Minimum wage should be 0.

File: 1499380167315.jpg (46KB, 639x363px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 639x363px

>>139138978
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmNmGEf-gSg

>>139138978
>You don't think unpaid interns would love to work for $2-$3/hr? To bad, can't, if you do, you or your employer is going to jail, suck on it
What is a stipend
You're an unpaid intern simply because labour supply > demand

>no minimum wage in Switzerland
>likely best country in the world, most definitely top 5
hmmmmmmmmm really gets them pistons banging

File: wage-slave.gif (8KB, 250x162px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x162px

>>139138978
>Minimum wage should be 0
Why stop at zero? Why not make people pay for the privilege of working?

>>139138978
>Minimum wage should be 0.
*Minimum wage for non-whites should be 0.

>>139139915

Stop trying to exaggerate a sound suggestion into nonsensical hyperbole

>>139140154
>the only people employed will be pajeets

>>139140154
>Minimum wage for non-whites should be 0.
*maximum

File: 1496814951178.png (89KB, 363x475px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 363x475px

why not make the minimum wage $200?

>>139140243
There's nothing logical about an adult working for $0.

>>139139501
>You're an unpaid intern simply because labour supply > demand

No, that's idiotic, there are lot of jobs where supply > demand, and people who have those jobs are paid very well.

You are unpaid because you are not worth $7.25/hr to the employer, so they have to pay you $0/hr. If we didn't have minimum wages, those interns would be making 1,2, or 3 bucks an hour.

>>139139106
not an argument

>>139139915
Well when I say minimum wage should be zero, I obviously mean get rid of the minimum wage law altogether. If an employee wants to offer someone -$5/hr to work for him, he should be able to do so.

>>139138978
yes lets step back into the dark ages when the working class were less than mechanical parts that should be grateful to even draw breath

>>139139501
>You're an unpaid intern simply because labour supply > demand

wrong

that is the nice squeaky clean cover story
the real reason is because this makes someone more money and they are simply able to do it

same reason for every bit of misery wrought by any system involving money when man's greed is not checked

listen, I got it. we make minumum wage 1 million dollars. everyones a millionare.

>>139140800
Why such emotional responses without even trying to address the argument with reason and evidence?

How do you not get, that what you "feel" is the best thing to do, sometimes is not the best thing to do.

>>139140928
Sure, employees are greedy, and employers are greedy. If that unpaid intern could get a job that pays higher, he wouldn't be an unpaid intern. He is only an intern because he is not worth 7.25 to an employer.

Unpaid intern isn't going to go work for an employer for free, out of the goodness of his heart, just and employer isn't going to employe someone for money than they are worth, out of the goodness of his heart.

>>139138978
bump. +Logic +reason, undeniable
The only caveat is govmnt. should enforce reasonable hours and prevent tricks like company stores.

>>139140800
>If you don't like your wage, you should seek another employer.
>If you want to work for an
amount of money lower than the minimum wage, you should be allowed to.
How's that dark ages?
>>139140928
>they are simply able to do it
And they're able to do it, because there is large supply of labor.
If it wasn't the case, then they would have to compete for employees, instead of employees competing for employers.

>>139140588

Unpaid internships are already legal welcome to america

>>139141351
>Why such emotional responses

various fallacies

>If that unpaid intern could get a job that pays higher, he wouldn't be an unpaid intern.

affirming the disjunct

>He is only an intern because he is not worth 7.25 to an employer.

mankind subjective defines value

>Sure, employees are greedy, and employers are greedy.

so then, lets do this:
>>139140800
sounds grand

>>139141758
>>If you don't like your wage, you should seek
another employer.

false dilemma fallacy

>And they're able to do it, because there is large supply of labor.

no
wrong
they are able to do it because no one stops them

same reason Mao's killing fields happened
still the same thing, just 10 billion x the misery

if charismatic market savvy psychopaths are not put in check they will not care what misery/death they cause and happily cause it for the sake of more money

Bottom line:
all of both of your arguments are just fine except that they never do anything to prevent misery of humankind and infact encourage it, as that is always the way to the most profit for those who find themselves able to place themselves at the top of economic food chains

>>139142397
Maybe there should be a minimum vertical post length.

>>139139915
I dunno stupid shit brain leftist... maybe because he will not come to work?

>>139142695
its fine
you will live

>>139142788
not if you force him at the end of a rifle

>>139142792
Will you force me to live at the end of a rifle?

>>139142993
i will not
but im talking of those that would
mao/stalin/pol pot/ etc

because as he said "people would not come to work" well that is not the end of it for psychopaths would dont give a shit

be it communist, capitalist, or any other manner of psychopath

>>139143177
I thought they would kill me at the end of a rifle. wtf I hate gunfags

>>139139915
I'd pay for the privilege of being a porn actor and fuck hot sluts.

>>139138978
Holy fuck...hello Noseberg.

>>139138978
Good idea.

Putting a "you must be this tall to ride" sign on an amusment park theme doesn't make people taller.

>>139142397
>various fallacies

Not an argument, nor does it justify emotional responses. If i have any fallacies, feel free to point them out, not PMS.

>affirming the disjunct

It's an exclusive or in this case, don't pull stuff out of your ass you don't understand. I have a formal training in logic, maths and philosophy of about 15 years give or take.

You either have a job offer for $10/hr (x)or you have a job offer for $20/hr xor you have a job offer for $30/hr xor etc...
You can only accept one job offer at the same time (if you want to take more than one than just merge + simplify), therefore they are exclusive.

p xor q
if p then not q

>mankind subjective defines value

by value i mean value you produce for your employer, as in a hard number,

>>139144313
Or I should rephrase that as, you either are working for your employer for $x/hr (EXCLUSIVE) or you are working for your employer for $y/hr, you cannot work for the two values at the same time.

therefore
p xor q
if p then not q

>>139140154
How the fuck is a white person supposed to get a job if employers aren't under obligation to offer minorities at least minimum wage?

