The rich pay their "fair share"...

[pErvinalia]

Seth, in civilised countries with industrial relations laws designed to protect workers from rapacious employers, there are minimum wages set by independent tribunals which mean that the poorest workers are not exploited to the hilt by greedy capitalist scum.

So who needs a fucking union? Nobody, that's who.

Unions are the reason we have those laws.

And don't give me that tired crap about how minimum wages drive up prices and push unemployment queues.

It does.

Reality disagrees with you. But that's never stopped you I guess...

I don't see the economies of countries who believe in a fair go for the lowest paid workers falling in a heap - most have, per head of population, better economies that yours... Workers spend money on goods, you see...

Then why not raise the minimum wage to $150 per hour, or $200, or $1000? After all, it can't drive prices up and cause unemployment, right?

Typical conservative false dilemma. The fact that there is a happy medium doesn't detract from the fact that you are wrong.

Figure that one out, Einstein.

[/quote]

Don't need to be Einstein to figure it out. It's simple.

[pErvinalia]

Marx called it exploitation of labour. Your stocks, rents etc. were acquired one way and another through the labour of others (in classical Marxist theory). The rich own the means of production and exploit the labour of others in the process of acquiring more wealth. They seem to be doing pretty well at it right now.

If the employer pays the employee an agreed-upon wage for that labor, how is the worker being "exploited?"

The worker is at a power disadvantage.

He's a commodity in a marketplace. The more he's worth, the better his chances of having his skills purchased by an employer. The more rare and valuable his skills are, the higher the wage he can command as employers compete with one another to gain access to his skills.

Gold is valuable because it's rare. Granite is only valuable in certain forms. Sandstone isn't worth much at all, and river rock is pretty much worthless.

If you want a higher wage, turn yourself from river rock to gold. If you don't care to do this, then you're as worthless as river rock and therefore shouldn't expect to bring more on the open market.

Absolutely none of that changes the fact that the (potential) employee, in most cases, is at a power disadvantage to the employer.

[pErvinalia]

Going by that summary, the standard for being a professor at UCLA is incredibly low.

He claims to be qualified in economics, but he throws around words like ''earn'' without any definition at all. He makes no distinction between receiving income, and earning income.

Talking about fair shares, without exploring how the money was acquired, is moronic.

I've never done an hour's study of economics, but even I can see that there's a difference between earning, and acquiring.

Depends on how you define "earning." Marx's definition doesn't include investment risk (rent seeking) as "labor" and therefore any such income is "unearned" therefore illegitimate and therefore exploitative of the workers in the factory. And that's the single, slender, fallacious reed upon which his entire philosophy, and the philosophy of every Marxist who has come after him, rests.

It's FAR less arbitrary than using a pretty symmetry as the basis for defining "fairness".

Not really. There is no rational or logical argument that supports Marx's definition beyond class warfare rhetoric, greed, envy and jealousy.

At least a pretty symmetry has a mathematical foundation.

And what, pray tell, is the mathematical foundation for fairness hidden in a simplistic pattern?

[pErvinalia]

Why should there be a difference? If I acquire money through rents, stock dividends, or inheritance is that somehow less moral or ethical than earning money by digging ditches?

The question was about fairness of taxation, not morality or ethics.
I think it's perfectly fair for someone who earns billions through investments to pay higher rates than someone who shovels shit.

Why is it "perfectly fair?" As long as each pays for the benefits and amenities of society that each uses, why does the rich person have to pay more than someone else for each "quantum" of public benefits?

Why is an arbitrary pretty symmetry "fair", Seth? Answer your own conundrums before asking others to answer theirs.

Because if I consume quanta X of service A, and you consume quanta X of service A, there is no logical or rational reason why I should be required to pay more for that consumption than you do.

That's not what the OP says, dolt. Perhaps you should reread it again.

[pErvinalia]

If the employer pays the employee an agreed-upon wage for that labor, how is the worker being "exploited?"

When there is a surplus of labour (which is most often the case), and if the wage paid is a pittance compared to the value the employer gets from selling the goods, and if the wage earner is barely able to support a family in a state of poverty, then I call it exploitation.

Then the worker needs to improve his or her skill set to make them worth more to the employer, or find another employer.

As I said, you simply don't understand labour relations. Jim stated the pertinent point (that I could have stated, but didn't bother as I knew it would make no difference to your response) that being "when there is a surplus of labour". You don't just go and "find another employer" when you are on the outnumbered side of the equation.

