The Entrepreneur Forum | Financial Freedom | Starting a Business | Motivation | Money | Success

Welcome to the only entrepreneur forum dedicated to building life-changing wealth.

Build a Fastlane business. Earn real financial freedom. Join free.

Join over 80,000 entrepreneurs who have rejected the paradigm of mediocrity and said "NO!" to underpaid jobs, ascetic frugality, and suffocating savings rituals— learn how to build a Fastlane business that pays both freedom and lifestyle affluence.

Free registration at the forum removes this block.

Amazon announce min. hourly wage raise to $15

Seth G.

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
286%
Oct 30, 2018
87
249
31
Tri-State Area
Well if we can ‘take care of the poor’ in a way that encourages them to provide value, the there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s the idea of ‘something for nothing’ that’s the issue.

That's the purpose of societal safety nets fundamentally.

Coming from someone who has lived through abject poverty, I can tell you sincerely that it is not a place that is easy to get out of. In fact, most people simply don't have it in them to do it themselves.

The purpose of those programs is to stabilize the environment such that the person can come back to a place of creating value. There exist people who are legitimate leaches who never want to do shit for shit about shit and those people are obviously shit. But most of them, genuinely, are struggling to get by (self imposed as their exile might be) and through a Maslow Violation, most genuinely need the little societal boost.

The bad archetypes exist just like the greedy scrooge mcduck archetype wealthy person exists. They exist. Maybe. I've never met either archetype embodied. And if I thought I had, a few minutes of empathetic conversation revealed that to be a false assumption. Most everyone is somewhere in between...
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

ChrisV

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
225%
May 10, 2015
3,141
7,055
Islands of Calleja
In one sense, you hit the nail on the head, and yet I think the overall point eludes you. As I understand it, the argument isn't centered around "will paying people more result in higher performance".

The argument is more that by pricing labor higher than its value, you inevitably reduce demand. No matter how good you are at it, flipping burgers (a proxy for min. wage jobs) isn't worth $15 an hour. Yes, you may flip burgers more conscientiously at $15 an hour than at $7 an hour, but it's not going to add enough extra value to the burger to justify a sufficient hike in the price to offset the increased costs.

For slightly more complicated, though not skilled trades, it doesn't matter if the product (the labor) is going to age like a fine wine, if it costs you 2x or 3x its value to get there, and there' s a chance it spoils (i.e. leaves) when it finally reaches parity with cost. It's simply too much risk to the employer.

Smart employers (i.e. Amazon) will be looking for ways to automate as much as possible, and to extract more out of current employees.

No I get it... And I agree in overall philosophy. I think minimum wage laws are disastrous in general. I’m totally with Milton Friedman (see last vid) on this one. The left’s argument is that we need to "help the poor!” and that the “bourgeoisie is exploiting the poor people who applied for employment at this company of their own free will and can leave at any time" and I think that’s total poppycock. But there may be unintended positive side effects in boosting their wage, which was what my reply was in response to.

I mean those experiments need to be replicated more, but if that’s true, I’m a huge believer of science-informed policy. Whether that $15/hr is justified will yet to be seen. In New York it’s around $10. Now most jobs that fall into the minimum wage’ range are jobs where you’re told exactly what to do, so again, it may result in unintended positive effects. That certainly doesnt make the lefts argument correct.









Humans have a tendency to look at things in a black in white way. like “Minimum wage is bad” or "Minimum wage is good” Sometimes laws are good for some people, and bad for others. Good for the ‘right now’ and bad for the future. Every action we take often has a very long Pros and Cons list and the left and right sometimes have a tendency to say “X is good” or “Y is bad.”


That's the purpose of societal safety nets fundamentally.

Coming from someone who has lived through abject poverty, I can tell you sincerely that it is not a place that is easy to get out of. In fact, most people simply don't have it in them to do it themselves.

The purpose of those programs is to stabilize the environment such that the person can come back to a place of creating value. There exist people who are legitimate leaches who never want to do sh*t for sh*t about sh*t and those people are obviously sh*t. But most of them, genuinely, are struggling to get by (self imposed as their exile might be) and through a Maslow Violation, most genuinely need the little societal boost.

