/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>51655984
You are there to learn how to be a based jew. Either get with the program or choose another field.

>>51655984
kek

i'm willing to suck dicks for a penny! how dare they stop me

whats the problem?
a constantly rising minimum wage is one of the largest causes of inflation for the average person.

>>51655984
The minimum wage does more to suppress wage growth than outsourcing and automation could ever hope to. Price floors result in too much of one thing, price ceilings result in too little of one thing. Commit that to memory and take it with you to the grave, you will be wiser for it.

>>51655984
it's 100% correct though, and a few years ago everyone on biz would have agreed because financial and economic literacy was a thing here
go back
>>51656024
STFU man you don't understand a thing. Go back

>>51656052
this anon understands.

>>51656058
>Go back
i'm not sure where you think i came from but this is /biz/ not /commie/

>>51656052
>>51656067
none of you niggers understand that the labour market is monopsonic

>>51655984
So minimum wage benefits you as long as you're able to get a job?

>>51656102
it's good you're not a commie anon but your understanding of inflation is wrong, it's purely money supply and velocity

>>51656151
Retard

>>51656159
go back

>>51656024
Mentally crippled
>>51655984
LOL

>>51656151
yes.
and what do you think happens when you give money to the consumer class?

>>51655984
thanks for the lulz op

>>51656019
you will earn 15 bucks a man and you’ll like it

>>51656024
1.5% of the US is on minimum wage. And no, the general population doesn't see a pay rise when it increases same as when inflation runs.

>>51656024
Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. Having a high binding minimum wage, while harming low skill workers, doesn't result in inflation.

>>51656295
meaningfully raising minimum wage creates a ripple throughout the entire economy, pushing prices upwards.
it's just a lesser version of helicopter money.

>>51656303
unemployment trends down though. these people aren't losing their jobs they're just getting overpaid.

(((Crony))) capitalism that jews fervently defend

>>51656008
DPR put me onto SEK3 and reading him was one of the most important things to happen in my life

>>51656305
That's just not inflation. Harm happens though, to low skill workers, when picrel is used, for example.

>>51656333
you sound like the government redefining words to such a narrow definition you can deny it exists at all.
if prices are going up, there's inflation.
if wages are going up equal to prices, that's still inflation.

>>51656305
Except that's not been seen in the US from historical data with mimimum wage increasing progressively from $3.35 in 1985 to $7.25 in 2009 and median income only increasing by 11.4% over that time period and sharply declining until 2014.

>>51656333
>automation pushing down prices is bad for workers
Lol?

>>51656354
"Inflation is a monetary phenomenon." = A function of the money supply.

It's not "greedy corporations, unions, or price floors."
If I were the government, I wouldn't be talking about the money supply.

>>51656358
doubling minimum wage over a quarter century, during a unique period of massive growth thanks to technology, isn't really comparable though.

>>51656378
you don't have to change the monetary supply to create inflation.
it can be shrinking and you'll still see massive inflation if the velocity goes up, which is what happens when you give money to consumers over investors.

>>51656363
Minimum wages are not inflationary, given that capital machines can make up the slack, benefitting higher skill workers at the cost of lower skill workers.

>>51655984
The 'some workers that are willing to work for lower wages' are, of course, third-world brown hordes.

do they not teach how to printscreen though?

>>51656388
>doubling minimum wage over a quarter century, during a unique period of massive growth thanks to technology, isn't really comparable though.
So there's no actual proof that the minimum wage increasing in the US has resulted in substantial labour cost increases because it's offset entirely by devaluation from technological innovation but inflation isn't an issue in comparison to minimum wage laws because it's insubstantial but the main driver of wage increases over the period of declining value of labour due to technological developments?

OP, this is correct and basic economics. price floors and ceilings such as minimum wage result in market inefficiencies. nobody benefits from market inefficiencies, the economy is working below its potential resulting in lower economic growth, which results in lower standards of living for all participants in the economy. schizophrenic midwits on this board will argue different, of course, because le college is a scam, however it is true.

>>51656388
"giving money?" like using government spending to move money around through subsidies?

>>51656398
>paying people more doesn't push prices up
>prolonged unemployment is fueled by machines because muh technological innovation

>>51656429
>no actual proof
we can see the results of helicopter money on the massive inflation over the past few years, and raising minimum wage too quickly is the same thing with extra steps.

>>51656456
Businesses adapt to binding minimum wages by relying more on capital, as opposed to labor.
You see this in places like Latin America, where there are 6 guys working a garbage truck, vs. one on a automated machine in the US.

>>51656456
Paying 1.5% of the US population (about 5 million people) more doesn't in comparison to every other retarded government policy driving the fiscal deficit.

And no, historically the median wage is unaffected by the increase in mimimum wage and massively offset by the devaluation of purchasing power by inflation.

>>51656458
>no actual proof
I gave you the figures and you pretended it doesn't count because of technological progress. As though high skilled and paid users of those technological developments don't exist.

>>51655984
Everyone can get a job, but pay may not be viable; or, pay is viable and we just accept some people are going to be jobless and die.

I'll take option 2 and out compete others workers thanks.

>>51656498
not just technological progress, but the period of fastest rising productivity the world has ever seen.
it's an obvious outlier. for all you know that raising minimum wage depressed growth, there's no way to tell.

>>51656472
Which they do even without rising minimum wages, assuming they have a big werehouse to stock machinery.

>>51656510
Then again you don't actually have a causal relationship you can demonstrate for your claim either if you're using that logic.

>labor shortage
>"won't anyone think of the poor employees that could come here from Honduras and work for $3/hour?"

>>51656516
"Inflation" has a very rigorous meaning that is an overall increase in "the price level."

You would only be right if the government made it illegal to fire, and not hire people freely.
France would probably fit your case, which is why youth unemployment is so high.

>>51656510
Equally can't you argue that increased minimum wage drives domestic consumption so how can it depress growth if it's driving it by an equal or greater amount as productivity increases at the same time?

>>51656523
and you don't have a refutation so we're back to square one.

>>51656544
the point is you give money to people who will spend it immediately, you get real inflation.
you give money to people that invest it, you get asset inflation.
inflation is only getting worse, and raising wages to keep up in turn causes more inflation.

>>51656537
>You would only be right if the government made it illegal to fire, and not hire people freely.
How is hiring people above a certain price "freely"?

>>51656562
In France, once you hire someone, that's practically it. So collective agreements and minimum wages are much harder to adapt to.

>>51656557
>inflation is only getting worse, and raising wages to keep up in turn causes more inflation.
So the primary driver of inflation something with no appreciable impact on the median wage for decades of consistent inflation which it outstrips and can't be used as an argument because it's correlated with a period of high productivity which is why it doesn't line up with your argument and must be ignored?

>>51656588
word salad. try again.

>>51656610
No your argument is nonsensical.

>>51656626
i don't really care if you believe it or not
its the same agument people were making for years about UBI not causing inflation, and then 2020 happened and they all got proven wrong

>>51655984
do they teach about the jews at US business school?

>>51656654
>its the same agument people were making for years about UBI not causing inflation, and then 2020 happened and they all got proven wrong
>Fucking $1800 per person, already offset by the increase in consumer debt, is the cause of inflation and not the retardedly low interest rates and QE from the Fed.

>>51655984
you're starting to get it. it's a war waged on the working people by the ruling class, they'll do anything in their power to hoard as much wealth as they can. I actually think many of those people are not malicious, but the capitalist propaganda is so widespread and normalized that many people have never even considered it's actually all bullshit. but no worries, a global revolution will come within 2-5 years and we'll have our classless society, hopefully not much blood will need to be spilled

>>51656707
>a revolution
>no bloodshed
>a functioning global classless society
>not borgs led by an AI
i was with you until the last two sentences. you are as delusional as a capitalist. just remove the jews and their sycophants from power and things will go back to organic sustainable societies resembling big families bound by blood, soil and creed. hierarchy is good and necessary if people care about each other as a family.

