Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you read the source data behind the graph? Your criticisms are addressed in it.
It's very clear that the country with the highest economic freedom is not the most wealthy unless you are colorblind and don't know the difference between a square and a circle. What the graph shows and what you say don't match, period.
It's a power graph, not a linear graph. There are big gains with economic freedom at the start, but it starts flipping as you progress near the top of the income. It's very clear on the scatter chart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
And the same trends hold true for the last decade as well.
Nothing has changed in the last 10 years? That's silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
If you want to ignore existing data on free market economics then go right ahead, but don't claim you have a logical or rational basis for that.
I am not arguing free market economic theory, I am arguing that the inference you make is dead wrong. I'm not even sure you understand what your graph even states, let alone basic mathematics and economics well enough to argue free market policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
If you dispute the data, then please show me actual facts which back up what you say. I have posted facts many times on this thread and you have yet to give more than an opinion. How can I take you seriously? When you bash a study without bothering to even read the method of data collection (your response makes it obvious that you did not do so), how can I respect your viewpoint?
Requiring negative proof is the sign of a crank, that an idea or concept must be proven right unless it can be disproved is wrong. Using that logic you can't disprove Russel's Teapot, invisible pink unicorns, or the flying spaghetti monster either.
I have stated 7 problems with just one statement, that you have addressed by telling me to look up all your sources for you. Even a cursory look of the graph states the exact opposite of the conclusion you came up with. Looking up the data behind it won't change that you misread the graph, and neither does the data collection.
Demanding someone look up the context of the data is a refinement of a fallacy called equivocation, a term over 500 years old.
I certainly see you don't understand the difference between subjective and objective evaluations, the definition of the word fallacy, and even the definition of the word quantify.
How can I take you seriously since you have shown that you don't even understand the definitions of the words that are being used, let alone the basic understanding of the concept to evaluate correct and incorrect statements?
Quite frankly, I think that you and your consorts should be tried for treason. It's just disgusting that this is allowed to go on when legal citizens are suffering so much in this economy.
I lost a job I was SLATED for becuase the slime thought the same as you and wanted to hire an illegal for a few bucks less then they would have to pay a college graduate. You people make me sick.
In fact, I'm so desperate for a job (given the student loan debts I have no accued) that I would have taken the position for what they were going to pay the illegal, but I wasn't even asked. It was assumed that because I was a college graduate I would have demanded more money. It would have been NICE, seeing is how I am educated and skilled. But still I would have accepted because I have loans to pay back.
You should see how other people live in other countries. Then tell me that people are suffering in the USA. In other countries if people don't get work, they starve to death. If people in the usa don't get work then they default on their loans. Thats a major difference if you ask me. Also, business is dog eat dog world. If I would have operated my business according to high ethical standards i would have been bankrupted a longggggg time ago. Likewise, at the end of the day people largely purchase the products they buy based on highest value. Therefor, as a business owner, I have to operate to seek the maximum value out of every dollar I spend because I have to deliver a high value product to the market otherwise I am done.
Quote:
I didn't see that. I took for granted what I was told my entire life, that college was the way to a decent life. I chose culinary school, because number one I love cooking, and secondly because there are so many jobs one could get cooking.
What happened was I was doing my externship at a restaurant called the Wild Pear (if anyone cares). I was told upfront that there was a job at the end of it, so I gave not only 100, but 150 %. I did everything right as I was told on many occasions how fast I was, efficient, etc.
Then a few days before my externship was up, I asked one of the owners when I would be starting and she said there wasn't even a position available !
And THIS was after I had overheard the other owner asking the Mexican dishwasher if she could do prep (MY job) as well as the dishes.
So you can put two and two together hopefully.
I feel like this "job" was merely the carrot and the stick to get as much free labor out of me as possible. And I find it unethical AND deplorable.
The fact of the matter is that you got scammed. I am sure you went to some overpriced for-profit school where the whole school is designed around scamming people and using high pressure sales tactics to lure students into taking out massive student loans.
Also its partly to blame on your part. Did you do ANY research to see what the wage rates were for food service workers? 99% make close to minimum wage and the top 1% are the best of the best and work at fine dining establishments. Most of the top 1% don't have degrees, rather they have decades of cooking experience.
You would have been better off skipping school and working at the bottom. Then moving your way up to supervisor and then manager.
Last edited by killer2021; 07-02-2011 at 08:29 PM..