The bad archetypes exist just like the greedy scrooge mcduck archetype wealthy person exists. They exist. Maybe. I've never met either archetype embodied. And if I thought I had, a few minutes of empathetic conversation revealed that to be a false assumption. Most everyone is somewhere in between...

Yeas. That’s why I’m somewhat for safety net programs. It allows people to bounce back. But that being said, if you make their lives too cushy, they just refuse to get employment and that’s proven. Labor force participation dropped significantly under Obama even though the general economy soared.
 

Seth G.

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
286%
Oct 30, 2018
87
249
31
Tri-State Area
I think minimum wage laws are disastrous in general

Disastrous in implementation perhaps. But I'd argue a societal necessity. Yes, I'll humor you on it (read my above post). Happy to trade and compare thoughts on it.

bourgeoisie is exploiting the poor people who applied for employment at this company of their own free will and can leave at any time

*rubs eyes* this is really a classic case of the right hand not knowing itself from the left. I've been poor. You can't just leave. Genuinely. Or more readily (in our language), you can't possibly see that you could just leave. So many people don't have the same level of self ownership and self actualization that we enjoy and deploy at will.

It isn't about the objective truths of finding another job. It's about people's own mental prisons and how their perception overwhelms and trumps their reality. If they can't see a way out, there isn't for all practical purposes.

Minimum wage is necessary for a stable society because there exist people who would willingly prostitute themselves into destitution and never consider that they shouldn't and don't have to.

Businesses will rightfully employ the cheaper of two skilled laborers. Through their false perception (the 99%), it becomes a price war. Suddenly human suffering occurs by no evil intent on the part of either party and this friction is born.

Minimum wage exists as an artificial safety net where we capitalist types have an internal one. It exists to not rob us but to minimize human suffering by way of preventing people from robbing themselves. Which historically they have always done (and likely would always do).

And we capitalists tend toward loathing such things because we easily see that getting there is self induced just as readily as getting out is (internal locus of control). Most people are the opposite.

If we as society's producers have any sense at all, we need to start looking at these things not as burdens but as lubricants to keep the capitalist engine running smoothly and engage the conversations instead of cowering around them and work on solutions.

Again, I may be a little contrarian on this topic in this forum.

I mean everything from a place of genuine respect. I seek only to improve and clear up all of our perceptions (including mine). So, despite this seemingly contrary speak, I come in peace and am happy to respectfully discuss/debate any of it.
 
Last edited:

ChrisV

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
225%
May 10, 2015
3,141
7,055
Islands of Calleja
That's the purpose of societal safety nets fundamentally.

Coming from someone who has lived through abject poverty, I can tell you sincerely that it is not a place that is easy to get out of. In fact, most people simply don't have it in them to do it themselves.

The purpose of those programs is to stabilize the environment such that the person can come back to a place of creating value. There exist people who are legitimate leaches who never want to do sh*t for sh*t about sh*t and those people are obviously sh*t. But most of them, genuinely, are struggling to get by (self imposed as their exile might be) and through a Maslow Violation, most genuinely need the little societal boost.

The bad archetypes exist just like the greedy scrooge mcduck archetype wealthy person exists. They exist. Maybe. I've never met either archetype embodied. And if I thought I had, a few minutes of empathetic conversation revealed that to be a false assumption. Most everyone is somewhere in between...
*rubs eyes* this is really a classic case of the right hand not knowing itself from the left. I've been poor. You can't just leave. Genuinely. Or more readily (in our language), you can't possibly see that you could just leave. So many people don't have the same level of self ownership and self actualization that we enjoy and deploy at will.
But you’re still offering them an opportunity they wouldn’t have otherwise had, and they willingly took it. They decided ’this option is better than my other options and i choose to take this job.’ So much so that they probably worked really hard to prepare for the interview.

Yes life is hard. Sometimes it sucks. But up until the 1700’s humans lived on an average of THREE DOLLARS per day in 1990 dollars. That’s adjusted for everything.