>>139143177
I don't understand how paying someone the exact value of their labor makes you a totalitarian psychopath who murders people.

>>139144313

>Not an argument,

nor are purely fallacious statements

> nor does it justify emotional responses.

sophistry

> If i have any fallacies,

wikipedia has a list

>
It's an exclusive or in this case, don't pull stuff out of your ass you don't understand. I have a formal training in logic, maths and philosophy of about 15 years give or take.

appeal to authority
appeal to ridicule
holier than thou
etc etc
i.e. none of that immunizes your statements from being fallacies


>You either have a job offer for $10/hr (x)or you have a job offer for $20/hr xor you have a job offer for $30/hr xor etc...

not the issue

>You can only accept one job offer at the same time (if you want to take more than one than just merge + simplify), therefore they are exclusive.

no one said otherwise

>by value i mean value you produce for your employer, as in a hard number,

mankind still decides on that number
the worth of the work, time, etc

>>139144568
missing the point
you are merely describing the status quo

which does too little to prevent misery excused for profit

>>139142397
Let's say that you like eating chocolate.
You buy it for 4$ (idk how much stuff costs in US).
You are happy because you have nice chocolate, the producent of chocolate is happy, because he has your 4$.
Now, one day goverment introduces a minimal price for all goods purchased - 8$. Their argument goes like this - small buisiness is suffering due to small prices and can't make a profit. Let's increase them!
Now you won't buy a chocolate. You like the product, but you won't pay twice as many as before to get it.
Every other customer is doing the same for the same reasons.
Now chocolate companies are threatened to go out of buisiness.
But they have a plan. Give all customers a free 3 year trial, before they pay for their product a minimal price of 8$. Customers could've also influence what exact flavor the chocolate they want, so that chocolate will be worth 8$ for them.
The producents don't like this (giving stuff for free) but it's currently the only way they can make money (unless they respecialize), because demand is too low.
The customers love this, since they get free shit for 3 years.

Same exact thing happens with internships, since an employer is in essence a customer of an employee.
I'm very sorry for an abysmally long post. I'm a faggot and I should feel bad.

>>139145446
>nor are purely fallacious statements

Well no, calling something a fallacy without pointing out how it actually is is not an argument. Otherwise, your post is a fallacy. HAHA I WIN!!!!!111

>sophistry
Again, not an argument. Fallacies don't justify emotional responses.

>no one said otherwise

Glad you conceded that point. So since we established that that's not a fallacy in my argument, do you have anything else, other than ad hominems?

>>139145339
i never said that
i said its on the same scale
one is much much much (^10) more efficient at creating misery, is the only thing

> exact value

who decides this?
Humans.
The fact that the share is greater for bottom class of workers relative to the very beginning of the workers rights movement(or prior) is immaterial, i.e. does not at all mean it is enough.

You, and others, think it is enough, excusing any misery of the people in that class as "acceptable" or "entirely their responsibility" just as the leaders of industry/business/commerce have excused every level and bit of mistreatment/marginalization of them since it was first raised as an issue

their allotment is better, but not yet enough

>>139143422
That's the spirit, anon

>>139145339
People are already paid the exact value of their labor, what are you talking about?

Obviously if a person accepts a job that pays $10/hr, he couldn't find a job that pays $11/hr, otherwise he wouldn't be doing a job that pays $10/hr.

>>139145797
>Well no, calling something a fallacy without pointing out how it actually is is not an argument.

again:
>>nor are purely fallacious statements

therefore i put us back at square one
especially given your expertise identifying them should have been a cakewalk

>Otherwise, your post is a fallacy. HAHA I WIN!!!!!111

and yet, you are the expert

>Again, not an argument. Fallacies don't justify emotional responses.

first of all:
>emotional response
proof by assertion

second:
if emotions didnt matter at all then slavery would never need to have been abolished

> So since we established that that's not a fallacy in my argument,

none in THAT one, not "none in all"
please.

>do you have anything else, other than ad hominems?

dont claim to be an expert and unable to see or not see the most abundant variety

further:
have you anything other than appeal to the status quo? as that is all you have described and substantiated

>>139146015
>People are already paid the exact value of their labor,

>exact value

according to who?
who valued it?
who decided the criteria?
who decided it was immutable, save for "market forces"???

>Obviously if a person accepts a job that pays $10/hr, he couldn't find a job that pays $11/hr,

perhaps, perhaps not
may he values less per hour to work with family, or in a field he more enjoys

many possibilities

>otherwise he wouldn't be doing a job that pays $10/hr.

negative

I do feel I am overpaid at times at my Walmart job. $14/hr, though thsts with over a decade of incremental raises should level that out in my head, but it hard to kick that way of thinking.

yeah ok lets just earn $1 an hour.

>>139146566
no
we should re institute slavery
after all, if they dont like it they can just kill themselves

>>139146634
this debate reached a logical low point.

>>139146753
i was making a point

"well if you dont like then go grow your own food and live in the woods"

oh ok so then if they have ANY choice then it makes it acceptable, no matter how reprehensible.

>>139146566
Nah we should the minimum wage 1000$/hour that way nobody would be poor

>>139146349
>who values the worth of someones labour
Employer influenced by price of commodity or service that is produced, supply and demand of labour, and to lesser extent employee by agreeing to the terms presented.
If you find this unfair, please, anon, enlighten me.
What other forces should decide value of work?

>>139146144
>none in THAT one, not "none in all"
please.

Since the remainder of your post doesn't address or even try to address my actual arguments, i'm just gonna focus on this one.

Again, If you are claiming something is a fallacy, point out how it is or fuck off and shut up. Last chance.

>have you anything other than appeal to the status quo?

I don't see that all. Clarify.