>>51656707
>classless society
Nah, whats coming is worse. The matter how you word it, the signs show that whats coming is better.
It might be a classless society but itll be bland and eat ze bugs and podpilled

>>51656792
I agree, everything seemed fine till the end.
This retard thinks a global revolution without a bloodshed is worth anything. It'll just be a bigger gap between the jews and the goyim, unless some miracle takes place.

>>51656690
Apples and oranges you dumb cunt.
That stimmie was printed by the federal reserve. It wasn't an increase in wages which got paid out of company dividends or other revenue source from the company

>>51656870
>Apples and oranges you dumb cunt.
And apples and oranges to you too dumb cunt as it pales in comparison to how much was needlessly printed to prop up QE and the needless excuse to lower interest rates. Making the general public complacent with what's close to financial suicide doesn't make them culpable or guilty of inflation.

>>51656327
>DPR
>SEK3
wut?

>>51656052
If you can't pay someone more than 20$ for 2 hours of work you don't deserve their labor.

>>51655984
What minimum wage means is the society can't produce any value that can't be produced at lower than minimum wage. Theoretically without a minimum wage there would be a lot of opportunities and more cost effective businesses which would also lower the minimum wage needed to afford services in general

>>51656024
Based and brainwashed

>>51655984
that's because it's correct, and everybody knows it. politics treats it as a taboo. do you understand taboos, or do you have autism?

>>51655984
True. Based. Was expecting to read some shit about how price floors are necessary and help the common man.

>>51656008
you have incorrectly filed "human action" under both "economics" and "refutations."
strictly speaking, mises' book human action is not an economic work. it is his definition of "praxeology" and it's certainly very powerful and useful but it is also an attempt at a "lift-and-shift," to sort of put economics onto a new platform. one man cannot do this alone, even if he is correct. having read human action, i believe he is correct.
however, you also list it as a refutation to ancap philosophy. it isn't. it's still relevant to the foundations of ancap. you might have meant to put "man, economy and state" there instead. that is mises' exposition and defense of classical liberalism. in my view, that book is also successful and has never been refuted, which is why i am not technically ancap (even if much of it makes sense to me).

>>51659132
footnote, you would also want to distinguish "human action" from anything by keynes anyway, as they are in direct ideological opposition. keynes does not recognize individual human agency, he held religious beliefs about "animal spirits" instead.

>>51659132
>>51659154
I didn't make the picture, but as you can see the "Refutations" part has a hierarchy illustrated by edges; the second and third rows are refutations of the first one

>>51658868
>deserve
it's me that has the $20, the money good. it is intrinsically more valuable than the labor it will be traded for. in a capitalist society, one that features sound money instead of a communist central bank, money literally is social proof that i do deserve it, because i necessarily have earned that money in a legitimate manner. no bank will allow me to walk around with their note if i am undeserving, and no bank will honor the demand on the note if i have stolen some coin and deposited it there.
the list of individuals who refuse to "demean" themselves can go fuck off then, because there's a bigger list of unskilled labor that carries no such pretentious attitude and sees no problem with trading some of their time for the $20.
stay mad

>>51656707
the "ruling class" literally does not give a fuck about you at all. to wage war, first you have to be interested enough to call someone the enemy. your problem is you think anyone cares enough about you in the first place, like you're some kind of nuisance when the TV shows them video footage of you burning your own neighborhoods, or something.
you are nothing to the upper class when you live in a total military dictatorship and you are nothing to the upper class when you live in perfect, unattainable, communist anarchy. get it through your thick faggot skull, because violence will never change that.

>>51656798
classless society does not, and cannot, exist. don't allow any mouth-breathing retard one millimeter of ground on this point. they are ALWAYS wrong.

Either you have minimum wage laws or government mandated negotiation with unions or the working class inevitably gets fucked. The “free market” does not actually benefit laborers and strong regulation is need to make it work. This is why fascism is the way forward.
>>51658891
In reality it just led to people being completely fucking destitute working 80 hours a week

The only thing minimum wage laws do is outlaw working for anybody that can't earn the minimum wage. If you can only produce $5 per hour worth of goods and services, there is NO WAY anybody is going to pay you $10 per hour, regardless of laws. Either you allow the $5 per hour job or you don't, that's all there is to it. Any disruption of the free market by government always results in inefficiencies that lower the overall standard of living of society as a whole. This pic is amazingly free-market-pilled for a modern classroom.

>>51659220
See this? This is why faggot lolspergs will happily destroy your nation with a horde of low iq shitskins. They only care about money and thank god their ideology is dying in real time. You will hang next to the communists. Faggot. A just wage in a fascist nation state is inevitable.

>>51655984
>noble intentions
kek

>>51659464
Except laborers produce bare minimum 100x more value than they’re paid per hour in every single economic sector. Full stop.

>>51659483
Yeah, that's the questionable part. Maybe it happens, but I'm pretty sure its really rare. Anybody that actually gets anywhere in politics with noble intentions probably only does so because they're good at following directions from those who don't have good intentions.

>>51656151
>it's purely money supply and velocity
watched some Milton Friedman videos where he oversimplified everything for the economically illiterate 95IQ housewives in the audience, huh?
Riddle me this: Without any change in federal monetary policy, would the price of wheat go up during a famine?

>>51659490
>100x value
Sorry, but that is completely delusional. In a successful business, where they have job security, they do produce MORE value than they're paid. They must or else their employer wouldn't have any reason to hire them. If anybody really gets paid only 1% of their value, it's their own fault for not negotiating a better wage. No employer who is making a 100x profit of somebody else is going to fire them and lose their golden goose because he asked for a raise.

>>51655984
pure ideology. this is judaism 101... americans are the biggest non-religious jews in the whole fucking world.

>>51655984
everything in that blurb is accurate
i've lived in frogland and burgerica extensively. you amerifats with no life experience take for granted many positive things in your model

>>51659532
>Price of wheat in a famine.
With stable money supply and velocity, the increase in the price of wheat would be offset by a decrease in other prices. The wheat farmers would be making a lot less money because they are producing a lot less wheat, so they would be able to buy less stuff. All the consumers who are spending more to buy bread would have less money to buy other things, decreasing the demand and thus the prices of other things. Defining inflation as "price increases" is just a trick to get the common people to let banks and governments continually debase the currency by increasing its supply and sending the extra currency wherever they want, IMHO. They tell us it's fine as long as we can afford rent and food. Nevermind the fact that even if consumer prices don't increase too fast, the expanding currency supply will go somewhere, mostly into real assets, destroying upward mbility and the middle class, cementing thr current ruling class in their positions of power and wealth.

>>51659607
Enjoy your delusions lolsperg
Right to your fucking execution
Wage negotiation is only an issue in unjust systems like free market capitalism. A just wage is going to be mandated by law. Kike.

That doesn't make absolutely no sense.
Why would someone willingly work for less than what it legally obligatory to offer? And even if someone did, why would they not get offered jobs? What kind of nonsense is that?

>>51659946
>Why would someone willingly work for less than what it legally obligatory to offer? And even if someone did, why would they not get offered jobs?
If they have no skills, getting a lower than min wage job would help them to gain experience.

>>51659946
Because the job doesn't exist anymore, retard. What they're saying is that at say 10$/h min wage they can only afford to hire like 3 people, when without min wage some shmucks could have said hire me too i'll work for just 5 bucks. Now that guy has no job at all instead of just a really low paying one. I don't agree with any of that but learn to read

>>51655984
the next edition of the book:
>company towns are... le based!

>>51656005
fpbp

>>51659808
>the increase in the price of wheat would be offset by a decrease in other prices
what's this magical mechanism called?

>The wheat farmers would be making a lot less money because they are producing a lot less wheat
... isn't actually the reverse? they would rise prices to offset the lost sales.