Now you're misinterpreting the laws of supply and demand. If you can't find another job in field X, which pays wage Y because there are too many other people qualified to do the job, then improve your skill set so that you qualify to work in field W, which pays wage Y2.

And those who can't do that, for whatever reason (most notably being too poor to skill up), they all of a sudden aren't exploited any more?? Now you are misinterpreting logic.

The power lies with the employers,

No, the power lies with skilled employees.

Bullshit. There's only a small fraction of the labour market where there are labour shortages. So in the majority of cases where there is no labour shortage, those potential employees are at a power disadvantage to employers.

as employees will often need to take a job no matter how shocking the conditions as they need the money to literally survive.

Therefore, one should obtain the highest and best set of skills that one is capable of, in order to be more valuable to an employer and thus more rare and desirable in the workforce marketplace.

Once again, this doesn't address the point at hand. This will only ever be a small subset of the total labour market. You'll argue some bollocks that it isn't, but it literally can't be, as there are more jobseekers than job vacancies in total. So this option is clearly not available to everyone, even if was actually physically available to everyone.

The employer isn't in that situation as they have many potential employees to choose from.

And they must select not only the employee who is the best fit for the job in terms of cost versus productivity, but they must pay them according to their skill set lest a valuable trained, skilled and experienced employee defect and go to a higher-paying employer.

Supply and demand, pure and simple. Rarity increases market value.

Yet again, this doesn't address the point at hand. Is it too much to ask that you could learn to fucking read?

as I know you are just going to repeat the same shite again in total ignorance of what Jim and I are trying to explain to you. (Or alternatively you'll give another one of your usual responses "life ain't fair, get used to it", which is response totally devoid of anything other than rhetoric).

You see workers as infantile, disable, powerless and helpless against rapacious employers who must be brought under the omnibenevolent wings of a labor union because they are too fucking stupid and simple to look out for themselves. Patronizing asshole.

No, Seth, I understand logic and mathematics. It's the part of supply and demand that you don't seem to get. When there are more job seekers than jobs, then supply and demand forces favour the job providers. It's basic maths and logic, which you've comprehensively shown you know fuck all about.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

If it is true that imposing a higher minimum wage does not cause job loss and higher prices, then why can't the government simply raise the minimum wage to some arbitrary high level that provides a comfortable income to everyone?

Please explain the math involved.

Do you really think that countries that have minimum wage have no constraints on how high that wage should be? Clearly, there is a range of possible minimum wages, and some serious economists (i.e. not libertarians or marxists) will analyse the consequences of a given minimum wage, and the independent tribunal makes a decision. How this could ever result in such wages rising to any arbitrary level is a patent absurdity, only conceivable by absolutists locked into a fantasy paradigm of economic modelling.

Sorry if I've used words with too many letters...

[Seth]

Because gambling isn't work, in the way that other work is.

Ever bet the farm on one hand of poker? It'll make you sweat just like you lugged a hundred pound sack of potatoes to the top of the Empire State Building.

It's no more work to bet a million, than to bet a pound.

First you have to have a million, and that takes work,

Orly? Luck of inheritance doesn't play any part?

Somebody worked to create that wealth. It doesn't just appear out of nowhere. If I want to give my kids the benefit of my labor instead of using it myself, that's my right, and theirs.

[Seth]

Because if I consume quanta X of service A, and you consume quanta X of service A, there is no logical or rational reason why I should be required to pay more for that consumption than you do.

That's not what the OP says, dolt. Perhaps you should reread it again.

Evasion. Answer the question, fuckwit.

[Seth]

Now you're misinterpreting the laws of supply and demand. If you can't find another job in field X, which pays wage Y because there are too many other people qualified to do the job, then improve your skill set so that you qualify to work in field W, which pays wage Y2.

And those who can't do that, for whatever reason (most notably being too poor to skill up), they all of a sudden aren't exploited any more?? Now you are misinterpreting logic.

And they should be paid more than they are worth why, exactly?

The power lies with the employers,

No, the power lies with skilled employees.

Bullshit. There's only a small fraction of the labour market where there are labour shortages. So in the majority of cases where there is no labour shortage, those potential employees are at a power disadvantage to employers.

You like cheap beer, right?

as employees will often need to take a job no matter how shocking the conditions as they need the money to literally survive.