OFF-TOPIC - The fascinating history of income in one chart.

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 2.33.32 PM.png

It’s not the fault of employers that life is hard. And by paying you more they have to jack up their prices, then products cost more, then people can’t afford those products then they want ANOTHER minimum wage hike and the cycle starts all over. They're chasing their tail. Just offer more value then everyone is in a better position. It’s like freaking alchemy. You’re turning base metals to gold.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

lowtek

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
332%
Oct 3, 2015
2,164
7,186
42
Phoenix, AZ
This debate would come to a screeching halt if everyone just read Economics in One Lesson.

http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

The Austrian school has a tendency to bring debates to a halt. The problem is that the Keynsians have so thoroughly taken over academia that virtually nobody even knows there are competing viewpoints.
 

The Abundant Man

Gold Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
150%
Jul 3, 2018
1,428
2,140
This debate would come to a screeching halt if everyone just read Economics in One Lesson.

http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf
The book is from 1946 and has vocabulary that would make the College Board envy to put in the SAT. Nowadays folks are, "That's lit, bro! That was so fire!"

"Texting is the epitome of illiteracy. Nowadays people put in "C U L2R instead of See You Later or they put emojis to express themselves. We're back in the ancient times. It's like Hieroglyphs all over again."-Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Where did education go wrong in history?
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
Last edited:

Seth G.

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
286%
Oct 30, 2018
87
249
31
Tri-State Area
But you’re still offering them an opportunity they wouldn’t have otherwise had, and they willingly took it. They decided ’this option is better than my other options and i choose to take this job.’ So much so that they probably worked really hard to prepare for the interview.

Yes life is hard. Sometimes it sucks. But up until the 1700’s humans lived on an average of THREE DOLLARS per day in 1990 dollars. That’s adjusted for everything.

OFF-TOPIC - The fascinating history of income in one chart.

View attachment 22538

It’s not the fault of employers that life is hard. And by paying you more they have to jack up their prices, then products cost more, then people can’t afford those products then they want ANOTHER minimum wage hike and the cycle starts all over. They're chasing their tail. Just offer more value then everyone is in a better position. It’s like freaking alchemy. You’re turning base metals to gold.

I'm not saying the world is worse off.
Across the board things are wayyyy better than they'e ever been. There's a great ted talk on that actually. :)

As for the second point, why would producers necessarily need to raise their prices?
I'd argue that this is a common straw man argument in the world of money and economics.

Say company X enjoys a 6.5% net profit margin and raising wages reduces that to 4.5%. Would this fundamentally necessitate the rise in prices?

Perhaps. It may also incentivize company X (or competitor Y) to improve their processes in other ways to increase margin. It may also cause them to move toward automation. They may also just raise their prices. Or they might not bother with it. The argument, lacking context, doesn't mean much. Context can completely reverse the argument.

As for the alchemy, that's what we do. We produce value where there wasn't any before.

A more interesting thought experiment is to wonder at what the actual cost of basic human decency might be. And what, if any, tasks the menial laborer could do to accomplish that.

I agree that value should exceed consumption (that's how we grow as a society and race). But what is the minimum cost of human decency? What are the actual things needed. And then from there you could determine what minimum value is needed in terms of contribution.


This debate would come to a screeching halt if everyone just read Economics in One Lesson.

http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

It's a good book in many ways. I've read it (have a copy on my shelf). Unfortunately, it isn't a perfect answer to these questions and does not bring the arguments effectively to a halt - some of its assumptions are based in the same cognitive bias though. It has a lot of solid material and food for thought/consideration that is well worth the time (especially for people who might disagree with it).
 

csalvato

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
297%
May 5, 2014
2,058
6,106
39
Rocky Mountain West
It's a good book in many ways. I've read it (have a copy on my shelf). Unfortunately, it isn't a perfect answer to these questions and does not bring the arguments effectively to a halt - some of its assumptions are based in the same cognitive bias though. It has a lot of solid material and food for thought/consideration that is well worth the time (especially for people who might disagree with it).

