The rich pay their "fair share"...

[Seth]

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

So what if they are? It's their company. They invested the money, time and talent to create it, it's their time, money and talent that's at risk, and it's their right to run it as they please. If employees don't like that, they can find work elsewhere or start their own competing business by banding together to capitalize it.

A business owner owes no debt whatsoever to any potential employee. They are worth what they are worth and not a penny more, and if they accept the contract for their labor offered by the employer, then they are getting paid exactly what they value their labor as being worth. They have no right to expect or demand more than that.

There is no "right to work" that imposes any burden on anyone to employ any particular individual. All a "right to work" means is that they cannot be denied a job if it's offered to them, or if they wish to create one for themselves.

Life doesn't come with any guarantees. Get over it.

[Seth]

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.

They do occur. They occur every time the minimum wage is increased, and the victims are almost universally disadvantaged urban youth trying to enter the workforce for the first time. Why would a burger joint hire an unskilled youth with no work history for $15 an hour when he can instead hire a skilled employee with a verifiable and relevant work history for the same amount?

Since you obviously don't know it, I'll remind you that minimum-wage jobs are almost all entry-level positions and less than 5 percent of new entry-level employees remain at minimum wage 12 months after being hired. Virtually everyone but the newest of the new get minimum wage.

They get entry-level wages because it costs more to train them and supervise them as they learn first-time basic job skills than they are really worth, even at the prevailing minimum wage. Most new workers ought to be working as unpaid interns for at least two or three months just to learn the basic skills they need to even be offered a paying job.

If you force employers to pay a higher wage than the person is worth, they won't hire that person, they will find someone else who has the relevant experience that they don't have to send to basic training first.

And that means that black urban youth anxious and eager to enter the workforce and bring themselves out of poverty and dependence are simply fucked...unless, as many entry level employers do, they hire unskilled new workers and invest (and risk) the costs of training in hopes of creating skilled, valuable, loyal employees for the future. That's called "rational self-interest" don't you see?

[pErvinalia]

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

So what if they are? It's their company. They invested the money, time and talent to create it, it's their time, money and talent that's at risk, and it's their right to run it as they please. If employees don't like that, they can find work elsewhere or start their own competing business by banding together to capitalize it.

A business owner owes no debt whatsoever to any potential employee. They are worth what they are worth and not a penny more, and if they accept the contract for their labor offered by the employer, then they are getting paid exactly what they value their labor as being worth. They have no right to expect or demand more than that.

There is no "right to work" that imposes any burden on anyone to employ any particular individual. All a "right to work" means is that they cannot be denied a job if it's offered to them, or if they wish to create one for themselves.

Life doesn't come with any guarantees. Get over it.

Learn to fucking read and debate properly.

[piscator]

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

So what if they are? It's their company. They invested the money, time and talent to create it, it's their time, money and talent that's at risk, and it's their right to run it as they please..

The employees have also invested their time, money, and talent. It's their business too.

[Seth]

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

So what if they are? It's their company. They invested the money, time and talent to create it, it's their time, money and talent that's at risk, and it's their right to run it as they please..

The employees have also invested their time, money, and talent. It's their business too.

No, it's not. They are paid the price they agreed on for every quantum of labor they input, off the top, guaranteed by law. They have absolutely no ownership interest at all, unless the owner offers it to them, and they take no risks because their wages must be paid no matter what.

If they worked without being paid a wage under a contract that provided them with a percentage of ownership, then they would be part owners.

[Seth]

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

So what if they are? It's their company. They invested the money, time and talent to create it, it's their time, money and talent that's at risk, and it's their right to run it as they please. If employees don't like that, they can find work elsewhere or start their own competing business by banding together to capitalize it.

A business owner owes no debt whatsoever to any potential employee. They are worth what they are worth and not a penny more, and if they accept the contract for their labor offered by the employer, then they are getting paid exactly what they value their labor as being worth. They have no right to expect or demand more than that.

There is no "right to work" that imposes any burden on anyone to employ any particular individual. All a "right to work" means is that they cannot be denied a job if it's offered to them, or if they wish to create one for themselves.

Life doesn't come with any guarantees. Get over it.

Learn to fucking read and debate properly.

You first...