>>139146349
>according to who?
who valued it?
who decided the criteria?

The person accepting the job offer?

>perhaps, perhaps not

No, not perhaps not. If you have two job offers, one for $10/hr and another $11/hr you will take the $11/hr (assuming you don't have any "hidden costs", like longer commute for example, or an area with higher rent, that would negate the extra $1/hr dollar earned).

>may he values less per hour to work with family, or in a field he more enjoys

Okay, so if you have two job offers that fulfill all those conditions and one offers $10/hr and another offers $11/hr, you will take the $11/hr one. You are just trolling with unecessary side issues, without focusing on the actual argument.

>negative

Negative is not an argument.

>>139146566
$1/hr is better than $0/hr. Oh btw this is a funny tid bit. Mentally retarded people ARE NOT subject to minimum wage laws

.Even Congress is not dumb enough that they don't realize that minimum wage is just a barrier to entry, and if you require mentally challenged people to be worth 7.25/hr to their employers, nobody is gonna hire them.

It's simple math, if I'm you produce $5/hr worth of goods for your employer's business. There is no employer in this world that is going to pay you $7/hr, because with ever hour he employs you, he loses $2 dollars (and it's more like $3-$4 due to taxes and regulatory costs).

>>139138978
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/the-evidence-is-clear-increasing-the-minimum-wage-doesnt-cause-unemployment

>>139147726
Please archive it https://unvis.it/theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/the-evidence-is-clear-increasing-the-minimum-wage-doesnt-cause-unemployment

>>139138978
>eliminating minimum wage laws
>unironically advocating for unpaid labor or slavery

This is why the sane world views 4chan as a joke or as dangerous extremists.

>>139147726
Causation doesn't equate to correlation. Just because a town raises minimum and the government measured unemployment doesn't increase, means nothing.

I use a deductive argument to prove how minimum wage law is wrong. In order to disprove a deductive argument, you either have to challenge one of the premises or show that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

>>139147760
Why?

>>139148072
Premise 1: Minimum wage is a law that says "if you don't produce $x/hr worth of value for your employer, you don't work", where x is between $10 and $20 atm (if you include all the taxes and regulatory costs + profit margin).

Premise 2: There are people who produce value that is less than x/hr. We know this because there are people working for $0/hr, and mentally retarded people who work for $2/hr-$3/hr, because they are exempt from the minimum wage law.

Premise 3: You don't have the right to say to those people, "you're don't have the right to work, just because you produce less than $x/hr"

Therefore, minimum wage law needs to go.

File: 5ceaa939d9e306b0d189cfe8b0950174.jpg (254KB, 1125x1397px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1125x1397px

If you want prosperity you automate everything as much as possible to increase the number of goods produced. Minimum wage is a meme to to control the pool of labor at any one moment, increasing or decreasing it only changes the amount of tax being collected by (((currency regulators))).

>Yes goy, increasing the supply of payapa notes will make everybody rich! Don't warry about the supply of goods not growing or shrinking in proportion ta the currency pool!

>>139148435
/pol/ doesn't like making shekels for MSM sites.

>>139138978
t. Mr. Goldbergwitz

>>139149615
not an argument

>>139149253

Speak for yourself. I'm here and I'm just as much /pol/ as you are, and I don't mind the Guardian getting more money for my posting one of their articles here.

Let those who do want to avoid patronizing them do the work to post a unvis.it link -- which they did -- and I'll post links directly to the Guardian if I like.

>>139139915
Boomers unironically say and believe this
>"even though you have a college degree in a first world country and can't find a job in your field because we screwed your sector by allowing pajeet and achmed to take all the jobs, you should be THANKFUL that you can earn $7/hr at your wage cuck Starbucks job!"

>>139139669
Why is food so goddamn expensive in your country? Even domestic cheese is through the roof

>>139150337
Fuck poor people.

>>139150277
And how is getting rid of the minimum wage law, going to affect people working at starbucks? It's not like lowering the barrier to entry is going to decrease their wages, obviously they already have a job, hence they passed the minimum wage barrier to entry.

>>139150495
Fuck rich people.

>>139151040
Minimum wage only benefits the rich people.

>>139151226
Wages only benefit the rich people.

>>139151465
Sure they do. Rich people don't get their income trough wages.

The CEO of google has an annual salary of $1.

>>139151618
Not the CEO, the founder, Larry Page. Forgot that nigger is the CEO now.

Just wanted to jump in this thread. I currently work a crappy job, that had a minimum wage. But I've been there for a few years now so I earn more. The jobs helpin me keep the bills at bay, I'm grateful for that.

Now, I've never heard Peter Schiff before, because of reddit joerogan board said he was a shitty person. But the last couple months I've been upset with my situation in life. My eyes are a bit open toward the mindset of a businessman. And I heard this podcast. I pretty much agree with 90% of the shit he said. One thing I didn't like is the child thing. People have kids, I agree don't have kids, but it just happens.

Sorry I don't have much to add here. I just understand a lot of what he's saying. And I actually have been wanting to move to puerto rico too, I have family there, my uncle lives in dorado beach. I didn't know about all the tax shit, but I have some business ideas, I feel like I could learn spanish and start a life there.

>>139151618
Rich people get/stay rich by paying their employees less than the amount of value they get from the employees' productivity. The difference is quite simply stolen. The institution of employment is a form of slavery.

>>139152180
The same argument he made against butt coin you can say about gold

>>139152420
No they don't.
No it's not.
No it's not. The institution of a state is slavery.

>>139138978
Only if there's a maximum wage and the excess goes back to the public

>>139153544
sure, let's also have a law that make it illegal to have rainfall in excess of 10inches.

Why? fuck you, that's why. I don't need to justify my proposals.

>>139153970
points made: none

>>139153056

>No they don't.