>>51660080
>noo the multibillion company Starbucks can't afford an extra barista
doesn't sound like a good argument, are you sure that is what ((they)) meant?

>>51660162
yes they say that shit all the time, that was literally the entire single argument against the recent fight for 15 stuff. Fast food workers trying to get minwage up to 15$ and the counter was how will mom and pop stores keep up paying the summer job kids all that money

>>51660242
>yes they say that shit all the time
yeah but my point is that it doesn't make any sense no matter how much they say it

If a McDonalds needs a crew of 10 to work properly (just a random number) then those 10 jobs are secured no matter the min wage. If McDonalds needs extra hand they would hire someone making it a 11 crew and if they automatize stuff and the crew can be reduced they would fire someone and leave the crew at 9. McDonalds is not just going out of their way to hire an extra crew member that they don't need even if they are paying him or her less than min because if they don't hire someone they don't need, they are not paying ANY wage at all.

>>51660060
You don’t need experience for working class jobs retard. Stop exploiting laborers, fire middle management, and pay them a just fucking wage (80% of the wealth they literally create while you sit on your ass)

>>51659490
>100x
Lmao, you're joking right?
You seriously can't be this retarded

>>51660080
Without price floors goods and services would become cheaper meaning that you have greater purchasing power with that lower wage
>>51660162
>>noo the multibillion company Starbucks can't afford an extra barista
Small businesses are hurt far more than huge multinationals

>>51655984
I wished posters here would read actual peer reviewed studies instead of spouting Ayn Rand talking points. Yes she is studied extensively and has some good points but the lolbertarian ideology is fundamentally flawed.

>>51660550
>Small businesses are hurt far more than huge multinationals
Why would a small business hire someone extra that they don't need? Why would a small business hire someone that needs training? Give an example of a small business and a position so that I can understand what you are trying to say otherwise what I said
>>51660430
here still applies as it is a matter of scale.
Even if that was true, there's nothing stopping the government from making differences between hypercorps and small businesses and applying different rules to each of them.

Minimum wage is one of those policies that is largely supported by normies, but if you talk to the "experts" (economists), they're pretty split on it and most think it does more harm than good.

It's undeniable that minimum wage laws increase unemployment. It could be debated how much of an effect it has, though, and whether the benefits to those still employed and society as a whole outweigh the drawbacks.

>>51659923
>wage will be mandated.
I don't doubt that it will. Only, it's not going to work if you mandate that businesses lose money. They'll just go out of business and then nobody will work. A just wage is what somebody is willing to pay.
I will concede that individual employees are at a disadvantage to their large employers in terms of bargaining power. The big business could continue on mostly unaffected by the loss of a single employee, but the employee may not be able to find a different job. I think unionization is a better solution to this problem than minimum wage laws.
>>51660133
>What's this magical mechanism?
I think I explained it pretty well. Its called the law of supply and demand.
>They will raise prices to offset lost sales.
Yes, they will do that, but they won't be able to raise prices enough to compensate. Overall, their revenue will decrease, again due to the law of supply and demand. If a loaf of bread suddenly costs $2 instead of $1, a lot of consumers are going to chose to eat less bread. Just because the cost of production goes up a certain amount, it doesn't mean that the entirety of those extra costs can be passed onto consumers. They could only pass along the entirety of the extra costs if the demand for wheat was completely inelastic, meaning consumers would buy the same amount of bread, no matter what it cost.

>>51656058
>>51656176
>>51656295
>>51656303
>>51659064


So much retarded niggers. This board is absolute trash. Yes when min wag increases it results in inflation. Every company increases product/service costs to off set their increased payroll.

You are all faggot plebbitor niggers who are too short sighted and emotional to have a real discussion tackling the real issues that cause people to be poor. You just trust the government cares for your best interests when they say shit like “tax the rich and increase min wage” like the niggers you are

>>51660646
>Why would a small business hire someone extra that they don't need?
Min wage doesn't only apply to newly employed people, they would have to lay off their current workforce if the new cost is too much to bare

>>51660796
>would have to lay off their current workforce if the new cost is too much to bare
That doesn't make sense either.
Why would a company have so many employees that the profits would disappear completely if a min wage was imposed? (A FAIR min wage, mind you.)
The number of workers scales with the amount of work needed. Any company overhiring that heavily (if one exists at all) is almost surely underpaying workers to begin with. If anything, companies usually tend to underhire and ask workers to over work thus why 'overtime hours' are a thing.

>>51655984
>government imposed
>not determined by the market
the fucking socialists have taken over our schools and universities

>>51659476
fuck off you Nazi fag, your delusions will never become a reality

>>51655984
What book is this from and which university it it taught at?

Honestly this seems like a book for retards who are just learning to regurgitate facts. It's an open question whether or not having a minimum wage makes low income workers better off or not. Most contemporary labour economic theory is about wages being determined by a bargaining process between employer and employee. It is definitely possible that minimum wage laws have increased the bargaining power of low income workers and made them better off. So for a textbook to make declaritive statements like "low income workers are never better off with a minimum wage" seems pretty retarded.

stay assmad commie retards

>>51656008

>>51655984
what's wrong with that? I worked in restaurants that would easily have hired 2 more people per shift if they didn't have to pay them $10/hour lol.

>>51660988
My point is that small businessowners could be severely hampered enough to go into bankruptcy while multinationals have more capital and are established abroad in places where min wage is lower or doesn't exist
>Why would a company have so many employees that the profits would disappear completely if a min wage was imposed?
Yes that is possible depending on the min wage set
>(A FAIR min wage, mind you.)
Determine a "fair min wage", it shouldn't be difficult since governments must have a method right?

>>51661461
>My point is that small businessowners could be severely hampered
And my point is that workers are scaled to the amount of work.
There's no reason for a small company that makes 100k a year to have 100 employees.
>Determine a "fair min wage"
What I meant is something 'fair' for the employer so not some retarded minimum wage like $100 an hour some some burgerflipper.
A fair mine wage is not determined by someone is determined by the economy itself.

>>51660476
It’s correct faggot

>>51659132
Man economy and state is by Rothbard not Mises, but I might be misreading your sentences.

>>51660680
>A just wage is what somebody is willing to pay.
Incorrect. A just wage is a wage which provide a worker with the majority of the wealth he created.

>>51661062
Incorrect. Fascism is objectively becoming the new normal.

>>51661644
>There's no reason for a small company that makes 100k a year to have 100 employees.
I didn't say that, I said that it depends on the min wage set
>What I meant is something 'fair' for the employer so not some retarded minimum wage like $100 an hour some some burgerflipper.
So it's arbitrary, there are people who would disagree with that statement
>A fair mine wage is not determined by someone is determined by the economy itself.
Min wage is imposed by the goverment
You keep ignoring my point that min wage gives multinationals an unfair advantage over local businessowners

>>51656008
biggest cringelords. Lolberts always get defeated by Commies when they invoke muh freedoms are infringed

>>51655984
But this is only true if you put the place floor above the market rate? At or below the market rate and the minimum wage does nothing.

>>51656008
fpbp

>>51656024

>>51661945
>You keep ignoring my point that min wage gives multinationals an unfair advantage over local businessowners
No I don't you are just not addressing my points which cover that.

If min wage gets applied, a small company will have to pay min wages to a bunch of people because the workforce of a small company is scaled down and that is what makes the company small (Literally, the definition of how big a company is is based on the number of employees). A hypercorp would have to increase the wages to thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people because that is the scale they are working at.
If what you are actually arguing about is that hypercorps have more money then that's beyond the point because that's like saying that a small business that does good and opens a second shop is having an unfair advantage. All business' aim is to thrive and expand.

