having the government regulate the economy is like using a wrench to tighten a nut.
having the government regulate expression is like using a wrench to turn your head.
the separation between business and the public is necessary and good for creating and distributing our products and services, but they still need to have some direct accountability to some entity under the public's control.
unlike business, the creators and distributors of ideas are already easily accountable to the public, because they are every member of the public. at best, involving the government would be superfluous, and at worst, tyrannical.
having the government regulate expression is like using a wrench to turn your head.
the separation between business and the public is necessary and good for creating and distributing our products and services, but they still need to have some direct accountability to some entity under the public's control.
unlike business, the creators and distributors of ideas are already easily accountable to the public, because they are every member of the public. at best, involving the government would be superfluous, and at worst, tyrannical.
Shared publicly
View 9 previous comments
+Albert Ripple simple question: what happens to the people who need a job but whose labor is not worth the $15 minimum wage?
Edit: another question- do you support yourself or do your parents support you?3d
+Karl Schuch
well if we raised the minimum wage to $15/h, it would mean we think that the minimum worth of labor is $15/h, that that is the cost of a human being spending their time.
currently i live with my parents. when i'd get a job, i'd plan to live on my own and support myself.3d- +Albert Ripple
AR: well if we raised the minimum wage to $15/h, it would mean we think that the minimum worth of labor is $15/h, that that is the cost of a human being spending their time.
KS: nope, and this is where your understanding of economics is showing. It doesn’t matter what “we” decide human labor is worth, the worth is determined by the productivity of that labor.
So for labor to be worth $15, how much does it have to produce to the employer? Answer: MORE than $15. If it produces LESS than $15 then the business is taking a loss and will soon be out of business.
Example: You pay $300 for an I phone – what is the worth of that phone to you? Answer: MORE than $300, if not then why the heck would you buy it?
What’s the worth of that I phone to Apple? Answer: LESS than $300, otherwise they would take a loss selling it to you
If a worker produces $6 of productivity, and the minimum wage is $15 – what do you call that worker? Answer: Unemployed
When you go to college please take a course in economics, seriously.
AR: currently i live with my parents. when i'd get a job, i'd plan to live on my own and support myself.
KS: the reason I asked that question is because whenever you answer any question about economics your answers are always couched in a kind of utopic ought – businesses Ought to do this of that… Government Ought to do this or that, everyone Ought to behave in a way you find desireable….
Your answers never reflect economic reality at all, rather you seem to believe that government can engineer society in a way that would lead to perfect equality and fairness … news flash – it can’t.
government is a huge bureaucratic sloth incapable of balancing a budget or operating without enormous waste and corruption - much less of creating a utopia…. Just a heads-up.3d - i think it's pretty obvious from my earlier responses that i think government is far from perfect. otherwise i would be satisfied with how things currently are. in fact utopia can never be reached, nor should it: if your society has stopped changing and moving forward, chances are it's become a dystopia, regardless of whether it's disguised as a utopia. anyway, the whole point of bothering to shape economics through policy is to move more toward an ought, otherwise we should just sit back and let things run, into the ground. as for my understanding of economics, i have not taken a college course on it, but in my last year of high school i took a gov&econ course (each topic getting half the year and taught by the same teacher) taught by someone who'd actually worked in business (i don't remember what kind, but probably financial, we once had a project on stocks), and i'm pretty sure they were at least a bit libertarian since they were in favor of a flat tax. so i have at least a half-decent understanding of the field, supply and demand and all that. you seem to not understand that how governments interact with the economy is a part of economic theory, and that the purpose of economic study isn't just to observe, but to make recommendations, to all sorts of entities from the largest supranational governments to the smallest entrepreneurial businesses. and i highly doubt that there's that much work out there whose productivity value is less than a living wage. for example, surely the work of at-home nursing assistants is extremely valuable, yet they are some of the lowest paid workers, and nursing companies make few profits. their prices were already too low (probably because of the profession being highly undervalued in the past), and nobody wants to be the first to charge more. i would easily be willing to pay 1.6k a week for such care if such a need arose in my family in the future, equating to $40/h if foolishly all given to the nurse, but the average cna is paid $14/h, not even half of what i was willing. markets don't always apportion things appropriately, they're based on what people have paid do pay and will pay, not directly based on the value and cost of work and production. and that's to be expected: any system with perfect correlation couldn't possibly emerge naturally, and any attempt to make such a plan of everything would fail worse than any emergent system. but where things go vastly awry, we could perhaps seek to intervene, to add corrections, so that the emergent system doesn't loose its structure and collapse due to failure of maintenance.2d
- we're clearly not convincing each other of anything, so i don't know why we keep these rounds going.2d
- +Albert Ripple yes, markets actually do determine the value of products.....I remember talking to you a year ago about solar roadways and no evidence or reasoned argument could budge you, you were doxastically closed .... and apparently as you learned more on your own you were able to see the fallacies of the proposition.
That is where we are right now, I believe, you seem to not understand the rudiments of real world economics and I’m wearying of trying to explain it ... so it’s best to terminate this until you have time to learn on your own and see the fallacies of left wing economics.
Thanks for the chat.2d
Add a comment...