There's a few sections dedicated to this particular question of minimum wage and unionization. I'm guessing it only doesn't bring it to a halt if you choose to disagree with it. So what, specifically, do you disagree with?
 

ChrisV

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
225%
May 10, 2015
3,141
7,055
Islands of Calleja
The Austrian school has a tendency to bring debates to a halt. The problem is that the Keynsians have so thoroughly taken over academia that virtually nobody even knows there are competing viewpoints.
Still better than Marxian. That shit is like, the bane of my existence. Kids read some Marx and all of a sudden want to change the world.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
Last edited:

Seth G.

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
286%
Oct 30, 2018
87
249
31
Tri-State Area
There's a few sections dedicated to this particular question of minimum wage and unionization. I'm guessing it only doesn't bring it to a halt if you choose to disagree with it. So what, specifically, do you disagree with?

The logic itself is nearly flawless.
But it is based under the assumption that all contributing members have an internal locus of control. That the population is homogeneous in their sense of self.

That everyone in this economy would be more like you or me (where a lack minimum wage laws/unions would have no effect on us other than being a PITA [pain in the a$$]).

I don't believe that most people have that internal sense of control that we carry. Most people would readily prostitute themselves into poverty and will cry at the shackles there and never realize they don't need to.

To you, or me, or just about anyone else on this forum - the thought of doing that is absurd. Almost offensive. The only way that any of us would possibly get there is by laziness, lack of ambition, and our own choices (internal control). And to us, that is truth.

Thus, in a perfect market composed of individuals like you and me, unions and minimum wages and other programs don't make sense. They are objectively unnecessary/wastes that simply 'unfairly' redistribute earned wealth.

But the majority of the population aren't like us. They carry the opposite sense of control. Most people would accept slave wages if that's what the first offer was and they wouldn't have the sense to say no - thus, 'the market would bear it' and human suffering (however self induced) will transpire by no malcontent by either party.

We (business builders) would absolutely (and rightfully) hire the cheaper of two equally skilled individuals. That's business.

But the average layman wouldn't know that the proper course of action would be to go elsewhere or to demand more compensation for their contribution. As far as they are concerned, they are stuck with the lemons life offers (however false that is). Their wages would thus likely trend toward below what can stabilize human decency. Human suffering ensues.

Alternatively. I prefer to view minimum wage and unions and social programs not as waste per se (while economically, it is when you limit scope) but rather as oil and lubricant to keep the machine of capitalism running.

It places a control in the environment for those individuals (who make up the majority of society) that lack an internal sense of control and would otherwise impoverish themselves which eventually leads to unrest. It mitigates suffering. Thus increasing production and consumption thus stabilizing the whole machine.

Unions, demands of taxes, minimum wages, etc (societal socialism cries) are one such tool that externally controlled people (majority) can employ to come close to the sense of control that defines our (minority) perspective/sense of control.

Left unchecked, those desires trend toward marxism/socialism and as we well know, would destroy the ability to generate value and wealth for the world.

As capitalists, I'd rather see us owning and engaging the conversations about the societal lubricants and not reeling from them and dismissing them outright (because as we know sticking your head in the sand does not make something go away). To us, they are dismissible because of certain core principles we share and trend toward. To the majority, they are not.

We (minority) solve problems for them (majority) and despite how it may feel, this isn't any different. It's another majority problem that we minority will (and should) solve for. The problem just expands beyond the simple context of economics and business. Thus, we don't naturally apply ourselves to it like we would a market or business problem.

~~~

All that being said, I don't claim to know the answers fully. There may legitimately be other solutions (or I could be completely backwards in my thinking). Certainly plausible. Current evidence and knowledge has me leaning on my current perspective (see above).

Is Marxism idiotic (under humanity's current context) - absolutely.

Would an entirely open market with a lack of those programs increase wealth overall - probably.

Do I personally 'agree' with these programs - no. But my lack of need fo them and personal pain/wealth penalty is contextually irrelevant

Philosophically, for me, this isn't about short term capital market gains and growth. This is about a 'stable' capitalist growth that can last centuries or millennia.