Realistically there should be no minimum wage. The market will ultimately set the price. Even if we did eliminate the minimum wage this very moment it would make a marginal difference for most people.
For most, they would still be employed at their same wage but for the unemployable (ie. drug addicts, criminals, disabled) it could be the difference between working and just sitting on welfare all day. Even if that job only pays 5$/hour it could be the stepping stone to better paying work.
Plus it would encourage more hiring in the usa. I for one, might consider actually employing Americans instead of only hiring foreigners. For most businesses its all about the money so if we can hire people in other countries for less then thats where we will go. Minimum wage is kind of obsolete these days considering we live in a global economy. Its not very difficult to open up shop in foreign countries. In fact, many countries give incentives to do so (ie. free-trade zones). Why do you think everyone has rushed off to china so quickly? China gives incentives to business to do business there.
Also here is the economic proof on why we shouldn't have a minimum wage: it causes unemployment (ie. the grey box).
First let me say I tried to give a rep but since there somewhat of a socialist mentality I was not allowed to do because basically I need to spread the wealth in giving praise. At least I let you know you have my rep.
As far as your message I agree. Things would equalize if the minimum wage disapeared. The problem is the heart strings people like to pull on others to keep the minimum wage.
I just read an article that in CA mariachi bands want to start a union because there is too much competition and that keeps wages low. Well, the customer would pay the price because the mariachis that are not as successful would be paid higher wages.
If the market was allowed to do its own thing, the "invisible hand" that Smith said would do its work. However, just as the mariachis, there is always that want more and cannot make it against those that may do better so having union is the thing to do.
I personally do not have a problem with a union when it has to do with abuses but not to set the price of a commodity to give more money for a worker. Take care.
You should see how other people live in other countries. Then tell me that people are suffering in the USA. In other countries if people don't get work, they starve to death. If people in the usa don't get work then they default on their loans. Thats a major difference if you ask me. Also, business is dog eat dog world. If I would have operated my business according to high ethical standards i would have been bankrupted a longggggg time ago. Likewise, at the end of the day people largely purchase the products they buy based on highest value. Therefor, as a business owner, I have to operate to seek the maximum value out of every dollar I spend because I have to deliver a high value product to the market otherwise I am done.
The fact of the matter is that you got scammed. I am sure you went to some overpriced for-profit school where the whole school is designed around scamming people and using high pressure sales tactics to lure students into taking out massive student loans.
Also its partly to blame on your part. Did you do ANY research to see what the wage rates were for food service workers? 99% make close to minimum wage and the top 1% are the best of the best and work at fine dining establishments. Most of the top 1% don't have degrees, rather they have decades of cooking experience.
You would have been better off skipping school and working at the bottom. Then moving your way up to supervisor and then manager.
I sure hope that you rest well every night gloating on the fact that you
have gouged everybody that you possibly could to the max--I can't believe you are proud of that--you are running a close race with the usurers of cash loan sharks.
I bet your sing in the choir of your million dollar church building on
Sunday morning while children in your city are hungry.
I didn't see that. I took for granted what I was told my entire life, that college was the way to a decent life. I chose culinary school, because number one I love cooking, and secondly because there are so many jobs one could get cooking.
What happened was I was doing my externship at a restaurant called the Wild Pear (if anyone cares). I was told upfront that there was a job at the end of it, so I gave not only 100, but 150 %. I did everything right as I was told on many occasions how fast I was, efficient, etc.
Then a few days before my externship was up, I asked one of the owners when I would be starting and she said there wasn't even a position available !
And THIS was after I had overheard the other owner asking the Mexican dishwasher if she could do prep (MY job) as well as the dishes.
So you can put two and two together hopefully.
I feel like this "job" was merely the carrot and the stick to get as much free labor out of me as possible. And I find it unethical AND deplorable.
So, here's an idea. Let's bash the free market capitalist private enterprise system, which allows your employer and your school the freedom to do all things unethical and deplorable.
So, here's an idea. Let's bash the free market capitalist private enterprise system, which allows your employer and your school the freedom to do all things unethical and deplorable.
So people shouldn't speak against the lack of regulations that let people do unethical and deplorable things to their employees without consequence?
So people shouldn't speak against the lack of regulations that let people do unethical and deplorable things to their employees without consequence?