Therefore, one should obtain the highest and best set of skills that one is capable of, in order to be more valuable to an employer and thus more rare and desirable in the workforce marketplace.

Once again, this doesn't address the point at hand. This will only ever be a small subset of the total labour market. You'll argue some bollocks that it isn't, but it literally can't be, as there are more jobseekers than job vacancies in total. So this option is clearly not available to everyone, even if was actually physically available to everyone.

Nobody said life is fair, or easy. But when you tax away the wealth of those who have capital with which they could create a new company to employ more people, they don't have that capital because it's been diluted into the dependent class and so no factory gets built, no factory gets upgraded or improved, no new products are developed and nobody has a new job to work in.

The employer isn't in that situation as they have many potential employees to choose from.

And they must select not only the employee who is the best fit for the job in terms of cost versus productivity, but they must pay them according to their skill set lest a valuable trained, skilled and experienced employee defect and go to a higher-paying employer.

Supply and demand, pure and simple. Rarity increases market value.

Yet again, this doesn't address the point at hand. Is it too much to ask that you could learn to fucking read?

The point at hand is that the rich pay far more than their fair share by way of taxes. They pay almost all of the revenues government collects.

as I know you are just going to repeat the same shite again in total ignorance of what Jim and I are trying to explain to you. (Or alternatively you'll give another one of your usual responses "life ain't fair, get used to it", which is response totally devoid of anything other than rhetoric).

You see workers as infantile, disable, powerless and helpless against rapacious employers who must be brought under the omnibenevolent wings of a labor union because they are too fucking stupid and simple to look out for themselves. Patronizing asshole.

No, Seth, I understand logic and mathematics. It's the part of supply and demand that you don't seem to get. When there are more job seekers than jobs, then supply and demand forces favour the job providers. It's basic maths and logic, which you've comprehensively shown you know fuck all about.

Supply and demand. What you're saying is that everyone is entitled to a job whether there's work for them or not, and that employers must be forced to pay them what the employee "needs," regardless of how that affects the company, simply because the employer is "able" to do so in your communistic opinion.

And you say you're not a Marxist...Pshaw! You're as red as they come. You might as well fly the hammer and sickle.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

If it is true that imposing a higher minimum wage does not cause job loss and higher prices, then why can't the government simply raise the minimum wage to some arbitrary high level that provides a comfortable income to everyone?

Please explain the math involved.

Do you really think that countries that have minimum wage have no constraints on how high that wage should be?

That's only an admission that minimum wage laws DO cause job loss and increase prices.

Clearly, there is a range of possible minimum wages, and some serious economists (i.e. not libertarians or marxists) will analyse the consequences of a given minimum wage, and the independent tribunal makes a decision.

There is no such thing as an "independent tribunal." By it's very nature any such "tribunal" is entirely politically motivated because the math is quite simple: increase the minimum wage, decrease job opportunities for low-level and entry-level workers and increase prices.

How this could ever result in such wages rising to any arbitrary level is a patent absurdity, only conceivable by absolutists locked into a fantasy paradigm of economic modelling.

Precisely correct. Thanks for confirming my thesis that minimum wages destroy job opportunities and raise prices.

Sorry if I've used words with too many letters...

You did just fine, thanks. You proved beyond any doubt that minimum wages have nothing whatever to do with economics and everything to do with politics, which is exactly what I said. Thanks!

[pErvinalia]

Because gambling isn't work, in the way that other work is.

Ever bet the farm on one hand of poker? It'll make you sweat just like you lugged a hundred pound sack of potatoes to the top of the Empire State Building.

It's no more work to bet a million, than to bet a pound.

First you have to have a million, and that takes work,

Orly? Luck of inheritance doesn't play any part?

Somebody worked to create that wealth. It doesn't just appear out of nowhere. If I want to give my kids the benefit of my labor instead of using it myself, that's my right, and theirs.

Goalpost shift noted. You said - "First YOU have to work..", not "First one of your ancestors have to work..."

[pErvinalia]

Because if I consume quanta X of service A, and you consume quanta X of service A, there is no logical or rational reason why I should be required to pay more for that consumption than you do.

That's not what the OP says, dolt. Perhaps you should reread it again.

Evasion. Answer the question, fuckwit.

I'm addressing the OP. You are the one who is wriggling and moving the goalposts. So what is your current definition of fair? The definitions are adding up.