~~~

Thus my current opinion.
 
Last edited:

lewj24

Gold Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
369%
May 12, 2016
432
1,593
28
St. Louis, MO
The logic itself is nearly flawless.
But it is based under the assumption that all contributing members have an internal locus of control. That the population is homogeneous in their sense of self.

That everyone in this economy would be more like you or me (where a lack minimum wage laws/unions would have no effect on us other than being a PITA [pain in the a$$]).

I don't believe that most people have that internal sense of control that we carry. Most people would readily prostitute themselves into poverty and will cry at the shackles there and never realize they don't need to.

To you, or me, or just about anyone else on this forum - the thought of doing that is absurd. Almost offensive. The only way that any of us would possibly get there is by laziness, lack of ambition, and our own choices (internal control). And to us, that is truth.

Thus, in a perfect market composed of individuals like you and me, unions and minimum wages and other programs don't make sense. They are objectively unnecessary/wastes that simply 'unfairly' redistribute earned wealth.

But the majority of the population aren't like us. They carry the opposite sense of control. Most people would accept slave wages if that's what the first offer was and they wouldn't have the sense to say no - thus, 'the market would bear it' and human suffering (however self induced) will transpire by no malcontent by either party.

We (business builders) would absolutely (and rightfully) hire the cheaper of two equally skilled individuals. That's business.

But the average layman wouldn't know that the proper course of action would be to go elsewhere or to demand more compensation for their contribution. As far as they are concerned, they are stuck with the lemons life offers (however false that is). Their wages would thus likely trend toward below what can stabilize human decency. Human suffering ensues.

Alternatively. I prefer to view minimum wage and unions and social programs not as waste per se (while economically, it is when you limit scope) but rather as oil and lubricant to keep the machine of capitalism running.

It places a control in the environment for those individuals (who make up the majority of society) that lack an internal sense of control and would otherwise impoverish themselves which eventually leads to unrest. It mitigates suffering. Thus increasing production and consumption thus stabilizing the whole machine.

Unions, demands of taxes, minimum wages, etc (societal socialism cries) are one such tool that externally controlled people (majority) can employ to come close to the sense of control that defines our (minority) perspective/sense of control.

Left unchecked, those desires trend toward marxism/socialism and as we well know, would destroy the ability to generate value and wealth for the world.

As capitalists, I'd rather see us owning and engaging the conversations about the societal lubricants and not reeling from them and dismissing them outright (because as we know sticking your head in the sand does not make something go away). To us, they are dismissible because of certain core principles we share and trend toward. To the majority, they are not.

We (minority) solve problems for them (majority) and despite how it may feel, this isn't any different. It's another majority problem that we minority will (and should) solve for. The problem just expands beyond the simple context of economics and business. Thus, we don't naturally apply ourselves to it like we would a market or business problem.

~~~

All that being said, I don't claim to know the answers fully. There may legitimately be other solutions (or I could be completely backwards in my thinking). Certainly plausible. Current evidence and knowledge has me leaning on my current perspective (see above).

Is Marxism idiotic (under humanity's current context) - absolutely.

Would an entirely open market with a lack of those programs increase wealth overall - probably.

Do I personally 'agree' with these programs - no. But my lack of need fo them and personal pain/wealth penalty is contextually irrelevant

Philosophically, for me, this isn't about short term capital market gains and growth. This is about a 'stable' capitalist growth that can last centuries or millennia.

~~~

Thus my current opinion.

Dude what are you even saying? I can't get through that jungle you call words. Try typing more concise, less fluff. You are so vague I can't understand you.
 

Seth G.

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
286%
Oct 30, 2018
87
249
31
Tri-State Area
Dude what are you even saying? I can't get through that jungle you call words. Try typing more concise, less fluff. You are so vague I can't understand you.

It's a complicated thought - I appreciate the feedback.
Let me think for a moment...

- Capitalism requires a stable society.
- A large population of poor/unhappy people eventually de-stabilize society.
- The average person will accept lower than livable wages
- This will cause the average person to become unhappy
- This eventually will cause instability in capitalist markets

Social programs prevent the average person from making themselves poor (they literally aren't allowed to). Thus, markets are long-term stabilized.