If you open a restaurant that works well with a single waiter, you don't hire another because it's pointless. Now, if your restaurant becomes famous and your single waiter is no longer enough to serve all the tables you hire another. If suddenly your restaurant has people queing outside, you buy or rent a new and bigger spot.
This is literally how business works. You don't go around hiring people that you don't need even if they are cheaper, because you don't need them. Period.
The argument "If I could hire for cheaper I would hire more people" is bad because it's always going to be mathematically beneficial for an employer to have more workforce for the same amount of money paid for them. (Which also technically gives hypercorps an unfair advantage)

>>51661261
Cry more nigger.

>>51662001
>Lolberts always get defeated by Commies
When?
lmao every time a communist subhuman debates a libertarian, the commie gets rekt

>>51656058
people who support minimum wage are economic illiterates

>>51656295
>1.5% of the US is on minimum wage
That seems like a pretty strong argument that minimum wage is useless.

>>51656398
>given that capital machines can make up the slack
they can only do this sometimes, retard

>>51656008
Why are most ancap writters jewish?

reminder that commies are fucking braindead

>>51662801
>>51662815
>>51662838
>>51662867
>>51662890
^ get a load of this seething brainlet

>>51663004
where's your argument nigger?

>>51662890
>>51663018
"Planning the structure of production" is a wagie job, smoothbrain.

>>51663042
>"Planning the structure of production" is a wagie job
no, it's literally the job of entrepreneurs
do you even know what structure of production means?

can't believe biz is full of so many retarded communists

people unironically want the government to ban them from negotiating their own wage. guess what dipshits? a minimum wage isn't going to bring those below up, it simply cuts them off entirely.

in a culture where wage-negotiation is normalized, you can get valuable experience when you're a teenager at a job you actually want. the fact that you can't even consider this possibility is because you're so used to living in cucked society where government tells you what wage you're allowed to work for. all minimum wage does is restrict your freedom to negotiate your own wage. you're retarded if you think it does anything else.

>>51662767
>(Literally, the definition of how big a company is is based on the number of employees).
No it isn't
>A hypercorp would have to increase the wages to thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people because that is the scale they are working at.
They can hire abroad or they are already vested abroad in countries with lower or no min wage, either way a multibillion dollar corporation isn't going to be hit as hard as a starting entrepeneur with small savings
>If what you are actually arguing about is that hypercorps have more money then that's beyond the point
That isn't what I am arguing, they have an unfair advantage due to goverment mandated policies
>The argument "If I could hire for cheaper I would hire more people"
You keep putting words in my mouth and ignoring what I actually said

>>51663176
>lets pretend mega corporations didnt do to wages and salary negotiations what walmart did to haggling for prices of goods in old traditional markets
Get your head out of your ass. Also government in USA is not a separate entity from the corporate oligarchy, its all the same people and their families and houseniggers.
>inb4 some big tech corporations are paying out the ass for programmers and such
They are because they spent billions to reduce wages of average systems engineer and c programmer and would pay 10 times more without importing half of Indias university graduates and using half of eastern Europe as freelance outsourcing.

>>51663125
>no, it's literally the job of entrepreneurs
lmao

>>51662815
why do you have 0 political influence, 0 academic relevance besides small think tanks that only influence aspies on the internet, and are irrelevant when dealing with societal decay, even encouraging it under freedom of choice.
>lmao every time a communist subhuman debates a libertarian, the commie gets rekt
debates are useless and do not result in anything useful. You're obviously 18 or younger.

>>51660988
it does make sense. you're treating all labor as fungible when it's not. as a business owner, some of your employees make you more many than others. the ones that get laid off are the ones on the margin. this, in fact, makes perfect sense and you are a retard

>>51663042
It's not, read the ECP.

>>51663453
>no argument
>retard thinks production just falls from the sky and production organizes itself

>>51663492
>why do you have 0 political influence
Libertarians are the third biggest political party. There is a fuckton of Libertarians.
A Libertarian is likely to become the next president of Argentina.
Keep coping.

>>51663345
>No it isn't
Uh... yes. It's definitely one of the measurements they use for obvious reasons.
>They can hire abroad
So can a small company.
>or they are already vested abroad in countries with lower or no min wage
This doesn't affect your small company that is based in an entirely different country at all.
>they have an unfair advantage due to goverment mandated policies
That sounds like a problem to solve with the government that has actually nothing to do with the wagies working for your OR the corporations.
>You keep putting words in my mouth
It was just a general statement not quoting you. It's not like what you said is that much different to that, anyways.
>ignoring what I actually said
I have addressed every single point you have talked about though.

>>51663377
wage negotiation definitely still exists. there should be more of it for the sake of the employees. what are you even trying to argue

obviously if you're just generic unskilled wagie #52389523985 looking to maximize his wage you have nothing to put on the table

negotiation comes into play when you're trying to get a job in a field you're unqualified for. you can offer to work for next to nothing or free to get experience. you are deluding yourself if you are trying to argue this is not a valuable tool for a potential employee

>>51663453
Definitely not an argument. Entrepreneurs (broadly defined) are the ones who operate at the frontier of production, meaning that they create configurations of capital that did not exist before rather than merely managing others or performing a task within a greater structure. The entrepreneur bets against society and says, "No, the market is not efficient in this case."

>>51663500
You need to read more than just one post to understand what is being discussed.
No, it doesn't make sense.

>>51663548
omfg argentina?!?!! gadsdenbros rise tf up!!!

>>51663606
based austrian econ understander

>>51663625
Yes.

>>51663548
>>51663606
What percentage of production structure is planned by non-wagies? Pro-tip: close to zero.

>>51663635
Economics is more of a pseudoscience than astrology.

>>51663711
Entrepreneurs plan the structure of production by choosing what to invest in and managing that investment. If they choose the wrong thing, ie. the thing that doesn't satisfy human demand, then they lose money.

>>51663742
All forms of economics besides austrian economics are pseudoscience.

>>51663613
I read all the posts and, yes, it does make sense

>Why would a company have so many employees that the profits would disappear completely if a min wage was imposed?
What?
What doesn't make sense is how you don't understand how a business might struggle if its labor costs go up. It's literally elementary school math.

>>51663492
>muh prestigious institutions can't be wrong
disgusting worshiper of authority

>>51663742
>Economics is more of a pseudoscience than astrology.
>Therefore you might as well enact all the policies that make me feel good because any repercussions can't be predicted anyway!

>>51663788
If your company struggles by having to pay a fair wage to your workers your business is failing in general or you are overstaffed.

>>51656008

>>51663767
>Entrepreneurs plan the structure of production by choosing what to invest in and managing that investment
Wrong, the vast majority of capital investment is organized by employed financial managers.

>>51655984
Seems perfectly logical and reasonable to me. Maybe you are just doomed to be an uneducated hick?

>>51663872
By definition it's not failing if it's making money. However, it's easy to see how arbitrary and moronic government overreach in the form of policies that needlessly meddle in the economy can destroy otherwise healthy and functioning businesses, thus lowering everyone's standard of living.

Protip: Some businesses and industries are simply more labor-intensive than others. This fact doesn't mean they are "failing" because some retard communist in government decided they have to pay some arbitrary amount for labor.

>>51663901
jfc communists are fucking unbearable

>>51663948
Not an argument.

>>51661261
periods of deflation make my duckets swell - Milton Friedman

>>51663994
you dont need to make an argument against a factually incorrect claim. as expected your understanding of rhetoric is about as good as your understanding of economics. you're just a destitute midwit looking to blame anyone but himself because he's too arrogant to perceive his own stupidity

>>51663994
>>51664036
point being that your claim was so moronic it wasn't even worth correcting because you have clearly lost the plot. it's like arguing with a toddler

>>51663176
You can’t negotiate your wage when the fucking job you do is low skill labor and there’s an abundance of laborers.

>>51663928
>By definition it's not failing if it's making money.
Then if it's making money it can afford to pay the minimum wages.
Your only issues seems to be making less profits.

>Some businesses and industries are simply more labor-intensive than others
Yeah, so? Never said that 'more workers = company failing' I said that if you have many workes and you can't afford them you are either overstaffed or your business is just not profitable.
So lots of people needs to get hired for this labor intensive business because there's no other way around it. The final product reflects this by having a price that pays for the necessity of the labor plus the profits for the owner of the business.