[mistermack]

The thing about libertarianism is that virtually nobody wants it. People like Seth can and will argue till they are blue in the face, but the proof is there on view for all to see.
It's like communism. It could be great, if it wasn't for humans. Communism need some kind of angel to make it work. Libertarianism needs automatons, like ants, where the individual doesn't matter and can be discarded and replaced as soon as they have no market value.

Given free and fair elections, neither system gets chosen. Not for long, anyway. They can only survive by compulsion, with communism, or in poverty so extreme that it's dog eat dog for libertarianism.

[piscator]

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

So what if they are? It's their company. They invested the money, time and talent to create it, it's their time, money and talent that's at risk, and it's their right to run it as they please..

The employees have also invested their time, money, and talent. It's their business too.

No, it's not. They are paid the price they agreed on for every quantum of labor they input, off the top, guaranteed by law. They have absolutely no ownership interest at all, unless the owner offers it to them, and they take no risks because their wages must be paid no matter what.

If they worked without being paid a wage under a contract that provided them with a percentage of ownership, then they would be part owners.

Part owners of what? Without employees, you have no chicken plant, just truckloads of live cluckers arriving every day. See how impressed those chickens are with your authoritarianism...See how impressed your contractors are with your breach, since now you can't take delivery of the biddies you contracted to buy, and they have to kill thousands of chickens they just spent their own $$ to raise. Not to mention your contract shipper, who now has 21 trucks laying by, their drivers collecting unemployment because you can't hold up your end of your contract to ship your processed chicken... ... ... ...Your lawyer probably works cheap though...

[Seth]

The thing about libertarianism is that virtually nobody wants it.

That's what's so insidious and evil about Marxism. It appeals to the dependent class and it discourages rational thought or analysis of the consequences of trying to get something for nothing. Everything is all unicorn farts and fairy dust right up until the OPM runs out, and then the whole thing collapses into anarchy and death, as it's doing in Argentina and Venezuela right now, and as it's about to in Greece, which will turn into Venezuela because in the five years since the austerity programs were implemented, private capital has almost entirely vanished from Greece. The debt is now wholly owned by the ECB and other government entities, so when it all collapses the private sector won't suffer much harm at all, which means there will be no clamor for a bailout by capital investors. Greece will fall into failed-state poverty as it repudiates its debts and it will be ejected from the EU and will be utterly unable to borrow money from anyone, just like Argentina and Venezuela.

And it will go to shit for the next 50 years, or until it rids itself of Marxism.

People like Seth can and will argue till they are blue in the face, but the proof is there on view for all to see.

Yup, people are stupid and gullible and will Marxize themselves into economic destruction because they've been trained not to look beyond the end of their own noses.

It's like communism. It could be great, if it wasn't for humans. Communism need some kind of angel to make it work. Libertarianism needs automatons, like ants, where the individual doesn't matter and can be discarded and replaced as soon as they have no market value.

Well, that's just nonsense. You're describing Marxism, not Libertarianism.

Given free and fair elections, neither system gets chosen. Not for long, anyway. They can only survive by compulsion, with communism, or in poverty so extreme that it's dog eat dog for libertarianism.

Yes, it's a dismal future we face as a result of Marxist propaganda and indoctrination, but in the end all will end up at Libertarianism because it must...admittedly with a much, much smaller global population, but it's inevitable. A hard road to freedom, but still inevitable because unlike true wealth, OPM is finite.

[Seth]

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

So what if they are? It's their company. They invested the money, time and talent to create it, it's their time, money and talent that's at risk, and it's their right to run it as they please..

The employees have also invested their time, money, and talent. It's their business too.

No, it's not. They are paid the price they agreed on for every quantum of labor they input, off the top, guaranteed by law. They have absolutely no ownership interest at all, unless the owner offers it to them, and they take no risks because their wages must be paid no matter what.

If they worked without being paid a wage under a contract that provided them with a percentage of ownership, then they would be part owners.

Part owners of what? Without employees, you have no chicken plant, just truckloads of live cluckers arriving every day.

Exactly! Very good, you got it very quickly, I'm impressed. You've just described the power of the labor class quite succinctly.

Labor is a marketplace, just like any other commodity. Supply and demand drive value and competition is more fierce the more complex the task to be accomplished because a smaller pool of workers are qualified to do that work.

