Minimum Wage Can Stand Some Maximizing...

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
We shouldn't secure that border. That just another form of protectionism. We should open it up and let every person who can pass reasonable security checks receive citizenship. Then all applicable labor and tax laws would apply to them. Otherwise, a new black market is created with every new law. Nature always laughs last.

I hope you lose your job and your former company hires an illegal immigrant or H1-B visa type at half your wage. See if your free market rhetoric pays the mortgage.

I await your witty, utopian remarks.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,048
4,695
126
Originally posted by: Vic
We shouldn't secure that border. That just another form of protectionism. We should open it up and let every person who can pass reasonable security checks receive citizenship. Then all applicable labor and tax laws would apply to them. Otherwise, a new black market is created with every new law. Nature always laughs last.
I agree 100% with you here, Vic.

If you really want to secure a border, place severe penalties on HIRING illegals. We have good abilities to control our buisinesses, and thus it is far easier, cheaper, and more effective to control illegals in this mannor. But, honestly, I wouldn't mind just letting them all be legal if they pass security checks. Let people come in and be productive workers for our businesses, pay taxes, and buy our goods.

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Genx87


And you are a regular troll.

You should know.

Hi, 3rd grade comebacks called, they want you back.

They have your number??? Why am I not surprised???


From years and years ago. Some of us have graduated onto greener pastures, you however have not.

All I can say is I stick to it until I get it right. You have a problem with that?? Then start a new thread and quit trolling.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Vic
We shouldn't secure that border. That just another form of protectionism. We should open it up and let every person who can pass reasonable security checks receive citizenship. Then all applicable labor and tax laws would apply to them. Otherwise, a new black market is created with every new law. Nature always laughs last.

I hope you lose your job and your former company hires an illegal immigrant or H1-B visa type at half your wage. See if your free market rhetoric pays the mortgage.

I await your witty, utopian remarks.

Gonna be pretty hard for that to happen as I am currently self-employed. :)

edit: so I guess my free market rhetoric IS paying my mortgage.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Vic
We shouldn't secure that border. That just another form of protectionism. We should open it up and let every person who can pass reasonable security checks receive citizenship. Then all applicable labor and tax laws would apply to them. Otherwise, a new black market is created with every new law. Nature always laughs last.

I hope you lose your job and your former company hires an illegal immigrant or H1-B visa type at half your wage. See if your free market rhetoric pays the mortgage.

I await your witty, utopian remarks.

Gonna be pretty hard for that to happen as I am currently self-employed. :)

No wonder you support all this open borders crap. You probably hire illegals.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: Vic
We shouldn't secure that border. That just another form of protectionism. We should open it up and let every person who can pass reasonable security checks receive citizenship. Then all applicable labor and tax laws would apply to them. Otherwise, a new black market is created with every new law. Nature always laughs last.

I see this stuff first hand. The loser kids who rarely have a job here in rural Texas would never work in a field for $5.15. The illegal immigrants are performing an invaluable service to their employers, whether it's right or wrong.

As far as the minimum wage goes, it could give small boosts to the local economies as these low income people tend to blow all their money instead of saving or investing.
 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Genx87


And you are a regular troll.

You should know.

Hi, 3rd grade comebacks called, they want you back.

OOH LOOK--not more than a page after whining about name calling, Genx comes back with one of his own.

Are you REALLY this full of yourself?!? :confused:

 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,048
4,695
126
Originally posted by: EatSpam
No wonder you support all this open borders crap. You probably hire illegals.
Then he would oppose open borders. Making them legal would mean he now has to pay higher wages, unemployment insurance, maybe benefits, and payroll taxes.

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
We shouldn't secure that border. That just another form of protectionism. We should open it up and let every person who can pass reasonable security checks receive citizenship. Then all applicable labor and tax laws would apply to them. Otherwise, a new black market is created with every new law. Nature always laughs last.

Protectionism properly used isn't a bad thing IMO. We have a military to protect us, we have other laws to protect us also. It seems to me that there is nothing inherently wrong with doing what we can to protect our working class citizens.

If we opened up the border half the world would want to move here. How will that work?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: catnap1972
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Genx87


And you are a regular troll.

You should know.

Hi, 3rd grade comebacks called, they want you back.

OOH LOOK--not more than a page after whining about name calling, Genx comes back with one of his own.