Why would a business pay an employee as much as it gets in productivity from the employee? The whole point of a business is to make a profit. If Joe makes $100 worth of product per hour, the business won't make a profit if they give him $100 for each hour he works. They *have* to give him less than he's worth.

>No it's not.

Elaborate?

>No it's not.

Is too is too is too.

>The institution of a state is slavery.

Agreed. It should one day be abolished. But for now, it's still sometimes the best tool to wield against those who would oppress.

>>139138978
Minimum wage is a political ploy. You're exactly right and that is why they push it.
>establish yourself as fighting for the little guy
>your policy puts him out of a job
>problem is much more observable
>more support
Just ends with more left votes and more public spending to reduce unemployment/higher welfare.

>>139138978
Agreed. Minimum wage saws the bottom rungs off the work ladder.

Look at it this way:
- you can pay to do activities
- you can pay for education
- you can pay for certification testing
- you can volunteer to work for free

Jobs are not strictly exchanges of wages for labor. There are many benefits to being employed, particularly in regards to the potential for future employment.

For example, it used to be that you could go to a factory, auto repair garage, or other workplace with no skills, and they'd pay you some token amount just to sweep the floor and do other little no-skill chores. Then, when the other workers had time, they'd show you how to do other work. Then you'd get a promotion and a pay raise, and gradually climb the ladder to making a respectable living. And that's how you'd get your education not only for free, but you'd make a little money getting it.

It's like seatbelt and crash safety standard laws. How the holy fuck can you be required to wear a seatbelt, and can't buy a car without airbags and crumple zones, but you're allowed to ride a motorcycle?

>>139154066
look who's talking

>>139138978

The state should have not say in the wage, unions should be the ones who force stuff like that.

>>139154066
moron

>>139154119
>Why would a business pay an employee as much as it gets in productivity from the employee?

It wouldn't.

>If Joe makes $100 worth of product per hour, the business won't make a profit if they give him $100 for each hour he works.

Sure, so what's your point?

>They *have* to give him less than he's worth.

Why would anyone be willing to work for someone that is paying him, less than "he's worth"? A job is an economic transaction, for it to be successful it requires the consent of both parties.

>Elaborate?

Voluntary transactions aren't theft, what's there to elaborate?

>Is too is too is too.

Voluntary transactions aren't slavery either.

>>139138978
Minimum Wage is currently 0. No job = No wage.

>>139155037
>Why would anyone be willing to work for someone that is paying him, less than "he's worth"? A job is an economic transaction, for it to be successful it requires the consent of both parties.
That's facile thinking. The wage-dependent laborer didn't consent to become someone with no claim on the bounty of nature, or on the profits from artificial legal abstractions such as intellectual property, rather that's the default condition of anyone who lacks capital, and they can only take the best job option on offer.

It goes back to the most basic problem of unfettered capitalism: if one person or colluding group owns the only source of something needed for survival, how is it different from tyranny? Why should it be any more efficient than a command economy, once someone has achieved an unassailable position from which to deny anyone who does not obey him the necessities of life?

It's terrible philosophical incompetence to confuse a person with a person and their property taken together, or to confuse fruits of labor (arrangements of matter, private contract obligations) with claims on nature (land ownership, ownership of scarce elements) or special government favor (patents, copyright, licenses, fiat money). What a man deserves, and what incomes he can derive from his capital are entirely separate things. For free market trading to be reasonable and fair, the distribution of claims on nature and government favor must first be reasonable and fair (not necessarily equal). Men must have an inalienable claim on the bounty of nature and the freedom to transform it to be in a position to give uncoerced consent to other economic arrangements.

>>139157879
>That's facile thinking.

And that's not an argument.

>The wage-dependent laborer didn't consent to become someone with no claim on the bounty of nature

Everyone has an equal claim on nature. I mean he doesn't have to work, he can go hunting and fishing for his food. The reason why people choose to work, is because trading is easier than hunting and growing your own food.

>or on the profits from artificial legal abstractions such as intellectual property
IP is bullshit, no arguments here.

>and they can only take the best job option on offer.
Okay, and? What's the problem? "I can only date the best girl I can get, it's not fair some people are born with better looks! The government should force models to sleep with me at least once a month"

I mean if that job is the best you can do, then you should be happy for even having it in the first place. What the fuck do you actually want from society?

>It goes back to the most basic problem of unfettered capitalism: if one person or colluding group owns the only source of something needed for survival, how is it different from tyranny?

Oh okay, so you are against the government owning all of the roads then? Not to mention your scenario is pretty much impossible in the free market.

>It's terrible philosophical incompetence to confuse a person with a person and their property taken together

Yawn, philosophical incompetence is not an argument.

>What a man deserves, and what incomes he can derive from his capital are entirely separate things.

Sure, I deserve a hot model girlfriend. If a guy has a job for $10/hr, that means he couldn't find a job at $11/hr (assuming all other conditions equal), therefore he deserves $10/hr. He might have an ego, and think he deserves $15/hr, however if he did deserve that, then he'd making it - either by being self employed, or working for someone else.

>>139138978
>unpaid interns would love to work for $2-$3/hr?
actually we should ban "unpaid interns" just pay them you cheap kikes. If there was no minimum wage, employers would pay as little as possible. That's not fair. You need a worker? Then pay them decently.

>>139159834
Unpaid interns are already banned. You cant legally use unpaid interns if they are doing something that generates money. The common loophole is political campaigns like what Killary was doing.

>>139159986
I've heard of plenty of non-political unpaid interns...

>>139138978
You watched the Joe Rogan Podcast w/ Peter Schiff didn't you?

>>139159834
>actually we should ban "unpaid interns" just pay them you cheap kikes

Then, they would just be jobless, instead of being unpaid interns. What's the point of that?

>If there was no minimum wage, employers would pay as little as possible.

Employer's already pay everyone as little as possible. Why would an employer pay more than they employee is willing to accept?