I think I was suggesting exactly that, instead of blaming all our ills on regulations such as the minimum wage, which seems to be a very popular exercise among those who think the free market system is infallible and always rights itself if left unregulated.
The OP of this thread is advancing the idea that there should be no regulation, or at least there should not be minimum wage regulation, and yes, people should speak out against lack of regulations and policies that favor unregulated commerce and manpower.
Smith's "invisible hand" is usually at the end of a rich man's arm, and tends to move with a raking motion, which is why I don't trust it to "correct" the economy.
It's very clear that the country with the highest economic freedom is not the most wealthy unless you are colorblind and don't know the difference between a square and a circle. What the graph shows and what you say don't match, period.
It's a power graph, not a linear graph. There are big gains with economic freedom at the start, but it starts flipping as you progress near the top of the income. It's very clear on the scatter chart.
Nothing has changed in the last 10 years? That's silly.
I am not arguing free market economic theory, I am arguing that the inference you make is dead wrong. I'm not even sure you understand what your graph even states, let alone basic mathematics and economics well enough to argue free market policies.
Requiring negative proof is the sign of a crank, that an idea or concept must be proven right unless it can be disproved is wrong. Using that logic you can't disprove Russel's Teapot, invisible pink unicorns, or the flying spaghetti monster either.
I have stated 7 problems with just one statement, that you have addressed by telling me to look up all your sources for you. Even a cursory look of the graph states the exact opposite of the conclusion you came up with. Looking up the data behind it won't change that you misread the graph, and neither does the data collection.
Demanding someone look up the context of the data is a refinement of a fallacy called equivocation, a term over 500 years old.
I certainly see you don't understand the difference between subjective and objective evaluations, the definition of the word fallacy, and even the definition of the word quantify.
How can I take you seriously since you have shown that you don't even understand the definitions of the words that are being used, let alone the basic understanding of the concept to evaluate correct and incorrect statements?
I will try to speak in smaller words, so you can understand. You are 100% wrong on your assumptions on the graph I posted.
Obviously it is not a linear graph...Good lord. You DO realize that the fact that the regression line is not linear in nature even further proves my point, don't you? Do you have any clue how linear regression works? Please look it up.
Nothing HAS changed in the last 10 years, at a macro level. The last 10 years has been a blip in the economic cycles, and will correct itself in time. To claim the last 10 years is different simply because we are struggling a bit is nothing short of foolish. Just as we recovered from the dot-com bust in the late 90's, or the Chicago futures crash in the late 80's, we will recover from the last decade as well.
I am not arguing 'free market economic theory' (which is not a theory in economic terms). I am arguing for the efficient market hypothesis. The fact that you would call something a 'free market economic theory' makes me wonder how little you know about the subject.
And the fact that you don't even understand the regression used on the chart does not mean you should accuse me of a logical fallacy in my argument. Understand the economics. Understand the statistics. THEN come back and we can have a real conversation.
Obviously it is not a linear graph...Good lord. You DO realize that the fact that the regression line is not linear in nature even further proves my point, don't you? Do you have any clue how linear regression works? Please look it up.
The definition of a linear regression is that it is a linear graph. That's why the first word is linear, here is a workup of the definition of the term Linear regression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Arguing I don't know the definition of linear regression because the line is supposedly not linear in nature is just so funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
I am not arguing 'free market economic theory' (which is not a theory in economic terms). I am arguing for the efficient market hypothesis. The fact that you would call something a 'free market economic theory' makes me wonder how little you know about the subject.
Apparently all the people on Wikipedia don't know anything about it either, I guess you must be the smartest economist in the world /sarcasm. Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - "The theory holds that within an ideal free market, property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers".
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
And the fact that you don't even understand the regression used on the chart does not mean you should accuse me of a logical fallacy in my argument. Understand the economics. Understand the statistics. THEN come back and we can have a real conversation.
I stated why and the definition of the fallacy. It doesn't wipe away a fallacy even if I was wrong, which I proved very conclusively that you don't even know what a linear regression is (probably not even the word linear). Please, do it some more!
While I am not sure how this impacts the comparison of the minimum wage laws between Hong Kong and the US, since Hong Kong does have a minimum wage, it is very funny. What it seems like is a crank found a 10 year old graph that kind of supported their position, and they use it like a hammer and the world a nail.
This is easier then shooting fish in a barrel, when the barrel is full and some one's taken all the water out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