[pErvinalia]

Now you're misinterpreting the laws of supply and demand. If you can't find another job in field X, which pays wage Y because there are too many other people qualified to do the job, then improve your skill set so that you qualify to work in field W, which pays wage Y2.

And those who can't do that, for whatever reason (most notably being too poor to skill up), they all of a sudden aren't exploited any more?? Now you are misinterpreting logic.

And they should be paid more than they are worth why, exactly?

Evasion noted. You claimed that employers don't have more power than employees. I rebutted that. Your reply is unrelated to that point.

The power lies with the employers,

No, the power lies with skilled employees.

Bullshit. There's only a small fraction of the labour market where there are labour shortages. So in the majority of cases where there is no labour shortage, those potential employees are at a power disadvantage to employers.

You like cheap beer, right?

Evasion noted.

as employees will often need to take a job no matter how shocking the conditions as they need the money to literally survive.

Therefore, one should obtain the highest and best set of skills that one is capable of, in order to be more valuable to an employer and thus more rare and desirable in the workforce marketplace.

Once again, this doesn't address the point at hand. This will only ever be a small subset of the total labour market. You'll argue some bollocks that it isn't, but it literally can't be, as there are more jobseekers than job vacancies in total. So this option is clearly not available to everyone, even if was actually physically available to everyone.

Nobody said life is fair, or easy.

Bahahaha! There it is! The idiotic response that I've been waiting for!

I'll tell you what nobody ever said: "Seth replies to rebuttals in a logical and honest manner".

But when you tax away the wealth of those who have capital with which they could create a new company to employ more people, they don't have that capital because it's been diluted into the dependent class and so no factory gets built, no factory gets upgraded or improved, no new products are developed and nobody has a new job to work in.

And this has what to do with your dumb claim that employers don't have more power than potential employees, exactly?!?

The employer isn't in that situation as they have many potential employees to choose from.

And they must select not only the employee who is the best fit for the job in terms of cost versus productivity, but they must pay them according to their skill set lest a valuable trained, skilled and experienced employee defect and go to a higher-paying employer.

Supply and demand, pure and simple. Rarity increases market value.

Yet again, this doesn't address the point at hand. Is it too much to ask that you could learn to fucking read?

The point at hand is that the rich pay far more than their fair share by way of taxes. They pay almost all of the revenues government collects.

No, the point at hand is the direct line of each other's quotes we are responding to. Learn to fucking read.

as I know you are just going to repeat the same shite again in total ignorance of what Jim and I are trying to explain to you. (Or alternatively you'll give another one of your usual responses "life ain't fair, get used to it", which is response totally devoid of anything other than rhetoric).

You see workers as infantile, disable, powerless and helpless against rapacious employers who must be brought under the omnibenevolent wings of a labor union because they are too fucking stupid and simple to look out for themselves. Patronizing asshole.

No, Seth, I understand logic and mathematics. It's the part of supply and demand that you don't seem to get. When there are more job seekers than jobs, then supply and demand forces favour the job providers. It's basic maths and logic, which you've comprehensively shown you know fuck all about.

Supply and demand. What you're saying is that everyone is entitled to a job whether there's work for them or not, and that employers must be forced to pay them what the employee "needs," regardless of how that affects the company, simply because the employer is "able" to do so in your communistic opinion.

Of course I'm not saying that, you fucking troll. Point out where I said that. You can't.

I'm simply rebutting your idiotic claim that employers aren't in a position of power over potential employees. Learn to fucking read.

[pErvinalia]

increase the minimum wage, decrease job opportunities for low-level and entry-level workers and increase prices.

Absolute bullshit. The minimum wage in Australia and Denmark is around twice that of the US. Businesses operate fine here and in all the countries that have higher minimum wages than the barbaric US.

And here's an example from your own neck of the woods - http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/14/15-now-seatac/

[JimC]

increase the minimum wage, decrease job opportunities for low-level and entry-level workers and increase prices.

Absolute bullshit. The minimum wage in Australia and Denmark is around twice that of the US. Businesses operate fine here and in all the countries that have higher minimum wages than the barbaric US.

And here's an example from your own neck of the woods - http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/14/15-now-seatac/

True, but one could also say that if a tribunal gets it wrong, and sets the minimum wage too high, there could start to be some of the consequences Seth mentioned.

It's just that Seth assumes that those consequences automatically occur if employers in the US were forced to even slightly increase the meagre pittance they pay their lowest paid workers.