>That's not fair
And me not having a model girlfriend isn't fair. Let's force models to sleep with me, once a month. Life isn't fair, get over it. Some people are born with better looks, some people are born with more money, some people are born with better intellect.

>You need a worker? Then pay them decently.
Have you actually ever employed someone. You do realize you cant just pay them, whatever you want, right?

>>139160102
Show examples. It is a very clear violation of federal law. I know its a common idea to talk about unpaid interns but they dont exist in business.

>>139160147
I hate this idea that people who sit in an office chair all day behind a computer believe they are more skilled and deserving of more money than someone slaving away in a factory all day. Labor is way harder than office work. Anyone can do office work with some basic training.

>>139139915
Isn't that what taxes are for?

The concept of minimum wage is as harmful and can be equated to the practice of rent control.

>>139150169
How do you type around such a huge schnozz?

>>139160407
Do you know how to design the machines that are used by unskilled labor in factories?

>>139160407
>I hate this idea that people who sit in an office chair all day behind a computer believe they are more skilled and deserving of more money than someone slaving away in a factory all day

Stop it with the marxist bullshit, please. Yes they are worth more, because they produce more economic value.

>Anyone can do office work with some basic training.

That's idiotically not true, because price of labor is a function of demand and supply. If everyone could do "office work" with basic training, then they wouldn't be paid more than manual labors.

>>139138978

Imagine if minimum wage was 0, you could skip University and go straight to gaining valuable experience in a JOB you like I stead of accumilation so much debt.

Can't have good things, can we? It would be too fucking good to be true.

>>139142839
I would hate to work for that place. Could you tell me the name of the of place so I could avoid it like the plague?

>>139160366
There are plenty of unpaid interns in media, radio stations, newspapers, in fashion, in large companies, all over the place.

Have you actually gone out into the real world. Like have you been an agent of the free market for more than a day?

>>139145669
You may be a faggot but at least you're a smart and sensible faggot. 10 points to Pole Land.

>>139160282
>Then, they would just be jobless, instead of being unpaid interns. What's the point of that?
The point is that I don't believe greedy fuckers should exploit desperate people for free work.
>Employer's already pay everyone as little as possible. Why would an employer pay more than they employee is willing to accept?
They wouldn't, that's why the government has to force them to.
>And me not having a model girlfriend isn't fair. Let's force models to sleep with me, once a month. Life isn't fair, get over it. Some people are born with better looks, some people are born with more money, some people are born with better intellect.
I actually agree that beautiful women should be forced into sexual servitude. However there needs to be a baseline amount of dignity afforded to every US citizen, we don't have to all be billionaires but there shouldn't be any slums.
>Have you actually ever employed someone. You do realize you cant just pay them, whatever you want, right?
Yes I have and Yes I just paid them whatever the hell I wanted. It's very arbitrary deciding what to pay someone, and you always try to aim as low as possible to keep the most money in your own pocket.

I don't think it's right to exploit workers because the vast majority of workers aren't hustlers who can negotiate payrates like most employers are.

>>139160532
>implying, using sterotypes, that they're jewish

File: [1464164632538.png (476KB, 770x776px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 770x776px

name 3 jobs that no longer exist because minimum wage made them unprofitable

if you succeed I will reward you with more cute anime girls

>>139160608
Do you know how to design the computers/software that office cucks vigorously type away on?

>>139161311
Yes I do. That is my point. It takes more than "some basic training" to do engineering/design office work. I have the dumb the shit down enough so that you dont come in with a hangover and chop half of your arm off.

>>139160963
I think its you. I have done internships where they employers explained to me how it was illegal. I was as surprised as you. After I got past the confirmation bias and read the law I realized what I previously thought wasnt true.

>>139159218
>>That's facile thinking.
>And that's not an argument.
>Yawn, philosophical incompetence is not an argument.
When an explanation follows the objection, that's an argument, you trash.

>Everyone has an equal claim on nature.
What fresh idiocy is this? Some people own hundreds of square miles of farmland, they own oilfields and mines, they own blocks of land in the middle of cities, etc. Those are claims on nature, rights to exclusive use of things that existed before man. Most people these days are considered to have done rather well in life if by the end of their careers, they own a tiny patch of land to live on, that they must pay heavy property taxes on.

>I mean he doesn't have to work, he can go hunting and fishing for his food.
Hunting and fishing are regulated activities. People aren't just free to go and do whatever hunting and fishing they like. They regulate the means of sport hunting and fishing to keep them economically inefficient so they can only be undertaken as recreational activities. Commercial hunting has been practically eliminated and commercial fishing is all about licenses and quotas.

Like most ancaps, you're not basing your reasoning on the real world, you're arguing from the assumption of a weird idealized fantasy land.

>>139160743
Office workers don't produce much economic value. Most of them are just sitting there all day browsing facebook. It's really a joke. Labor is cheaper because labor is hard and looked down upon and so only felons do it. The vast majority of high paid jobs are paid higher due to privilege not because it's more difficult.

>>139160407
>Anyone can do office work with some basic training.
Administrative work and purchasing, yes. This requires little formal education

Other office jobs provide in depth analysis, scheduling, planning, etc that have a huge impact to the business.

>>139161552
Being an engineer is completely different. That is a hard job. I'm talking about people who just sit in an office all day or get paid to sit around and look important. Fuck those people.

>>139161088
>The point is that I don't believe greedy fuckers should exploit desperate people for free work.

Two voluntary people on the planet, decide to make a voluntary transaction, you come in guns blazing and say "fuck you, not happening, one of you, or both of you are going to jail". The only person exploiting someone in this picture is you.

>They wouldn't, that's why the government has to force them to.

No you dimwit. Employer pays as little as he can, and employer tries to get as much as he can. Employer doesn't get to chose to pay his employer whatever he wants, in what fucking fantasy do you life? This is fucking getting annoying, seriously.