>>51663377
>NOOOO You cant just go to a small business you have to work for the BIG EVIL CORPO

>>51664036
>>51664085
>a factually incorrect claim
The 'claim' I made is factually correct. Investment decisions are mainly conducted by portfolio managers (external) and upper management and executives (internal). If you have evidence to the contrary, you haven't presented it.

>>51659490
According to what?

>>51664128
For the most part yes
The fundamental problem with lolspergs is that they refuse to operate within the confines of reality

>>51664165
>Cuck mentality

>>51664144
at the end of the day, what is actually invested in is the responsibility of the entrepreneur
they're responsible for hiring people that make good decisions

>>51663580
>So can a small company.
I don't think that they can realistically afford the cost, risk, and time to relocate nor do I think that many want to leave their country, I don't see how you think this is a positive anyway
People want to support their local community not move to a foreign third world country so that they can afford the cost of labor
>This doesn't affect your small company that is based in an entirely different country at all.
You are saying that it doesn't affect me that a competitor can partially circumvent the min wage?
>That sounds like a problem to solve with the government that has actually nothing to do with the wagies working for your OR the corporations.
I never said that anyone other than the goverment is at fault
>It was just a general statement not quoting you. It's not like what you said is that much different to that, anyways.
Quote what I said then

>>51664103
you can negotiate. that doesn't mean you can get something for nothing. if you have nothing to offer then you will get nothing in return.

besides, my whole point was that you negotiate your wage DOWN, not UP. you negotiate your wage DOWN to get your foot in the door for a job you actually want.

>>51664105
>Then if it's making money it can afford to pay the minimum wages.
No, it can't, because you can easily imagine a scenario in which any increase in minimum wage far outweighs profit margins, which is exactly what would happen to many small businesses if minimum wage were increased. They would get crushed.

>>51664144
You fucking dipshit. Do you even know what capital is? Go look up the definition of capital and imagine how much of it there is on the planet, then imagine how many "financial managers" there are. You have no idea what you're talking about and you need to humbled badly because clearly you think you do.

>>51664200
>No, it can't
But you just said it's making money?

>you can easily imagine a scenario in which any increase in minimum wage far outweighs profit margins
No you can't. If increasing the wages to a certain minimum destroys your companies profits, you are managing your company like shit, it's not profitable and or you are overstaffed.

We are back to
>>51660988
by the way.
The issue with this matter always boils down to profits.

>>51664194
1) the vast majority of capital is not in the hands of "entrepreneurs"
2) It's the "responsibility" of capital owners to hire good wagies in general. That doesn't mean no work is done by wagies.

>>51664238
Nice self-own.

>>51656274
>Tfw no man would pay 15 dollars for me
>Tfw I get priced out of the prostitution market due to minimum wage

>>51655984
it's true, if the minimum wage is $15/hour and your job doesn't create more than $15/hour of value your job will go away

>>51664200
>negotiate your wage down
Christ I am glad libertarians have died off and fascism is rising on the right. You subhumans need to be fully extinguished

>>51664248
>Nice self-own.
point proven. utterly insufferable self-important retard.

"capital" existed before "financial managers" ever did. this fact alone should show how utterly wrong you are but you won't accept it because you are yet another arrogant, ignorant midwit communist. unironically kill yourself you destitute worthless trash

>>51664279
Buddy most jobs create exponentially more value than they’re paid. Fire all middle managers, slash shareholder dividends, gut CEO salaries and pay the fucking workers physically creating the actual wealth in the world.

>>51664308
You have no arguments, only insults, because your position is patently false.

>"capital" existed before "financial managers" ever did
The fact that you think this "point" is even remotely relevant shows how deeply confused you are.

>>51664241
If you're making 1$ by definition you are making money and are a successful, legitimate business. Apparently you have no problem crushing businesses that are profitable for a political ideology. This whole "well if you can't afford to pay me more than I'm worth then you're not a REAL business" is pure communist nonsense cope.

>>51664304
Once again,
>people shouldn't be allowed to negotiate their own wage as they see fit!
Why do you hate freedom

>>51664359
>freedom
Ancaps hate freedom.

>>51664351
literally just gave you an argument. you are a bad-faith, unhumble actor who has turned off what little reasoning skills he had to begin with and dug his heels in because he can't handle being insulted due to his fragile and inflated ego, typical of communists

>The fact that you think this "point" is even remotely relevant shows how deeply confused you are.
not an argument sweaty :)

>>51664195
>I don't see how you think this is a positive anyway
It was you that bring this up initially.
If a small company can't risk or be interested in bringing outside talent then why does it matter if a corporation does it? You are already closing that door by saying that it's not worth looking into it.
>You are saying that it doesn't affect me that a competitor can partially circumvent the min wage?
I'm saying that this is a problem with the government that allows it to happen not with the wagies.
If there is a min wage, corporations should pay it the exact same way as everyone else. Why should be wagies punished over the government and corporations being cahoots?

>>51664359
>If you're making 1$ by definition you are making money and are a successful, legitimate business.
If you are just making $1 profit then your business is clearly not a good business or the managing of it failed at some point. Your point?
>political ideology
Nothing I said was political the fuck are you talking about?

>>51664447
>literally just gave you an argument
No, you didn't. You have yet to give a single argument in this thread. You have no arguments because your claims are false or nonsensical. You are demonstrably incapable of elementary logical reasoning.

>>51664304
>Christ I am glad libertarians have died off and fascism is rising on the right.
lmao what is this a time traveler from 2017?
Libertarians are rising again. They already outnumber you animals. Argentina is about to elect an ancap and the guy who is going to defeat Trudeau in Canada is libertarian.

>>51664384
>Ancaps hate freedom.
Ancaps are the only people who logically support freedom.

>>51664450
>If you are just making $1 profit then your business is clearly not a good business
Spoken like a true wagie who doesn't know what he's talking about and has never ran a business. This sentiment is literally based on nothing but your own feelings alone. You "feel" like it's not a good enough business because it can't handle having the thumb of government unfairly pushed on its scales. Businesses shouldn't have to bear the burden of paying communists more than they're worth in order to justify their existence.

>>51664513
No, they are fierce enemies of freedom.

>>51664495
Claim: It's not entrepreneurs who allocate capital, it's "financial managers!"

Premise 1: If true, then financial managers must have been around at all times capital was around.
Premise 2: Capital existed before financial managers.
Conclusion: It couldn't possibly be the case that financial managers are the ones who manage capital

Sorry I forgot that I have to spell out arguments like you're 5 because communists can't understand nuance. Please tell me the next coping rationalization as to how this is not an argument I can't wait. Come on, tell me monkey! :D

>>51664514
More like spoken like someone who has a clue.
If your small business is making $1 in profit, underpaying your 10 wagies by 30% of their salary is not going to change anything because your business is a fucking disaster no matter what the wages are and you are still making peanuts.

>>51664525
Prove it, cuck.

>>51664594
>Claim: It's not entrepreneurs who allocate capital, it's "financial managers!"
>Premise 1: If true, then financial managers must have been around at all times capital was around.
That's the dumbest "inference" I've ever witnessed in the history of this board, and there have been a lot of doozies here. Learn what tense is, mongoloid. Claim: Entrepreneurs allocate close to zero percent of the world's capital. Present tense. "B-b-but what about in paleolithic times?" Jesus fuck you're dumb.

>>51664671
Private ownership of the nation's productive infrastructure by an idle parasitic class is the very opposite of freedom.

>>51664646
>underpaying
according to what? your feelings?

wow, a wagie thinks he is underpaid despite having no unique skills or talents. you're a real fucking trailblazer and original thinker you know that?

why not try breaking the mold and having some self-awareness and understanding of economics

>>51655984
Unironically correct. Price floors lower the productivity of a society while increasing demand on the short term (inflationary pivot) and have no effect long term. Yet the short term loss of productivity can never be made up for, and can trigger knock on losses if the economy is already over leveraged.