~

As producers, we should engage the conversations and not dismiss them. They aren't going away. So we should own them/engage them. Ignoring them does nothing.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

lewj24

Gold Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
369%
May 12, 2016
432
1,593
28
St. Louis, MO
The average person will accept lower than livable wages

This is only true if they can't find a job that will pay them more. You act like people are too dumb to want a better wage. Have you worked with people? Even the dumbest want to make more money.

Social programs prevent the average person from making themselves poor (they literally aren't allowed to). Thus, markets are long-term stabilized.

These programs make this worse. They don't allow the markets to work. They take away all incentive to work hard. They take money from those who do work hard and give it to those who don't.
 

Seth G.

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
286%
Oct 30, 2018
87
249
31
Tri-State Area
This is only true if they can't find a job that will pay them more. You act like people are too dumb to want a better wage. Have you worked with people? Even the dumbest want to make more money.

These programs make this worse. They don't allow the markets to work. They take away all incentive to work hard. They take money from those who do work hard and give it to those who don't.

I have a sense, we'll have trouble coming to common ground here.
That's alright, I mean what I say with respect. So I'll go with 'I respectfully disagree'.

I'll reply here and probably leave it at that. Need to focus on work/business.

If you'd like to continue discussing after this, I'm happy to have a private message chain with you where we can debate and discuss and think. I'm always open to that and getting other perspectives.

So to reply:

To counter your jab, I've worked with people, have hired people, and have been employed since the 7th grade in a wide range of jobs. People aren't too dumb to want money. Most aren't dumb at all. But most people do lack the sense of environment control that you and I have. They do feel and believe wholeheartedly that what they have is all they can have.

A lot of people feel like they can't do better than what they have. They literally see their trap as reality. I know this. I grew up through poverty. And I can tell you that a minimum wage 50 year old mother who works 60+ hours a week can't possibly imagine leaving. They want to but they won't. They think it would be great, but can't see how they could. So they never will.

As for the programs, they don't take away the incentive to work hard (again, having grown up through all of that - I can tell you that readily). For business, those of us that would work hard to get rich, would work hard regardless (this is why it is hard to see the purpose of the programs - we are biased at the gate).

As for preventing the markets from working, I assume you mean from working at maximum efficiency. That's true. I'd argue, per my above long post, necessary for long-term market stability. Oil for an engine. Too much oil in the fuel and an engine doesn't fire. Too little oil and it'll rattle itself apart. So it takes calibration.

Yes, they 'take more money' from those of us who produce more. Again, per the complex post, likely necessary (or something similar). If you'd like to argue this, please start with the long post as it details my arguments.

We are better suited engaging and owning the conversation. Simply wishing it away won't make it go away.
~~

Anyway, @lewj24 no disrespect your way. It's a valid discussion/pain point for wealth creators. And we have every right to question 'why' to things like this.
 

csalvato

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
297%
May 5, 2014
2,058
6,106
39
Rocky Mountain West
But it is based under the assumption that all contributing members have an internal locus of control. That the population is homogeneous in their sense of self.

That's not exactly what the book talks about, though.

It even has a few assertions in support of unions (though, in a different manifestation than what exists today).
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

The-J

Dog Dad
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
264%
Aug 28, 2011
4,199
11,079
Ontario
Companies need to be able to compete, and right now low skilled workers are in demand.

Really, all workers are in demand. Why? Because low skilled workers in the right fields can earn way more than $15/hr. If you can go work in an oil rig with zero education and make $25/hr with the promise of making six figures a year if you stay there a few years, why the F*ck would you bust your a$$ at Amazon for $15/hr?

Even waiting tables can net you more than $15/hr. And going to work for Amazon is TOUGH. Their turnover is ridiculously high. If they want to continue to recruit, they need to pay the wages necessary. It's high school economics (not even econ 101! Hell not even AP econ!)