>I actually agree that beautiful women should be forced into sexual servitude.
Then you are amoral asshole.

>However there needs to be a baseline amount of dignity afforded to every US citizen, we don't have to all be billionaires but there shouldn't be any slums.

Best way to get rid of the slums, is to let STOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM RUNNING EVERY ASPECT OF THE FUCKING SLAMS from education, to work, to income, to welfare, to planning, to housing, to food.

>Yes I have and Yes I just paid them whatever the hell I wanted. It's very arbitrary deciding what to pay someone, and you always try to aim as low as possible to keep the most money in your own pocket.

And your employees accepted your offers, so what's the fucking problem?

>I don't think it's right to exploit workers because the vast majority of workers aren't hustlers who can negotiate payrates like most employers are.

And some people aren't good when it comes to talking to girls. Let's force women to sleep with akward guys.

>>139161223
>name 3 jobs that no longer exist because minimum wage made them unprofitable
Sure.
Gas station worker - it's self service now mostly.
Telephone customer service operator - it's either machine or a poo in loo now.
Milk delivery man - way too unprofitable now.

>>139162052
>Milk delivery man - way too unprofitable now.
I enjoyed having a milkman, it was a sense of quaintness.

Another reason milkmen died out is that we were invaded by brown people who are all lactose intolerant.

>>139161876
I sit in an office all day. Im trying to get you to realize how fucking stupid you sound. I worked in a factory in college. We did plenty of sitting around.

>>139161876
I agree with the latter half of your statement. There are also engineers that coast by on others. We have one in our office, that, if I were his manager, would be gone in an instant.

As an Engineer, I don't agree with the first part of your statement. It's not a hard job, it just requires concentration which most people lack.

>>139162370
He's not retarded. You are retarded for not realising that there are worthless fucks on both sides of the division.

>>139161606
>When an explanation follows the objection, that's an argument, you trash.

You're a moron. Use deductive reasoning. Instead of starting from conclusion and trying to justify it however you can, start from first principles and come to a conclusion.

See how annoying calling you a moron, before the actual argument is?

>What fresh idiocy is this?
Again? Fuck off and learn to present an argument.

>Some people own hundreds of square miles of farmland, they own oilfields and mines, they own blocks of land in the middle of cities, etc.
And? Some people are born better looking, therefore the government needs to force better looking people to sleep with ugly ones. Some people are born with more money, GET THE FUCK OVER IT. That doesn't mean we get to steal their money.

>Hunting and fishing are regulated activities. People aren't just free to go and do whatever hunting and fishing they like.
Yes, a fucking McDonalds is regulating them from hunting and fishing, right? Free market is coming up with fucking fishing quotas?

>Like most ancaps, you're not basing your reasoning on the real world, you're arguing from the assumption of a weird idealized fantasy land.

Not an argument. 2+2=4 works in your fantasy land, but however hear in our real world.

>>139161653
>Office workers don't produce much economic value. Most of them are just sitting there all day browsing facebook.

Why do you care? Their boss is the one paying them, not you. If he is happy to pay them 60k/yr to browse facebook, what fucking business is it of yours?

The minimum wage is a chain binding the underclass. It forces up unemployment, blocking from access to the labor market those who need that access most. It is necessary for socialism, because socialism is a scam that relies utterly on the perpetuation of an underclass to soak attention away from the schemes of the billionaire socialist elite!

>>139138978
Fuck off you disingenuous swine. There is a labor surplus and as it currently is companies have the choice between hundreds of applicants of which they only interview 10 for a position. Without minimum wage laws, companies would keep dropping wages more than they already are until like >>139139915 said we'd have to pay companies for the opportunity to gather work experience. You are a piece of shit capitalist who wants to further fuck over the white working class in favor of (((porky)))

>>139162637
Depends what type of engineering. Civil engineering is easy as shit and shouldn't even be called engineering. Software engineering is easy as hell too. Some forms of engineering takes a lot of schooling, intelligence, and stress.

>>139162742
Because I am an authoritarian and I want to micromanage plebs and play god. I want to be the arbiter of social justice.

>>139162827
>currently is companies have the choice between hundreds of applicants of which they only interview 10 for a position.

Maybe that ratio is off, because it's hard to open a business and employ people. Because the price of labor is too high (not just because of minimum wage, but because of regulations).

You know the best way to increase wages, is to increase the supply of jobs, therefore increasing the demand for labor.

Why isn't maximum wage a thing?

>>139162773
Would subscribe to / 10

>>139162967
Software engineering is glorified computer science. Civil... well unless you're building skyscrapers it's been done about 1bn times already.

>>139163204
Because capitalism.

>>139162637
There are, but one side (the 10's of millions of Americans) has way more. Putting all the focus on immigrants is easier than reflecting on your own cultural flaws. You can enact laws to further vet immigrants but the major problem is fixing the lives of real Americans who are here and are being ignored in the face of tuh immigrants took mur jerbs and raped muh baby. Most crime is committed by Americans.

My whole point is you types are overly concerned with kicking out illegals but provide no solutions to fix domestic problems. Sure kick out immigrants who commit serious crimes but how do we fix our major problems here. America is the most violent 1st world country.

>>139163147
It's funny how libertaianarcho-capitalists are so confident that they would be on the top of the food chain in a purely free market. No 99% of you cucks would be just as exploited as you fantasize doing to others.

File: 1502727385255.jpg (75KB, 638x710px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 638x710px

>>139162827
This guy gets it. Companies will pay any worker as little as possible to get the job done, all the way from the guy sweeping the floor to the guy designing $10M projects.

>>139163147
>Maybe that ratio is off, because it's hard to open a business and employ people
True, because new businesses have to compete with huge established corporations. Small business owners struggle to pay fair wages and so they game the system by only having part time workers. No more money has to go for benefits.

