needs products A and B. They can get both at Walmart, or get A OR B at Safeway. The consumer exchanges his/her after-tax dollars voluntarily to Walmart, who in turn voluntarily exchanges products A AND B to the consumer. Both parties are happy. The only loser in this scenario is Safeway. If Walmart wasn’t there, then the consumer, in order to fulfil their needs would have to earn at least double (remember progressive taxation) in order to buy the equivalent at Safeway.

Remind me again how Walmart is the bad guy here….

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Wal-Mart is not just driving down wages, they are a product OF them. Walmart takes off from I think something like 250 stores in 1980 to over 1000 in 1988 and something like 1400 by 1990. Now, obviously, their growth has increased dramatically since then, but, things like 'Sams club' etc, the rapid brand expansion, don't start taking off until after Reagan broke the air traffic controllers union in 1982, and the landscape of labour changed dramatically in the US.

You really should get into designing roller coasters. The drop in intellect there was absolutely astounding! But hey, perhaps those traffic controllers needing cheap Tupperware fuelled Walmart’s growth.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

People need to go to Walmart because they can't afford to go somewhere with a higher margin. It's not a choice. Walmart, to their credit, understand that further depressing wages on a national scale is good for their bottom line. Wouldn't it be great if people couldn't afford to go to Best Buy anymore to buy a TV? Or Safeway to buy their groceries?

LOL, Bin Dar Dun Dat. So your argument is that in order to pay higher prices, we NEED higher wages. Wow. Trickle up poverty anyone?

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The only thing that is a challenge to them, really, is Amazon, who are outbidding them through mechanization and standardization. Basically, the only way you can compete with Walmart's wages is by not paying ANY.

Again, congrats. Keep pumping up that minimum wage to the point that it is inefficient to hire inexperienced workers who would in turn gain experience and be more “in demand” for subsequent higher paying jobs. Keep pushing demands to the point that automation is the clear choice to meet consumer desires.

3D printing anyone?

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I have read his first book on affirmative action in an academic capacity and was not impressed. I don't have much of a scholarly critique, nor do I think I am in the position to give one, but, (and this may be some bias) it reads like many books attempting to utilize economics to explain human behaviour; often those sorts of answers are not found in that field.

Again, you get things ass backwards. It is not economics explaining human behaviour. It is human behaviour explaining economics. Human Action by Mises is another good read on the subject matter. But it would be like Kryptonite to your “Superman” knowledge…. Sorry, indoctrination.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The state is the vessel in which CURRENT capitalism functions.

Fixed (and I hate doing that). We have crony capitalism right now. Crapitalism. Big government, big corporations.. fascism at its best. The big corporations do everything in their power (government influence, lawmaking, etc) in order to keep competition OUT, not promote it. You want to talk about tragedy of the commons… yikes. The state vessel needs to be torpedoed.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The rules of the game are determined by the state, hence, whatever 'economics' transpire within that system are inherently informed by the state like the odds in a casino are controlled by the house. It's intellectually dishonest to not assign appropriate valuations to judgements in that regard. As I mentioned in my first reply in regards to South Africa, it is not the ECONOMICS of the situation which is the determining factor, it is the POLITICS. Yes, money informs politics, but, money does not dictate politics. It was a bunch of racist whites who prevented blacks from associating in groups and treated them as close to a commodity as you can in an 18th/19th/20th century white colony. That is the reason their wages were depressed, not for some Friedman-informed free market utopia where blacks were an economic danger to South African whites.

Spoken like our current sociopathic mafia rulers. The same ones that the raping and enslavement of the unborn are justified for our current welfare/warfare “state”. The dumbing down of the masses has obviously worked.

White on black slavery sure seems to get the headlines while historically black on black slavery was far more abundant. NEITHER were good. Their labour was pillaged. Today? Our labour is also pillaged, just to a lesser extent. Got to keep those tax farm animals happy. Give ‘em an iPhone. Let them play xBox. Give them the illusion that they are free to choose. The “Greater Good” fallacy yields Alison Redfords.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

'Wages' is such an utterly auxiliary concern that in my opinion it is insulting to include it as an argument.

Really? Would “entitlements” be more of your liking? Wages are a measurement of your economic value. As this is a hockey forum, why aren’t you screaming bloody blue murder that the “minimum” wage of NHL players is either:

A) WAY too high <insert whatever argument here>
B) WAY too low, cause he might have to shop for a Kia, instead of a Mercedes. OK, maybe not a Kia, but you get the drift.

Sports salaries, like CEO salaries, have skyrocketed under Keynesian policies, in conjunction with “bribe me” politicians and voters. Easy money has been a primary catalyst to the wealth gap we currently are experiencing. When those that “rule” us act not for the betterment of the little guy, but for those that can keep him/her in power you have a twin power of corruption that simply feeds on the other until it collapses. They pay lip service to said little guy, at best. With things like… ohhh, minimum wages….

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is my issue with both yours and his argument and generally with the arguments of those that describe themselves as 'libertarian'. I'm not trying to cast a huge brush here, it's an ideological issue. The idea is to neuter a policy project or direction, and then point to it's inefficiency or lack of return on investment. Sowell does the same thing in regards to school vouchers. Again, I can't critique him toooooo hard here because I am not intimately versed with that issue, however, it's an example of the conclusion based research I believe he is guilty of.

Yet central planning is not an issue for you? What perverse logic. Instead of learning from the past and freeing people from being “neutered” WITH illogical policies, you want MORE of it?

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The minimum wage SUCKS. It is ARTIFICIALLY low. It's held there by the mechanism for lobbying the federal government and state legislatures which is of benefit to accumulated private money. It is held there by those with a vested interest in not paying higher wages. It isn't rocket science to figure out what part of the employer/employee relationship that is.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If you think politicians are buying votes with the minimum wage where it is, I suggest you reconsider what votes they are buying. I will give a you a start, it is NOT the populous.

Artificially LOW? Are you mad? The higher you raise them the more people fall UNDER that bar and will NOT be employable. THAT isn’t rocket science. Price out labour and you will have far more automation.

Try to have a heart? Good luck.