Are you REALLY this full of yourself?!? :confused:

Dont be confused, just answer my previous question.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,048
4,695
126
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If we opened up the border half the world would want to move here. How will that work?
Lets see, that happened from the 1500s until now. What happened to America since then? Oh yeah, we became an international economic superpower. A country that is the envy of many, so much envy that they want to move here in droves.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Vic
We shouldn't secure that border. That just another form of protectionism. We should open it up and let every person who can pass reasonable security checks receive citizenship. Then all applicable labor and tax laws would apply to them. Otherwise, a new black market is created with every new law. Nature always laughs last.

I hope you lose your job and your former company hires an illegal immigrant or H1-B visa type at half your wage. See if your free market rhetoric pays the mortgage.

I await your witty, utopian remarks.

Gonna be pretty hard for that to happen as I am currently self-employed. :)

No wonder you support all this open borders crap. You probably hire illegals.

Actually no. I currently have only one employee: myself. Alas, the government exempts that employee from minimum wage protection. Thankfully, that employee does not require such protection.

However, if you read even half of what I posted on this subject, you would know all too well how strongly I am against the hiring of illegals. In fact, you need only look a few posts up. Nice little straw man anyway. Keep pretending my arguments are something other than what they are.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If we opened up the border half the world would want to move here. How will that work?
Lets see, that happened from the 1500s until now. What happened to America since then? Oh yeah, we became an international economic superpower.

Yeah, but they didn't have to proivide medical care and air conditioning back in those days. Besides, it was WW1 and WW2 that made us an economic power.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Vic
We shouldn't secure that border. That just another form of protectionism. We should open it up and let every person who can pass reasonable security checks receive citizenship. Then all applicable labor and tax laws would apply to them. Otherwise, a new black market is created with every new law. Nature always laughs last.
I agree 100% with you here, Vic.

If you really want to secure a border, place severe penalties on HIRING illegals. We have good abilities to control our buisinesses, and thus it is far easier, cheaper, and more effective to control illegals in this mannor. But, honestly, I wouldn't mind just letting them all be legal if they pass security checks. Let people come in and be productive workers for our businesses, pay taxes, and buy our goods.
I'd love to see a crackdown on corporations hiring illegals. Until that happens, however, it's going to be a bonanza for the corporations.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
If we opened up the border half the world would want to move here. How will that work?
Lets see, that happened from the 1500s until now. What happened to America since then? Oh yeah, we became an international economic superpower. A country that is the envy of many, so much envy that they want to move here in droves.
Funny that. We drew in all the best minds and workers in the world.

Nature always laughs last. Any attempt to restrain her only incurs her wrath.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,048
4,695
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Nature always laughs last. Any attempt to restrain her only incurs her wrath.
Within bounds. I know you hate it, but nature wants employeers to overwork employees in ways that the employees cannot escape and the freedom of nature breaks down (see my list above that you just brushed off). I believe employees deserve minimal standards. Beyond that though, let nature run its course.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Vic
Nature always laughs last. Any attempt to restrain her only incurs her wrath.
Within bounds. I know you hate it, but nature wants employeers to overwork employees in ways that the employees cannot escape and the freedom of nature breaks down (see my list above that you just brushed off). I believe employees deserve minimal standards. Beyond that though, let nature run its course.
The abuses will occur regardless. Much like how violent crime is still committed regardless of how much we might punish the violent criminals. And just like how we keep those laws against violent crime in place despite the futility of using them to prevent crime, of course we should have some level of minimal standard protection for employees, to try to keep them from harm and abuse (and most importantly, to punish those who harm and abuse, which is all we can do really). But a minimum wage price control is not it. Because it only controls the wage side of the market, and not the cost side, it's a null. It doesn't help anyone.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Vic
Nature always laughs last. Any attempt to restrain her only incurs her wrath.
Within bounds. I know you hate it, but nature wants employeers to overwork employees in ways that the employees cannot escape and the freedom of nature breaks down (see my list above that you just brushed off). I believe employees deserve minimal standards. Beyond that though, let nature run its course.
The abuses will occur regardless. Much like how violent crime is still committed regardless of how much we might punish the violent criminals. And just like how we keep those laws against violent crime in place despite the futility of using them to prevent crime, of course we should have some level of minimal standard protection for employees, to try to keep them from harm and abuse (and most importantly, to punish those who harm and abuse, which is all we can do really). But a minimum wage price control is not it. Because it only controls the wage side of the market, and not the cost side, it's a null. It doesn't help anyone.