>Because the price of labor is too high
It's not high enough for the workers because of the higher cost of living. Companies bypass this by outsourcing jobs using the global free markets.

>You know the best way to increase wages, is to increase the supply of jobs, therefore increasing the demand for labor.
Well that ISN'T going to happen with continued outsourcing of jobs, increased productivity, and increased automation. It isn't happening and it isn't going to happen. So what is your solution to the increased supply of labor and decreased demand for jobs?

>>139163231
>computer science
CS is not engineering.

>>139163262
???

With the exception of the quip on the milkman somewhere above, I didn't mention immigrants.

>>139163246
ah yes, but most countries with a minimum wage don't seem to have a maximum wage.

>>139163608
Neither is "software engineering".

File: 54000249.jpg (31KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x375px

>>139138978
>he thinks wages won't universally plummet the moment minimum wage gets removed
>he thinks all of the currently unemployed can or are looking for work
>he willingly wants to choke on the cock of the (((corporations))) to squeeze out an extra 1 or 2%

File: KINDLE_CAMERA_1502043882000.jpg (372KB, 1296x808px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1296x808px

>>139139915
>t. Never heard of the (((Occupation Tax)))
Pic related

>>139138978

You have to build the wall and kick out illegals first before I agree with you.

Min wage currently helps Americans from alien scabs.

>>139163652
>my bad
Mixing replies there. Immigrants vs worthless Americans.... Office people vs factory

>>139138978
dont post evil umaru

>>139138978
>Minimum wage should be 0
Why would you limit it at 0? There are people who would be happy to pay for a chance to work, clearly it must be unlimited from the negative side too.

>>139163857
Congratulations. I think you just found the secret way to make nerds poor again someday.

>>139163857
There are many scams in America where you need to pay a fee for tests or application fees to companies that help you find a job. They never do find you a job. Its a scam but it proves your point that people will put money up front for the chance to work.

>>139141351
>Why such emotional responses without even trying to address the argument with reason and evidence?

ok, do you have reason and evidence to believe giving millions and millions of no reason to work will help the economy in any way? will those millions of people dropping out of society and relying on welfare be anything other than a dead weight?

Funny how batshit ancap ideas have the same problem as batshit communist ideas, nobody has any incentive to do anything and everyone starves

>>139163479
>It's funny how libertaianarcho-capitalists are so confident that they would be on the top of the food chain in a purely free market.

Why do you think i'm confident of that? I'm not at all. Free market competition benefits everyone. Government is the thing that only benefits the 1%.

Yeah, please, you don't have to worry about me being "exploited". Let me worry about me being "exploited", okay?

>>139163541
>Small business owners struggle to pay fair wages and so they game the system by only having part time workers.

The reason they have part time workers is because they can't afford Obamacare.

>It's not high enough for the workers because of the higher cost of living

Cost of living is higher because of government meddling into education and health care mostly. Industries that are free of government, like software and computer for example, their cost actually goes down. Free market makes things more affordable, not less affordable, given the chance.

>Companies bypass this by outsourcing jobs using the global free markets.

No they don't. Barely anyone outsources solely because of the wages, they do it because of the regulations. In the 1950s, people in India and China were still making $1/hr and nobody outsourced jobs, we had factories in the US. American Workers in the 1950s weren't working as slave labors, nor were the companies charities back then.

>So what is your solution to the increased supply of labor and decreased demand for jobs?
I told you already, let people create more jobs. Entrepreneurship in the US is at an all time record low in the US. Teach people about business, repeal all the regulations, and let people be free.

There are studies that conclude, that if our level of regulations / government spending, stayed the same that it did in the 1950s, we would have a GDP of 50 trillion right now. Now, were the 1950s this mad max anarchist dystopia? No, we just didn't have the government in every aspects of our lives.

>>139139915
We do. I've had to pay for college classes that make me do work they benefit from to get a degree for the privilege of more working.

File: sulyvahn's beast.gif (2MB, 350x197px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x197px

As someone who's is trying to get into entry level positions I would gladly work for $5 simply for the experience. I tried to call in a few days ago to speak to a supervisor or anyone about a job and they told me it was against their privacy policy. Therefore cucks like my have to have their resumes sit at the bottom of a digital stack because there will always be someone more qualified than people who are just entering the job market. Makes me wanna.....makes me wanna just.....reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>139164155
>ok, do you have reason and evidence to believe giving millions and millions of no reason to work will help the economy in any way?

No that would hurt the economy, that's why the minimum wage is so destructive. It prevent millions of people from working.

>Funny how batshit ancap ideas have the same problem as batshit communist ideas, nobody has any incentive to do anything and everyone starves

Your ideas are batshit. I win !!!!!!!

Nah, it needs to be $30 an hour so that robots can come in and takeover all these shitty wageslave jobs that no person should be doing.

>>139141351
>people reply with reasonable objections
>Why such emotional responses without even trying to address the argument with reason and evidence?

>>139164691
Yes lets step back into the dark ages is not a "reasonable objection"

>>139164772
if you think it is, take a logic or critical thinking class

QUICKLY

>>139138978
Americans often make good points, but they overreact. The minumum wage is too high though, a time ago I wished it I could lower my wage just to get a job quick.

File: 1479832146885.png (313KB, 808x805px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 808x805px

>boomcucks grow up in an economy that isn't significantly impacted by low wage immigrant shitskins taking jobs all the way from unskilled labor to pajeets and kim's in tech/engineering, to jamals and stacies in upper management
>"WELL DUH MINIMUM WAGE WAS 12 CENTS BACK IN MAH DAY I TELL YAH HUWHUT"

Fucking boomcucks, this is how you extinct the white race.

>>139164842
Minimum wage was invented to prevent the immigrants, moslty Asian, from "taking er jobs".

It was invented by protectionist morons like yourself, and it backfired, like everything you idiots do, does.

