💀
@pasture
It's not like Bernie isn't stupid with his take, but the reply is so much worse that I can't even...
econ pol
@wizzwizz4 @pasture
Economies are a lot more complicated than just: "these guys have this minimum salary, why can't we have that?". Trying to randomly compare 2 countries that have little in common when it comes to politics or economics, and just pick and choose what you want to propagandize for your country is a massive moron move.
It doesn't even work well for European countries that have a closer historical relationship with one another, why would it work for comparing anything to USA?
Each and every policy you like in a different country and would want for your own, needs to be carefully and thoroughly studies in the socio-economical, political, historical context of the host nation before you can even think about adopting it. Because if the conditions are not the same, and let's be honest they almost never are, and if you don't take any measures to adapt the initial policy to the context of your nation, then you're gonna fail big time.
This is what Biden and American socialists do all the time. They completely ignore the context of other nations, and think they can just copy-paste policies that just don't fit within the socio-economic, political and historical context of USA.
And if you're wondering why I'm so convinced you can't just copy-paste policies, it's because my own shitty 2nd world nation does it all the time, and I constantly see this approach fail in real-time.
econ pol, uspol
@alyx @pasture But *is* the context all that different? Yeah, sure, a lot of things in the US are built on the promise of cheap labour, and there are a lot of dysfunctional and parasitic constructs built on top of that, but that's not something that needs to be *preserved*; nobody's relying on that to survive.
You can *make* the context one where it's possible to pay people enough money for them to eat without taking on debt. You *have* to.
econ pol, uspol
@wizzwizz4 @pasture
>But *is* the context all that different?
Yes. Everything from historic values on which the nation was formed, to differences of how the government functions, to even things like unrestricted immigration, all of these are a big wrench in your plan to play around with minimum salary policy.
> a lot of things in the US are built on the promise of cheap labour
Nope. US is built on the idea of freedom. Cheap labor happened because of massive immigration (basically a lot of freedom). This is why I said you need to study the context of each country. If you were to stop immigration in US (a change in context), you wouldn't even need to institute minimal salary policy. The wages would slowly increase on their own simply because of market supply and demand.
Australia, being basically an island, doesn't have the same kind of immigration. For the longest time, neither did most European countries that also have such policies. But guess what, with the recent "Syrian" refugee crisis, and the influx of "refugees", Europe has been starting to suffer too and show cracks. The context changed, and suddenly problems started to appear. And Europe is nowhere near close to how dysfunctional immigration is for US.
>dysfunctional and parasitic constructs
Could you explain exactly what you mean by that?
>You can *make* the context one where it's possible to pay people enough money
Sure, if you can change a couple of hundreds of years of history, I'm sure you can make the context of USA whatever you want it to be. But in reality, it's not that easy. There are a lot of things you'd have to change, maybe about America as a continent in it's entirety, before you can reach the point where a minimum salary policy works the same way as in places like Europe or Australia. And there may be lesser ways in which you can change the context of USA to where a lower impact variation of minimum salary policy works. But there are still other changes you need to do before hand, and you can't just go "we want minimum wage" like Bernie does, without studying any of this in advance (like every other socialist does).
>You *have* to
Why? No seriously, why? If your reasoning is that it needs to be done to improve the livelihood of American citizens, my rebuke is that there are potentially countless other ways this can be achieved without messing around with this particular policy.
There is no "have to" here. You "could" do it, and it might work (most likely it might not). There is no supreme moral truth that demands you "have to" institute such policy.
econ pol, uspol
@wizzwizz4 @pasture
>The free market doesn't create nor sustain itself
What kind of marxist nonsense is that? Maybe you need to read an economy text book. Free trade and free markets have existed since the dawn of humanity.
>I didn't say how, but surely *not starving* is a human right.
Don't think it is pal. At least not in the way you probably think of it. Sure we have a right to live, and to take actions that would help ensure our survival. But that doesn't mean you have a right for someone else to feed you. You have to work for it, and that work can take many forms. You can work by taking a job at McDonalds or you can work by going in a forest and eating berries you pick for the rest of your life. In both cases you can be successful in achieving your goal of *not starving*, but it's gonna depend on the work you do. If anything, the American phrasing of "right to pursuit life, liberty and happiness" is much closer to reality of what a right is, than your "right to not starve".
>Some people have no choice but to live in debt their whole lives in order not to die
To me it sounds like some people chose to live in debt from the start, and now they're complaining that their bad choices have consequences.
I might sounds cruel, but the thing is, the way I see it, this is true. The credit card system that so many Americans gleefully take a part in, is for me the biggest example that they choose to live in debt from day one. Credit cards are not a widely used system in my country. We're mostly debit card users. Meaning we only spend money that we actually made, instead of choosing to live in debt. Maybe because of this, Americans will realize they have a personal finance problem only when they're already a couple of monthly wages in debt, making their problem much worse.
>meaning they aren't free to consider the job-switching required for the wage to be market-governed
The only circumstances I've ever seen where someone really didn't have the freedom to switch jobs were when there was another 3rd actor involved. Usually a consequence of a court decision. So if you have a specific example in mind, I'd like to hear it.