No shit they're raising their 'minimum wage' to $15/hr. They won't get bodies for less than that, for much longer, and Amazon needs bodies. This is them thinking to the future and wrapping it up in a pretty PR package to make Amazon look like heroes for the working class. They're not: they're a corporation like any other, and will hire based on their needs and pay what the labor market demands.
 
Last edited:

GoGetter24

Gold Contributor
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
210%
Oct 8, 2017
566
1,188
Various
That's the purpose of societal safety nets fundamentally.
Yes, but that's not the purpose of government welfare.

Charity gets doled out based on being a legitimate charity case, i.e. you're not to blame for the situation you're in, it's a terrible situation, you're doing your best to cope with it or get out of it etc. Otherwise if they start giving out money to losers who don't deserve it, their donors will disappear and bring them to a halt.

Government welfare gets doled out to satisfy political ends.

This is why welfare gets given to groups who'd never remotely qualify for it under the charitable concept of "help them get back on their feet", because that's not the intention, and is counter-productive to the intention, which is to purchase votes with robbery proceeds.

The Austrian school has a tendency to bring debates to a halt. The problem is that the Keynsians have so thoroughly taken over academia that virtually nobody even knows there are competing viewpoints.
It's more that the ruling class has seen them installed there. Keynesian ideas provide cover, or "intellectual shielding", for what the politicians want to do: exercise as much power as possible.

This means no gold standard that would limit government debt, no criticism of the central banking system which allows them short-term control over the economy for political ends, high taxes so they have lots of other people's money to spend, and high government spending so they can pretend they're the source of economic growth or salvation (with other people's money -- laundered through distancing phrases like "treasury revenue" or "fiscal policy").

Most economists are employed by or indirectly supported by the government, so obviously they're not going to provide services contrary to their master's desires. The fact that their ideas are bad for the progress of society is irrelevant to those ruling that society, who are only concerned with their relative position within it, rather than before-and-after.

What the Austrian school people get wrong is thinking that just being clever and being right is going to be enough. This makes them contemptible in my view, in that they're more interested in the egotistical feeling of being cleverer than other people, and droning on with their rightness, than actually devising mechanisms to bring down the current state of affairs and restore order.

The real solutions have to come down to encouraging decentralizing effects, assailing the schooling regime which is providing the slow burning furnace within the core of their overall regime, encouraging producers to emigrate/flee to less thuggish nations, discouraging people from watching mass media, refuting the claim that the ballot box is a form of power of the people over their rulers instead of the reverse, and so on.

At no point is stuff like Austrian economics going to be implemented by the institution of the state, as it is contrary to its nature. It can only result indirectly from the exercise of power of other institutions.
 
Last edited:

MJ DeMarco

I followed the science; all I found was money.
Staff member
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
445%
Jul 23, 2007
38,083
169,530
Utah
I see this discussion has gone political, I do appreciate that the debate has remained pretty civil and respectful. Thank you guys for that.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

socaldude

Saturn Sedan and PT Cruiser enthusiast.
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
212%
Jan 10, 2012
2,380
5,043
San Diego, CA
I don't think anybody is against an employee earning a higher wage.

Higher wages means more spending and more sales for producers.

It's just that when the government or politicians want to create an artificial economic environment it almost always never works. It almost always creates the opposite effect; less jobs, less profits for small businesses, higher priced goods etc.

Kind of like what the government has done to academia. They used the excuse that its a tragedy that someone doesn't go to college because they cannot afford it so now they have created a bubble out of it through easy money and hyper-inflated tuition cause your college needs a new useless 20 million dollar building and a new sports team. And the result is an even bigger tragedy; no income and 100k in debt.

I can see how most people in society have lost faith in capitalistic principles but the truth is that the recent economic shifts this country has had have been due to policies that are anything but capitalistic and free market.
 
Last edited:

Post New Topic

Please SEARCH before posting.
Please select the BEST category.

Post new topic

Guest post submissions offered HERE.

Latest Posts

New Topics

Fastlane Insiders

View the forum AD FREE.
Private, unindexed content
Detailed process/execution threads
Ideas needing execution, more!

Join Fastlane Insiders.

Top