>>139165005
Unless you own a factory, min wage is good for you. If they can pay the lowest earners less then they will pay everybody else less.

>>139165103
>If they can pay the lowest earners less then they will pay everybody else less.

Wrong.

>>139165287
The only person being hurt by minimum wage are people who are worth less than 7.25/hr and can't get a job.

And it hurts pretty much everyone else.

>>139163487
That's not exactly true. They will THINK they are paying workers as little as possible. Most employers are stupid and overpay "skilled" workers because they are too lazy to attempt to pay them less and are already filthy rich so they can afford it.

>>139163487
>Companies will pay any worker as little as possible to get the job done,

YES AND FUCKING MINIMUM WAGE DOESN'T CHANGE THAT

FOR FUCKS SAKE PEOPLE

>>139162659
>Some people are born better looking, therefore the government needs to force better looking people to sleep with ugly ones.
People don't just naturally own exclusive claims on nature. They own it because the government says they do and enforces that, even if it's a stateless government of consensus law.

>Some people are born with more money, GET THE FUCK OVER IT. That doesn't mean we get to steal their money.
>Some people are born with the divine right of kings, GET THE FUCK OVER IT. That doesn't mean we get to usurp their rule.
Secure property isn't natural. It's a thing of the government. Freedom is taken away from most so a privilege can be reserved to someone in particular. This is done to encourage and enable order, stability, and prosperity.

Territory and possession are the closest natural things, and it's perfectly natural to dispute those with violence. Your "non-aggression principle" is an absurdity since claiming territory is an aggression against everyone who might have claimed it had they come along a day before you did.

The arrangements must be kept reasonable. You can't just settle on some arbitrary inflexible rule set that gives some people lives of idle luxury and other people inescapable wage dependence, and call it fair. It's not going to be efficient or stable, and will eventually be conquered, be reformed, or collapse. Trying to keep everyone perfectly equal doesn't work either, nor forbidding people from passing any benefit to their children. Things have to be kept in balance to work well.

Good government is inherently complicated and difficult. Simpleminded, unreasonable people like to imagine that it's actually all easy and we only have imperfect government because we somehow, bafflingly keep choosing buffoons and crooks to rule over us.

>>139166174
fuck off, just fuck off, take a critical thinking class.

i'm going to sleep

>>139166581
>take a critical thinking class
People who make a religion of incompetent reasoning somehow always seem to mistake their particular brand of incompetence for a special skill that anyone who disagrees with them must lack.

>>139165912
It does though. The less they can pay is minimum wage. If there were no minimum wage they could probably find somebody who would sweep floors just for a days worth of food. Great for the company, horrible for society.

>>139165336
There's nobody worth less than 7.25/hr who can't get a job unless they are completely worthless drug addicts or someone you wouldn't want to hire regardless.

>>139167054
The other side of it is that entry-level jobs would be much easier to get, which means that job experience would be easier to gain, which means you'd have more employers bidding for the same workers. Also, prices would fall.

The current situation, thanks in part to the minimum wage, is that there's a constant pool of unemployed people looking for work, so even minimum-wage-paying employers can pick and choose who they want and make people accept terrible conditions to avoid unemployment.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, instead of paying for an education and going into debt to get a job, people used to just start out doing unskilled labor for some token amount, and learning skills on the job so their employer would give them raises to keep them on.

Minimum wage is still a shitty income, and you can't make it a good income without making it much harder to get a job.

>>139168165
Minimum experience required would just be raised in this scenario. So you'd have to work longer for free.

Every model is fucked because the reality is that we're all competing for limited resources, the quicker you realize that the better. Yes, the money supply can grow, but it's not distributed evenly because of competition and this will always be true and is reflected in employment.

>>139168477
>Minimum experience required would just be raised in this scenario. So you'd have to work longer for free.
Why do you think people would work for free at all? This isn't how it worked when there was no minimum wage in the past.

To stabilize the system, what people need isn't labor regulation, but an inalienable (i.e. not only can't be taken from you, but can't be sold by you) claim on the bounty of nature.

Consider the extreme case where all work can be done most efficiently entirely by machines, including making more machines. The wage-dependent laborer will have no income opportunities. Income will be determined purely by claims on the bounty of nature: ownership of lands, mineral rights, etc.; and by special government favor: licenses, patents, entitlements etc.

There are two basic solutions to that: tax those with a claim on nature and put everyone on welfare, or ensure that everyone has a reasonable path to owning their own sufficient claim on nature to support themselves. I know I certainly prefer the latter.

>Every model is fucked because the reality is that we're all competing for limited resources
The resources aren't all that limited. More energy from sunlight falls on the Earth every day than was released by all of the fossil fuels mankind has ever burned. The universe is practically limitless, it's just a matter of working to access what's there.

>>139139915
t. socialist

>>139168165
>The other side of it is that entry-level jobs would be much easier to get

nope. jobs won't matter if you are forced to work for pennies on the dollar. it will cause people to starve en masse and die you fucking retard

>>139169875
>jobs won't matter if you are forced to work for pennies on the dollar.
Why do you think that workers, unlike every other good or service, would fall to near-zero prices as soon as price controls are lifted?

>it will cause people to starve en masse and die you fucking retard
Do people starve and die in the US when they're unemployed? Why do you think they will if they work for under minimum wage?

>>139145837
I wish you people would spend as much time thinking about banking as much you do thinking about how corporations affect economy

File: Atilla and Leo.jpg (2MB, 2400x1507px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2400x1507px

>>139170680
I like you.

abolish minimum wage.

as a person who went from NEET to finally finding a fucking grad job position,

getting entry level job experience is hard altogether.

and you're not suppose to be on minimum wage forever.

I advocate for career socio-economic mobility than letting wage laws dry up all the jobs.

no point having equal opportunity for jobs if there are no jobs at all.