And even if you personally can't actually switch jobs, it doesn't matter. Not everyone has to switch jobs all the time for market effects to take place. Just the fact that some of the people get to change around, or even just the fact that there are less qualified people your boss could employ to replace you, is enough to have an impact on the market.
>What bad effects would minimum wage cause?
First effect you're guaranteed to see is companies firing part of their workers, and forcing everyone remaining to take on the extra work.
Second effect is even more companies moving their factories to China or India than already have.
A direct consequence will be a significant increase in unemployment.
Another consequence effect of the first two will be lower quality products and services. This will have bigger ramifications to the economy in general, especially when it comes to selling your products to other countries. But I probably shouldn't bore you any further with the realities of economics.
econ pol, uspol
@alyx @pasture Show me a free market.
There are people born into debt, who live with no option to escape debt, who die in debt, as did their parents. Show me the choice.
If leaving your job means you don't pay the rent, how can you job-seek?
“And even if…” paragraph is wrong, unless you have a better model than me. There is an impact, but the job market does not behave as a free market.
There are sectors (e.g. fast food) where those things can't be done; what impact there?
econ pol, uspol
@wizzwizz4
You're a complete moron aren't you.
>Show me a free market.
Even the fediverse itself is a free market. You don't like instance X, you make an account on instance Y. Or heck, you're even free to make an account on Twitter.
>There are people born into debt, who live with no option to escape debt, who die in debt, as did their parents
Again, to me all this complaining just sounds like people choosing to live in debt and regretting their choice afterwards. I gave you and example of this already. And I'll give another soon. But if you're not gonna bring anything substantial to the table, I don't see a point in going further into this topic.
>If leaving your job means you don't pay the rent
And here's where I want to give that second example. Paying rent is not something we do for our entire lives. Over here, as soon as a couple gets married, they get a loan to buy an apartment, and instead of paying rent, that money goes to paying the loan instead. In more extreme cases, young couples choose to live with their parents for a while to save up money so they can do this. There's always a choice. Only Americans seem to be stuck in this idea that the only way to go is renting for their entire life.
>There is an impact, but the job market does not behave as a free market
1) Yes it is a free market. You just don't want to admit it, because it ruins your socialist dreams.
2) I love how you claim my argument is wrong, but then admit the impact exists. Which is it then?
>There are sectors (e.g. fast food) where those things can't be done; what impact there?
Of course they can be done. What are you even talking about? People leave McDonalds for other places all the time. Sometimes they leave for Burger King, other times to work as a school janitor, and maybe sometimes they finish a school and get a big-time manager job. It doesn't even matter at all which it is. The important bit is that if McDonads suddenly isn't in a position where it knows for sure it can hire some other dumb fuck in their place, then they'll start panicking and try to lower the rate at which employees leave. But this won't happen if you continue to bring in massive amounts of low skilled workers into the country.
econ pol, uspol
@alyx ‽ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market Where are the Fediverse's prices? Not all freedom is a market; it means something specific.
What evidence would you accept?
Paying rent is something some people *do* do for their entire lives. Has it occurred to you that not everybody *has* parents? If you've always had a choice, whoop de doo to you. Some people's choice is between negative cash flow or *going insane*.
By “those things” I meant re the bad effects paragraph. Character limit sorry.
econ pol, uspol
@wizzwizz4
You have a very poor and limited understanding of markets my friend. Before you can even talk about "free markets" you need to talk about "markets". And a market is any place where there's a meeting between supply and demand. I, as a user, have a demand for communicating with others. Fedi instances offer a supply of services that can meet my demand. Hence fedi is a market. As for the free part, not all markets deal with money as their "price". As people are beginning to learn, when it comes to the internet, we mainly pay with our attention. And I am in fact free to pay this "price" to any other instance if the current one displeases me.
I don't know who taught you economics, or maybe you didn't study any at all, but Wikipedia is a poor source for any topic, but especially for something as fundamental. It's not gonna teach you to understand the absolute basics of it, so you're able to see the actions of supply and demand in every aspect of life. It's gonna partially teach you about the legal markets of goods and services you get with money. It's not gonna make you understand markets in their abstract sense.
>If you've always had a choice, whoop de doo to you
Everyone always has choices. You're either too stupid, too stubborn, or too lazy to see them, and prefer to put the responsibility on someone else. And I can't believe I'm going into GOP talking points, but fricking take responsibility for your own life.
>Some people's choice is between negative cash flow or *going insane*.
That's some very interesting imagination you've got there. I should make a note of it, if Americans don't live in constant debt, there's a risk of insanity, so credit cards are like their anti-psychotic medication.
Ok, I know that's probably not what you meant, and maybe you mean they need drugs for their mental health. But you expressed that very poorly. And if the drugs are expensive enough to where your pay check is no longer enough to cover them, switching to the credit card system of doing things is not a solution. The solution is finding a way to increase your cash flow or decrease your expenses. It's not even a good temporary fix, which would be borrowing a little money to cover the difference from friends/family/coworkers etc. Credit cards are the most horrible choice to make in such a situation, because it teaches you to think it's normal to be in constant debt.