The only good business regulations are ones which force industry to price in the total cost of production. Environmental and safety regulations are among the most successful, but they only work if enacted on a wide scale. One country banning the dumping of a destructive chemical typically results in another country dumping more of it as demand shifts regions. Regulations which enforce a free market are also important, as a free market is by nature unstable and requires a guiding hand to prevent bad actors from toppling it with anticompetitive practices. Forcing a free market is better in the long run, even if it creates short term losses in productivity. This means you don't need to enforce such a market on a global scale, the ratcheting efficiency will eventually create dominance over foreign monopolizers as long as they've not already gained enough control to kill your exports via tariff.

Regulations can be important, but shit like minimum wage are just feel good measures which actually hurt workers through inflation and job loss. Book is correct.

>>51664673
no amount of screeching can save you from the fact that you're a communist and i know you're retarded. i know you're desperate for validation and for people to think you know what you're talking about. unfortunately those of us with actual education and credentials can see right through your retarded ideology that only midwits and wagies share.

that being said, when do you think the first "financial manager" job appeared? do you think capital existed before that? why don't you try applying some critical thinking for once in your pathetic life.

>>51664696
>according to what?
According to what you were paying them before you made $1 profit. Retard.
Talk about self-awareness.

>>51663788
I don't worship authority you 90 IQ spic. I am saying you don't have any meaningful influence and Libertarianism itself is self-sabotaging when dealing with subversion like we see today. Does "Go Woke, Go Broke" work yet?

>>51664693
>idle parasitic class
They certainly aren't "idle". They're far more productive than a state monopolizing these resources would be.
>parasite
How does increasing production for the benefit of the working class make them parasites? You make no sense

You people literally support state monopolizing every single aspect of people's lives. You're the polar opposite of freedom.

>>51656333
Automation increases supply and lowers cost while also reducing labor demand. This is a far better outcome than reducing supply, increasing demand, and also reducing employment. Furthermore, automation often only becomes necessary when labor is expensive and demand is high. This happens when minimum wage is increased.

>>51664735
>no amount of screeching can save you from the fact that you're a communist
When did I say I was a communist? Never happened. You call anyone who disagrees with your nonsensical gibberish a "communist" because you are incapable of rational debate.

>that being said, when do you think the first "financial manager" job appeared?
Certainly a lot earlier than your "caveman entrepreneur", not that it matters.

>>51664754
>why do you have 0 academic relevance
>I don't worship authority
okay retard

>>51664760
>a state monopolizing these resources would be
Never even mentioned state ownership. Embarrassing response.

>>51664781
>Certainly a lot earlier than your "caveman entrepreneur"
so you're so assblasted now that you're just inventing narratives as a coping mechanism

sad that i understand your behavior better than you do

>>51664796
>Never even mentioned state ownership.
lmao, it was implied through your language. You're obviously against capitalism so state control is the only logical thing you could support
>b-b-but I mean worker co-ops
Yes, enforced by state law.

>Embarrassing response.
You're a communist.

>>51664747
that... makes no sense at all

what methodology for valuating the value of your own labor are you using
inb4 no response because you obviously don't have one and you're desperate to dodge this question

>>51664815
>so you're so assblasted now that you're just inventing narratives as a coping mechanism
Nice self-description, schizo. You're the one who claimed that the purported existence of caveman entrepreneurs somehow invalidated basic facts about the current division of labor with respect to capital allocation. You are either a troll pretending to be retarded, or a genuine mouhtbreathing nutcase.

>>51664786
yeah no point in talking to you. The point of academic relevance is to influence the conversation, I don't worship authority, but looking at 2020-2022, you have to see 90% of people appeal to it. Enjoy your world of unlimited freedoms in your Lockean fantasyland.

>>51664326
>12 posts by this id

>>51664835
>lmao, it was implied through your language. You're obviously against capitalism so state control is the only logical thing you could support

>>51664876
>You're the one who claimed that the purported existence of caveman entrepreneurs
uh, no? you're the one who first mentioned anything related to cavemen or paleolithic times. pathetic projection + cope. sorry ur so assblasted

>>51664841
>that... makes no sense at all
I'll explain to you as if you were a golden retriever

>3 wagies work for you
>each make $1000
>you make $1 profit
>"that cannot be, 30% cut on wages"
>you make $901 profit
It was definitely the wage's fault not that your business plan is fucking garbage.

>>51664886
yeah no point in fighting a losing battle, i agree.

your fragile ego just couldn't possibly handle it

>>51664903
>bootlicking communist has zero argument
I actually thought you wanted to debate with me haha

Actual economists understand that labor economics are more complex than simply plotting surplus labor on a graph. Some lean into teaching things this way because of their political leanings. You can always find an economist from somewhere to shill your preferred policy.

>>51664911
>you're the one who first mentioned anything related to cavemen or paleolithic times

Wrong, see >>51664594

Or are you now backpedaling and conceding that capital existed before entrepreneurs?

>>51664943
Capitalism is the same thing as "state control", bootlicker.

>>51664930
okay but what's your valuation metric for determining the clearing cost for labor

>>51664951
I will unironically venmo you 1000$ if you can find any word related to cavemen or paleolithic times in that post. we're at the point where you're pointing to a chair and trying to tell me it's a banana because you're so frazzled

>>51664969
>Capitalism is the same thing as "state control", bootlicker.
>Chairs are the same thing as bananas, bootlicker
>Reality is whatever I feel like it is, bootlicker
You can't make this shit up

>>51656151
Inflation is a tax the jew government implements

>>51664984
You just got proven wrong. Your deflecting nonsense is not going to work.
You made $1 profit with your company. Unless you want to pretend like the minimum wages are something unrealistic and dumb like $100 an hour you have no argument left because it's your business plan that failed, not the wages or the wagies.

>>51665000
>if you can find any word related to cavemen or paleolithic times
Did capital exist before entrepreneurs, yes or no?

>>51665022
If all laws protecting private property were repealed tomorrow, all billionaire capitalists would immediately cease to exist. True or false?

You are obviously just trolling at this point.

>>51664969
>Capitalism is the same thing as "state control", bootlicker.
No it fucking isn't lmao.
The further you go away from state control, the more capitalist your society becomes.
There's been many historic examples of actual statelessness in history and guess what? They were all extremely fucking capitalist haha
Examples:
French Acadia
Many areas of the American Midwest during 1800s.
Cospaia 400 years
Free Frisia 700 years
Neutral Moresnet 100 years
Ancient Ireland 2000 years
Medieval Iceland 400 years

>>51665067
>Did capital exist before entrepreneurs, yes or no?
>therefore cavemen
holy mother of cope

>>51665083
>The further you go away from state control, the more capitalist your society becomes.
It's literally the opposite. Capitalism can't exist without private property.

>>51665067
>If all laws protecting private property were repealed tomorrow, all billionaire capitalists would immediately cease to exist. True or false?
Of course not. Private security firms would spring up and private property would be even MORE protected.
This happened many times in history.

>>51663176
>just negotiate your wage as a kid bro
>use your freedom to negotiate
Sometimes I wonder why idiots like you think labour movements became a thing and then I realize you don't.

>>51665106
>It's literally the opposite.
I just gave you a bunch of examples and explained using logic why you make no fucking sense.
Where is your refutation?
You have no argument.

>Capitalism can't exist without private property.
Yes, obviously.
Private property is strengthened and solidified when the state is abolished.
It's made up bullshit concepts like "personal property" that need the state to enforce. See Catalonia.

>>51665113
>Private security firms would spring up
Why wouldn't such firms simply seize the wealth for themselves? Without property there is no means of payment.

>>51665116
>just ask for more money kids
I hope they valued their freedom like a true American.