Yes, everyone knows that laws don't stop crime. :roll: If you think that way, then why bother having police?
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,048
4,695
126
Originally posted by: Vic
The abuses will occur regardless. Much like how violent crime is still committed regardless of how much we might punish the violent criminals. And just like how we keep those laws against violent crime in place despite the futility of using them to prevent crime, of course we should have some level of minimal standard protection for employees, to try to keep them from harm and abuse (and most importantly, to punish those who harm and abuse, which is all we can do really). But a minimum wage price control is not it. Because it only controls the wage side of the market, and not the cost side, it's a null. It doesn't help anyone.
No, government cannot prevent all abuses. No one is foolish enough to think that. Laws do reduce crimes though. For example, I did not go over to your place and injure you in our debate above, ONLY because it is illegal. Otherwise, who knows what I would have done. ;)

I simply disagree that it is a null balance. If suppose wages go up 10%, and suppose prices go up 2% (wages are not the only cost in prices) then it is NOT a wash. There is a net 8% benefit to the worker. Ok, wait, welfare payments would go down too. So maybe it is only a net 5% benefit to the worker. But hey, a benefit is a benefit. Plus it is one step on the way to eliminating welfare.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Vic
Nature always laughs last. Any attempt to restrain her only incurs her wrath.
Within bounds. I know you hate it, but nature wants employeers to overwork employees in ways that the employees cannot escape and the freedom of nature breaks down (see my list above that you just brushed off). I believe employees deserve minimal standards. Beyond that though, let nature run its course.
The abuses will occur regardless. Much like how violent crime is still committed regardless of how much we might punish the violent criminals. And just like how we keep those laws against violent crime in place despite the futility of using them to prevent crime, of course we should have some level of minimal standard protection for employees, to try to keep them from harm and abuse (and most importantly, to punish those who harm and abuse, which is all we can do really). But a minimum wage price control is not it. Because it only controls the wage side of the market, and not the cost side, it's a null. It doesn't help anyone.

Yes, everyone knows that laws don't stop crime. :roll: If you think that way, then why bother having police?

For the same reason we have garbagemen.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
But the police need laws to enforce. Your living in a dream world if you think the laws are all a joke.

And there are need for laws to regulate coporations as well as violent criminals.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
But the police need laws to enforce. Your living in a dream world if you think the laws are all a joke.

And there are need for laws to regulate coporations as well as violent criminals.
Kindly point out to me where I said that I think that all laws are a joke. I said nothing of the sort.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: dullard
No, government cannot prevent all abuses. No one is foolish enough to think that. Laws do reduce crimes though. For example, I did not go over to your place and injure you in our debate above, ONLY because it is illegal. Otherwise, who knows what I would have done. ;)

I simply disagree that it is a null balance. If suppose wages go up 10%, and suppose prices go up 2% (wages are not the only cost in prices) then it is NOT a wash. There is a net 8% benefit to the worker. Ok, wait, welfare payments would go down too. So maybe it is only a net 5% benefit to the worker. But hey, a benefit is a benefit. Plus it is one step on the way to eliminating welfare.
I shudder to think of the moral character of the individual who does not harm others simply because of concern that he might get caught and punished.

To your 2nd paragraph -- first, you're just grasping at figures there. Second, by using price controls, you'd just be switching the burden of welfare from one place to another. Instead of placing the cost in direct taxation, you would move it via price control to what would be essentially a hidden tax absorbed into the cost of goods and services.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
But the police need laws to enforce. Your living in a dream world if you think the laws are all a joke.

And there are need for laws to regulate coporations as well as violent criminals.
Kindly point out to me where I said that I think that all laws are a joke. I said nothing of the sort.

OK, you didn't say that, I guess I exaggerated. You said:

The abuses will occur regardless. Much like how violent crime is still committed regardless of how much we might punish the violent criminals. And just like how we keep those laws against violent crime in place despite the futility of using them to prevent crime,

I'm saying we need to regulate coporations via law the same way we regulate violent criminals, stop lights, etc. I believe that unions serve a useful purpose and so does the minimum wage law. It has it's problems, but it's necessary at the same time.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Oh, I'm not anti-union. I just think it's unfair that they're allowed to monopolize.