When there is a glut of unskilled workers, some will go without work. That's actually a good thing because it keeps the market balanced. When unemployment drops below about 5%, the demand exceeds the supply and the price for the supply goes up, sometimes substantially, and employers will hire unqualified people in order to try to get the work done. The classic case is the fast-food labor market. When demand for workers is high, more and more unqualified entry-level workers are hired as the employer tries to keep the doors open. That's when you get shitty service, sullen attitudes and lugis in your taco. When the labor market is glutted with low-wage employees, bad or marginal employees can be fired and better employees hired, which improves service, which improves profits, which allows the employer to pay his skilled employees more.

When you impose a minimum wage in a glutted labor market, those with lesser skills lose out because there are so many more qualified applicants available.

And as you note, no business can operate if it has no employees working, which means that the employer is obliged, out of his own rational self-interest, to pay a wage that will satisfy his workers and prevent them from quitting or going on strike. This is where collective bargaining keeps the "rapaciousness" of employers in check. Treat employees badly and pay them inadequately and they quit working for you and seek employment elsewhere.

But when the demands for increased wages reach the point that the employer can no longer make a profit or pay his bills, then labor has to compromise or face dissolution of the company and loss of ALL income.

It's a dynamic balance created by supply and demand, just like any other commodity in a free market environment.

Does this mean that some employees won't make as much as they like? Of course it does. But that's their fault, not the employer's fault. They need to make themselves more valuable to the labor market in order to command higher wages.

[piscator]

Labor is a marketplace, just like any other commodity. ...Strawmen. Just so stories. Shifted goalposts. Etc...

Here's your problem: Labor is not a commodity. Labor is people.

Key Difference: It might be convenient for some people to speak of "Labor" as a quantity of liquid or a simple cost item to offshore, but pop off to the wrong employee and see if you don't get slapped.

[pErvinalia]

It's patently ridiculous that Seth is accusing others of strawmen and goalpost shifts. That's his entire MO. The Marxist strawman (among a host of others) and goalpost shift like he just did with me when he gets caught out saying something patently idiotic like 'employers don't have the power advantage over employees'.

[Seth]

Labor is a marketplace, just like any other commodity. ...Strawmen. Just so stories. Shifted goalposts. Etc...

Here's your problem: Labor is not a commodity. Labor is people.

Wrong. Labor is the input of force to a specific purpose. Industrial robots perform labor. Humans perform labor. Guide dogs perform labor. Circus animals perform labor.

Labor is absolutely a commodity. Suppliers supply it as consumers demand it. People who produce no labor are not "labor," they are non-productive people.

Key Difference: It might be convenient for some people to speak of "Labor" as a quantity of liquid or a simple cost item to offshore, but pop off to the wrong employee and see if you don't get slapped.

It's not the market's problem that some employees have an over-inflated idea of the value of their labor as a commodity.

[Seth]

It's patently ridiculous that Seth is accusing others of strawmen and goalpost shifts. That's his entire MO. The Marxist strawman (among a host of others) and goalpost shift like he just did with me when he gets caught out saying something patently idiotic like 'employers don't have the power advantage over employees'.

They don't, any more than employees have a power advantage over employers. It's a marketplace. The employer cannot succeed in the marketplace without the employee, and the employee cannot succeed in the marketplace without the employer.

The resulting contract between the employer and the employee represents a balance between the competing needs of each. That a particular worker may not have the skill set, or a qualified skill set that the employer needs doesn't mean the employer has "power over" the worker, it just means that the worker is the wrong fit for the job and must look elsewhere for a better fit.

[pErvinalia]

It's patently ridiculous that Seth is accusing others of strawmen and goalpost shifts. That's his entire MO. The Marxist strawman (among a host of others) and goalpost shift like he just did with me when he gets caught out saying something patently idiotic like 'employers don't have the power advantage over employees'.

They don't, any more than employees have a power advantage over employers. It's a marketplace. The employer cannot succeed in the marketplace without the employee, and the employee cannot succeed in the marketplace without the employer.

The resulting contract between the employer and the employee represents a balance between the competing needs of each. That a particular worker may not have the skill set, or a qualified skill set that the employer needs doesn't mean the employer has "power over" the worker, it just means that the worker is the wrong fit for the job and must look elsewhere for a better fit.

Of course they have power over the worker. The worker is negotiating from a position of weakness compared to the employer who has heaps of potential workers to choose from. The job seeker doesn't have heaps of potential jobs to choose from, so they clearly have less power in this relationship. Basic supply and demand dictates the power balance. I thought you said you understood supply and demand.