>>51665061
uh, no. i'm re-asking you to answer the question i originally asked because you responded with some nonsense

third time:
what's your valuation metric for determining the clearing cost for labor. you claim to be underpaid, is there any actual objective basis for this claim or is it all just feelings? (it is)

>>51665132
None of your examples are instances of 'statelessness'.

>Private property is strengthened and solidified when the state is abolished.
Absolutely nonsensical.

>>51665116
labor unions were like 4-5% of the entire workforce during the gilded age yet wages and working hours improved dramatically for the 95% of the workforce that wasn't in unions
unions and government intervention had nothing to do with this

>>51665137
>Why wouldn't such firms simply seize the wealth for themselves?
Because they're competing with other firms for consumer demand, brainlet.
>why wouldn't they just monopolize everything
because it's simply not possible

>Without property
Who said there wouldn't be property?

>>51665142
>guess your poor dad should have negotiated more sucks to be you but at least you're not a commie amirite

>>51665137
>>51665067
>If all laws protecting private property were repealed tomorrow
even chimpanzees understand the concept of ownership. property is not a contrived human creation but rather a fact of nature. give it up

>>51665161
>None of your examples are instances of 'statelessness'.
Yes, they literally are.
You're just saying "NO U!" at this point and refusing to post an actual argument. Just close the tab bootlicker.

>Absolutely nonsensical.
WHERE'S THE ARGUMENT?

>>51660698
>Every company increases product/service costs to off set their increased payroll.
The real question is why? Companies have no legal guarantee that they will be profitable. Why can't they just accept lower profits while still remaining stable?

>>51665174
Child labor existed for ALL of human history.
It was capitalism and the industrial revolution that abolished it.

Capitalism did this, not labor unions.

>>51665173
>consumer demand
What? How is "consumer demand" expressed without property? If a self-declared "billionaire" calls you up and asks you and your private security friends to protect his assets, you would have to be a complete moron to accept the deal rather than take his fortune for yourself.

>>51665116
>>51665142
way to utterly miss the point, simpleton

arguments against minimum wage have nothing to do with negotiating your wages UP; you can already do that

minimum wage prevents individuals from negotiating their wage DOWN for a job they are not qualified for. your inability to grasp the basics of rhetoric are, of course, expected though for someone who is clearly a leftist hack

>>51665176
>even chimpanzees understand the concept of ownership
Lol, no. In the animal kingdom might makes right.

>>51665240
these two realities are not mutually exclusive. nice try though retard

>>51665192
Private property cannot exist without a violent entity (aka a state) to adjudicate conflicting property disputes. If there is no legal structure defining property rights then there is no objective difference between theft and rightful possession and therefore no property.

>>51665152
>nooo you can't just prove me wrong like you did that's not allowed
I'm telling you again: I'm not going to fall for the bait and give you room to rekindle the argument with something slightly related to it. You just got your shit handed to you.
Just change $1000 for whatever is considered the min wage in America right now and the same point applies. Your business is either solid or it isn't.

>>51665253
>these two realities are not mutually exclusive
Yes they are, dumbass. If there is no objective answer to who owns what, there is no objective property.

>>51665217
>What? How is "consumer demand" expressed without property?
Property exists. It has always existed in stateless societies.
What makes you think it won't exist?

>If a self-declared "billionaire" calls you up and asks you and your private security friends to protect his assets, you would have to be a complete moron to accept the deal rather than take his fortune for yourself.
If you were a firm that did this, you'd either go out of business due to being a terrible security firm, or you'd be arrested by other security firms.
There would be a fuckton of security firms all abiding by polycentric law.

>>51665273
>Private property cannot exist without a violent entity (aka a state)
kek
private property existed before the first states brainlet
yes you need violence to defend property, but you don't need a monopoly on law to achieve this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law
>If there is no legal structure defining property rights
There is.

>>51665285
you literally just posted some nonsense, incoherent gobbledygook and are now randomly claiming I got "my shit handed to"

anyway since you're desperately dodging the question as expected i can only assume you have no idea what the value of your labor actually is, as expected. wagies always want to get paid more, and you are no exception. guess waht though? your feelings are not reality. your feelings are, in fact, wrong.

congratulations on finding a way to dodge the question while still rationalizing your own superiority to yourself though. i always knew you could do it

>>51665273
also

>it's an ancoomer

>>51665240
I hate to break it to you but that applies to the human kingdom too, the government has the right to take 30% of your income every year because they have political and military might to back up their actions. They also use this might to enforce private property rights among private citizens while ownership in the animal kingdom is dependent on a individual chimps ability to defend its own property.

>>51665295
there is an objective answer. the fact that i can use force to make what is yours, mine, does not change that fact. cope harder.

remember how wrong you were about that retarded caveman shit? dont think the fact that you're trying to silently skulking away from that retardation is lost on me. have some humility and accept how dumb you actually are

>>51665306
>private property existed before the first states brainlet
Patently false.

>you don't need a monopoly on law to achieve this
You do if you want there to be a single correct answer to "who owns what". If ownership is completely subjective there is no property at all, just a million conflicting claims. Everyone will claim to own the world, rendering the concept meaningless.

>>51665335
Never heard of any of that horseshit, zoomer.

>>51658868

>>51665352
>look mom, I'm trolling!
You never answered the question about cavemen entrepreneurs, big boy. Did capital exists before entrepreneurs?

>>51656008
>pedophile studies

>>51665364
>Patently false.
You still have no argument. I already posted several examples of actual REAL anarcho-capitalism in history and you're just denying it because it hurts your feelings.

>You do if you want there to be a single correct answer to "who owns what".
You would have this. The judges would come to a consensus and law would generally be uniform.
>If ownership is completely subjective there is no property at all
it wouldn't be
in the old west there were claims associations which decided who owned what

>>51665379
>calls me a zoomer
okay, I bet you're a 15 year old ancom tranny from twitter

>>51665364
>Patently false.
uh, no? good god the extent to which leftists are willing to rewrite history all because they can't accept their inferior position on the social ladder is sickening

if animals understand property, and humans are animals, what does that say about the existence of property before states? how are you so unable to take basic facts to their logical conclusion on their own without having your hand held every step of the way? disgusting.

>>51665403
you know whatever tangent you're trying to go down is simply an attempt to redirect from the fact that you are the one who first mentioned anything related to cavemen, yet you tried to insist that it was my argument instead

you are one disgusting and retarded individual. i might respond if you acknowledge that you're the one who brought up cavemen in the first place and tried to pin your doing so onto me

>>51665409
leftists are pedos and they project this onto libertarians
it's quite funny

>>51656008

>>51665413
>I already posted several examples of actual REAL anarcho-capitalism in history
No, you did not.

>The judges would come to a consensus and law would generally be uniform.
Exactly. That's called having a state.

>claims associations
AKA states

>okay, I bet you're a 15 year old ancom tranny from twitter
No idea what you're talking about because I'm not a mentally ill zoom-zoom like you.

>>51665225
>the power to negotiate your wages down
If only all these poor miners dying at the age of 35 during the industrial revolution had the freedom to negotiate their wages down they would have been well-to-do. I see you are quite the brains.

I see what you mean though. If we just let extreme poverty, suffering and starvation provide the true lower bound for wage negotiation the problem is solved. Totally fine solution really.

>>51665328
When you are retarded everything sounds like nonsense.

I'll explain it again as if you were a golden retriever seeing that worked before:
Your problem is with the minimum wage. How I value labor is irrelevant. Take whatever is considered the minimum wage in Amerca right now because that is how labor is valued. Apply it to the problem explained before.
You are still proven wrong. Either you have a solid business or you don't. Wages change nothing.

>>51665448
>whatever tangent
Lol, you started the tangent by bringing up how capital was managed in ancient history (caveman days), when the topic was who allocates capital TODAY. Pro-tip: it's not entrepreneurs. You are one embarrassing dumbass.