>By “those things” I meant re the bad effects paragraph
Oh.. lol... you're still wrong my friend.
This is are the effects of minimum wage increase you can expect in the fast food sector.
1) you'll still see people getting fired, and the rest being forced into doing more work. The only reason it's not quite at the same degree, is because they're already worked very hard. But don't worry, fast-food places will find a way to work people even harder for that double salary, even if it kills them (the workers I mean).
2) you'll see human jobs replaced with automated systems, robots, etc. (heck, you're already starting to see this just as a response for the possibility of mandated minimum wage). And for every 5 robots that wipe the floor daily, you'll have a employee, that among a limitless number of demeaning duties, will also be responsible to check for any corners the robots could have missed.
3) factories that produce the sub-components of your fast food meals will move abroad. Those tasty hamburger meat? You'll have cow farms in China, butchered in China, meat prepared and shaped into hamburgers in China, frozen, transported to the good ol' USA, cooked in oil imported from China in your local McDonalds. The same goes for every component. Enjoy the same crappy taste!
econ pol, uspol
@alyx Fedi doesn't act like a market. Your “supply and demand” doesn't act like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand. You're using words differently to how economists do. Fedi instances *do not extract value from your attention*; you are not paying with it. Where's equilibrium‽
Can you use your magical choice-finding powers to help my friends, please? “Just find a way”, btw, doesn't help.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ Ctrl+F “coffee”.
“Outsourced meat” decisions don't relate to wages: import tax.
econ pol, uspol
@wizzwizz4
>You're using words differently to how economists do
>links to wiki
Yes, because wiki = economists.
Let me know when you actually study the field.
>Fedi instances *do not extract value from your attention*
Are you sure about that? You've never seen admins receive donations? You've never seen people advertise on websites? Again, you are very limited in your understanding of things, and even your imagination is very limited. Even Twitter and Facebook didn't "extract value" for the longest time. They waited until they gathered a lot of users, got them personally invested in those accounts they made, and then flooded those platforms with ads. Maybe you need to think about things in the long term more, and not the immediate short term.
>you are not paying with it
Of course you are. Your attention is directly linked to your personal time. And time is absolutely the most priced possession you have. And you're wasting it here, with me, because I've successfully taken hold of your attention. Are you really gonna stay there and say you're not paying the price of wasting time?
>“Outsourced meat” decisions don't relate to wages: import tax.
1) Of course it does. Any increase in one cost results in attempts to decrease other costs. If wages are forcefully increased, and they can't find a way around it, the first thing the company will do is try to decrease every other cost. You're very gullible if you think companies will actually take the hit in their profit. If anything, they're likely to be so successful in finding cost-cutting methods, that they'll make more profit.
2) So the only reason so many American companies are doing their stuff in China and India is because there's absolutely no import tax whatsoever? Or is it maybe that sometimes import tax is pennies compared to the benefits of leaving US. Besides, historically, the same people in US that advocate for minimum wage increase are also the ones against increasing these import taxes. So good luck with that.
>Can you use your magical choice-finding powers to help my friends, please?
I swear you find the weirdest websites to link to. Sure, let's talk about made up hypotheticals about countries neither of us know anything about. I'm sure that's gonna be such a fruitful endeavor.
In case it wasn't clear, that was sarcasm. No, I'm not gonna pursue this, because there's no point. Even if I were to do weeks of research into Ethiopia to find actual solutions, you'd just do nothing more than move the goal post over and over again, and make up other hypotheticals.
At this point, all I can say is, go fuck yourself, because I don't think you have a honest bone in your body.
econ pol, uspol
@alyx Facebook et al. couldn't do that in a free market. You're seeing network effects: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/economics/what-is-network-effect/ Admin donations are donations, decoupled from use. I'm explaining why it isn't a market; burden of proof is on you now.
Are you receiving value from my attention? ❌ Positive-sum transactions are necessary for a market.
You think publicly-traded companies are happy with leaving profit on the table? They'll do that regardless. 2 is N/A.
The link was a separate point.
tangent
@alyx Incidentally, the thing about my friends was supposed to be real. I sincerely doubt your ability to find options where I believe none exist, but if you *can*, that could actually save a lot of lives.
re: econ pol, uspol
econ pol, uspol
@dawsonford @alyx I don't. Free markets are great! But they're also much rarer than many seem to think. The world would be a utopia if we had a free market optimised for our values. Unfortunately, I can't comprehend of a way to make that happen, and I have a feeling it's logically impossible (absent a benevolent omnipotent dictator).
econ pol, uspol
@alyx @pasture You point to differences. Only immigration seems relevant, but I don't understand its argument.
The free market doesn't create nor sustain itself: https://pluralistic.net/2020/10/02/chickenized-by-arise/#arise
I didn't say how, but surely *not starving* is a human right. Some people have no choice but to live in debt their whole lives in order not to die, meaning they aren't free to consider the job-switching required for the wage to be market-governed.
What bad effects would minimum wage cause?