Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense… —
I’ll bet all my life’s earnings that politicians will be responsible for the extinction of humanity long before the planet will.
The President of the United States of America, the “most powerful man on the planet” has essentially turned himself into a desperate door-to-door insurance sales man.
Simmer in that for a minute.
Every single piece of political news that comes from the White House that doesn’t address Quantitative Easing and the economy is specifically designed and released to purposely distract you from Quantitative Easing and the economy.
Maybe we’re looking at this wrong. Maybe what we should do is take Huxley’s advice and flood the NSA with so much information, with some being real and some being fake, that it would be too expensive and to confusing to actually sort through all of our data.
We should all buy multiple cell phones and have one video call the other and just throw them in taxis and have them roam cities, endlessly. The amount of data that would pour in would be staggering and the amount of useless junk data would be paralyzing. Even worse, having a single person’s meta-data register them in 2, 5, even 10 different locations at one time would confuse and debase the system.
Maybe tech exists out there that we don’t have to physically do this. Maybe this can all be done by algorithm.
This is probably a great InfoSec start-up idea, probably worth millions if not billions if you did it right.
The future of tech-security isn’t preventing people from accessing your devices and your information. It’s too late for this, the technology is already out there and to pile on to that, we willingly make information available and even give it way in exchange for goods and services.
Perhaps the future of security is creating hundreds or thousands of decoy data-sets to mask all of your own information so that only you and those you chose are able to sort through, decipher and pinpoint what is accurate and what is a decoy.
coachk13 asked: The reason ppl think raising the minimum wage is good is because 600 of the leading economists due too! Plus people are starving to death due to poverty wages. So there's that also.
Humanity truly dies when we feel so little compassion for those in need. People need that money.
No. See post. People need each other.
I’d love to see which economists support a higher minimum wage (and which ones that don’t) and what exactly they have to say.
Would increasing the minimum wage help some people make more money? Yes. Would it be an overall positive impact in terms of buying power? No.
For those few it would help, it would bar (at least) several hundred thousand from entering the labor force. It would eliminate the jobs of current members of the labor force.
I suppose the biggest question is: would it be worth helping a few at the cost of the many?
In all honesty, I really hate when we (all of us) make such definitive deductions or such certain conclusions.
In reality, there’s no guarantee that it would put people out of work. (HEAR ME OUT!)
There are a few possibilities that can happen if wages are raised, one of which is that people would be put out of work. The other possibilities are that employers would raise prices of goods to reflect the increase of wages and keep profits static. Another possibility is that employers pay higher wages, don’t raise prices and just take a haircut on profits.
Not making a claim on what’s more or less probable but all of these things are possible.
I think that the argument that is made on the other side or by some economists is this;
Raising wages would also lead to an increase of prices. However, wages don’t compromise 100% of the cost of goods, there are other things like rent, resources, etc, etc and that if these prices stay static (they might not, depending on their labor% of costs and how those employers react to increasing wages). But the other side argues that labor would go up but other prices might not meaning that prices won’t have to increase by the same % as wages, therefore people will have relatively more money vs the new cost of goods and overall, they’d be better off. That’s a fair point and it’s possible.
However, history shows us that prices are very reactive to labor costs and that employees are not typically better off with higher wages since most prices also increase.
By the way, it’s important to remember that the increase of the minimum wage doesn’t just drive up the price of entry level labor. it bumps every one up, since many people measure their own labor’s worth on how many deviations away they are from the minimum. i.e. if you made $15 an hour and the min was $7, if it goes up to $12, will you still be happy at $12? no. And if your wages DON’T increase, then you and everyone else with your wage level is now closer to the bottom and have less value in their labor than before (because costs will go up but your income stays static). So these people either get screwed or as for more money. And this carries on all the way up the income levels.
Logically, there are a couple of deductions one can make from the fall out of raising wages, but history has already shown us what happens. Why keep barking up an empty tree?
You say history shows what happens, but I feel like your first point was more important. We don’t know and can only theorize exactly what will happen. And I feel like doing something is better than nothing, because lives are on the line. I was also under the impression that in the real world, the evidence of how things shake out do to minimum wage increases was pretty mixed, so it seems worth it to experiment if possible to see how theory works out in the real world, and whether the negatives can be minimized.
Let me breakdown everything you said because I personally think that it’s completely wrong. Not just subjectively but objectively.
“You say history shows what happens, but I feel like your first point was more important.”
History is more important that our theorized possibilities because while we can logically deduce X number of possible outcomes from a certain action, there are just too many factors to accurately predict. However, in practice (that’s what history shows us) we’ve already seen what increasing the minimum wage does. What it doesn’t do, and this is objective fact, is help the overall population get “ahead”.
"We don’t know and can only theorize exactly what will happen."
Like I said, we do know, that’s what history shows us.
Look at how many times we’ve nudged the minimum wage forward and look what the result has been. shrinking labor force, increased “illegal” labor (which I don’t have an issue with, really, but it creates a growing unemployment class which then become dependent on the welfare system), labor outsourcing, pricing in alternative non-human labor, etc, etc. Some of these things are good for humanity, but bad for low wage workers and some of these things are bad for everyone but none of these things are good for low wage labor and none of these things are good for everyone.
"And I feel like doing something is better than nothing, because lives are on the line."
I need to divide this into two statements
No, doing something is not better than doing nothing. Read on The Laws of Unintended Consequences, read chapter one of Hazlitt’s Economics In One Lesson of if you’re super lazy, watch this video from learnliberty on Unintended Consequences. So, no, doing something is not better than doing nothing if that something counteracts the markets intentions.
If the wages are truly low and can afford to be raised and people would be better off with higher wages, the market will find a way to make that happen. Why? Because employees will demand more money, naturally, and if their employer doesn’t pay them, another willing employer will if they are in need of that labor (demand) and the supply is in short order. This is what naturally pushes up wages.
As for the “lives are on the line”… come on! This isn’t just embellished bullshiting on your part, this is ignorant propaganda. (wait, can propaganda stem from a position of ignorance?!). Lives are certainly not on the line. The majority of Americans, especially minimum wage earners, aren’t living in poverty. Those that are living in poverty live in relative poverty and not true poverty. That means that they are impoverished compared to Bill Gates but not compared to a Cambodian middle class family. Most Americans, even those in poverty, live well above the world standard for poverty.
Besides, most minimum wage earners aren’t bread winners for a household. Most of them are college students or secondary or even beyond secondary income earners. Some are part time. And many (I think most) actually live with parents and even come from middle class to upper class families.
“I was also under the impression that in the real world, the evidence of how things shake out do to minimum wage increases was pretty mixed”
Which real world is this?
"so it seems worth it to experiment if possible to see how theory works out in the real world, and whether the negatives can be minimized."
So, you want to “experiment” with the lives and livelihood of millions of individuals just to try and prove a point that’s been disproved for decades now? Why? Are you evil or just dense?
How would you minimize the negatives? Make it illegal for companies to let go of people to afford the higher costs? Make it illegal to raise price of goods to reflect higher labor costs? Make it illegal to profit? Make it illegal to work for under minimum wage? (tricked you, this is already illegal…). Because that’s what you’d have to do to combat the ill-effects of raising the minimum wage.
We’ve already fucked with enough people, enough jobs. We’ve shipped all our work out of the country, we’ve replaced employees with robots and software, we’ve seen undocumented workers flood the country. How much more “tinkering” until the politicians finally get it “right” and pour us a magic elixir to cure us of our low wages?