>>51665466
>No, you did not.
Yes I did.
HAHAHA you're doing it yet again
WHERE IS YOUR ARGUMENT FAGGOT?

>That's called having a state.
Judges existed before states. Judges existed in stateless societies.

>AKA states
A state is a monopoly on law. These were competing entities.

>>51665535
>Judges existed before states. Judges existed in stateless societies.
Not judges with any enforceable power.

>>51665499
>If we just let extreme poverty, suffering and starvation
yeah these existed well before capitalism, or any economic structure

as usual for leftists, you have cause and effect backwards. you take society's current wealth for granted. you don't understand that suffering is the basic state of nature

you also don't understand that the common man, historically, has ONLY ever been lifted up and gained durable standard of living increases via free market capitalism. every other system has failed to provide any meaningful or sustainable increase to quality of life to the common man

the policies you want to enact would hurt the very people you claim to stand for. you are the worst kind of cancer

>industrial revolution
the industrial revolution of the 19th century brought the greatest gains in standard of living to the common man that the world has ever seen, but yes let's do the opposite of that because that will somehow end up helping the common man because of emotions

the disconnect between you and your ilk's arrogance and reality is what's destroying western civilization right now

>>51665567
>Not judges with any enforceable power.
Yes. Their decisions were carried out by security firms.
Fuck man, at least read some history before you go debating online.

>>51665505
>How I value labor is irrelevant
no it's not. what's your valuation metric to determine the clearing cost for labor

>>51665515
>Lol, you started the tangent by bringing up how capital was managed in ancient history (caveman days),
you're just arguing in circles. acknowledge you're the one who first brought up "caveman days"

>>51665578
>you also don't understand that the common man, historically, has ONLY ever been lifted up and gained durable standard of living increases via free market capitalism. every other system has failed to provide any meaningful or sustainable increase to quality of life to the common man
Unbelievably fucking based!

Reminder working hours fell dramatically as well.
It wasn't unions doing this, they were only 5% of the workforce at the time.
The "muh unions are what rasied living standards" meme is so fucking wrong. It should be called out more.

>>51665592
>security firms
AKA states.
If Security firm A, B, ..., Z all disagree on who owns a given plot of land, then they go to war to resolve the conflict. It's no different from a border dispute between nation states.

>>51665225
>minimum wage prevents individuals from negotiating their wage DOWN for a job they are not qualified for
I disagree with that, I work as a software engineering consultant and I intentionally charge my clients less than my competition so the companies I work with give me more work than my competition, it doesn't just stop unqualified people from negotiating down it stops efficient people from providing the same service for a lower price. I have the experience and a management system that lets me get things done more quickly but if the minimum wage was raised up past the rate I make, which it's nowhere near, my strategy for getting more work wouldn't be effective anymore and my competitors would be on the same ground as me

>>51665499

>>51665644
>AKA states.
Nope.
States are a MONOPOLY on law.
These firms competed with each other and negotiated.

>then they go to war
Wrong, only states go to war.
War is expensive, these firms would rather settle and negotiate rather than go to war.
States can tax and conscript people to fuel wars. Private firms have to hire people and finance everything themselves.

>>51665599
>acknowledge you're the one who first brought up "caveman days"
Wew you really are a full-on clinical autist, aren't you?

>>51665646
those working for well above the minimum wage are obviously not affected

how is that not obvious? what

>>51665694
>States are a MONOPOLY on law.
Not when they are in conflict. Nations compete over resources all the time.

>>51665695
>posts a leftypol meme
my man got caught in 4k

>>51665599
>no it's not
Yes it is.
>what's your valuation metric to determine the clearing cost for labor
I'm not the one setting up the laws of minimum wages. If you have a problem with minimum wage then just use whatever the current minimum wage in America is to the problem. The issue persist. Why? Because the problem is not the wages, it's your dogshit management of the company, terrible business plan or being overstaffed minwages or not present. Simple as.

>>51665732
>Nations compete over resources all the time.
This doesn't change the fact they are states and coercing everyone around them to be part of their bullshit. Private firms don't operate like this.

>>51665750
Is that zoomer lingo? I don't follow the degenerate slang of your deranged generation.

>>51665750
leftypol memes make their way here all the time, there is a good chance he saved it here
also being from leftypol doesn't invalidate your argument

>>51656124
bilonilotic and disordiphontic

>>51665762
>words words words words
>still not a singular justification on the claim that you are "underpaid"
if only it weren't completely expected.

you are not underpaid. if you made more due to minimum wage you would be overpaid. you want to disagree with this, but you can't, because you have no objective basis upon which to measure the value of your labor. you are using feelings entirely and you don't want anyone to know that

>>51665783
ok grandpa

>>51665784
>also being from leftypol doesn't invalidate your argument
He originally claimed he wasn't a communist.
His argument already got invalidated several times.

>>51665773
>Private firms don't operate like this.
Not when they are under the jurisdiction of a nation state, because they are subject to its laws. If there is no greater state they are subject to, then they act exactly how states do because they are the states.

>>51656295
and 30% are not in the labor force

>>51665695
imagine being so fat-headed you can't even acknowledge this

you are beyond help. your ego is far too large of an obstruction. you just say random shit and can't handle when you are called out, choosing to unceremoniously REEEEE instead

>>51655984
> i really want to work for ten cents an hour but nobody will hire me!

>>51665818
>He originally claimed he wasn't a communist.
Where did I claim to be a communist? You never answered this question. Pro-tip: I never did because I'm not.

>His argument already got invalidated several times.
Where?

>>51665718
yes but if I was a carpenter or a mover or a house painter minimum wage would prevent me from offering more efficient service and would force me to charge similar rates to my competitors, that's why it's a bad idea in any field

>>51665824
>then they act exactly how states do because they are the states.
No they aren't.
Your post could be summarized as simply saying "NO U!".
You didn't have any argument.
I have historical and logical evidence on my side. You have nothing.

>>51665856
>Where?
Nearly every time I replied to you and you ignored my argument because you couldn't counter it.

>>51665874
i mean, yes i agree it's bad. not sure what you thought i was trying to argue. you should probably go reread the original post.

being able to negotiate your wages down is a useful tool. glad you have the good sense to agree with that statement

the fact that you are a software engineer betrays that you aren't a retard though so that's to be expected. the desperate wagies in this thread can't see so lucidly

>>51665806
>literally no retort
Nobody is talking about being underpaid. I'm literally telling you to use the minimum wage (which is in place to NOT be underpaid) in America you are still seething about it. This is way too funny.

>>51665924
No, my argument is that entities that act like states are states. Being a state is a matter of behavior, not any magical intrinsic quality.

>Nearly every time I replied to you and you ignored my argument because you couldn't counter it.
Never happened.

>>51665979
>No, my argument is that entities that act like states are states
Cool.
Private firms don't act like states for the reasons I already mentioned.
Where is your refutation to this?

>Being a state is a matter of behavior
Yes, and ability.

>Never happened.
Keep crying over reality.

>>51666002
>Private firms don't act like states for the reasons I already mentioned.
What reasons are those? I see no fundamental difference in behavior between states and the 'security firms' in the scenario you describe.

>>51665946
>Nobody is talking about being underpaid
>>51664646
>If your small business is making $1 in profit, underpaying your 10 wagies by 30% of their salary
typical gaslighting retard

fifth time: what's objective measure are you using to determine these people are being "underpaid"?

>>51665208
Because the company only exists or is at its current size because it has raised capital based on the expectation of investors that the company will maximize their return on investment. To the extent if fails to do this, equity in the company diminishes in value, talent flees, growth stagnates, and the company's ability to raise money for future growth is reduced. Now the workers 'not making enough' simply get laid off when the company has to cut costs. A company must either grow, distribute dividends to shareholders, or die.

>>51665578
>as usual for leftists, you have cause and effect backwards
I am not a leftist you moron. You can read as much into things as you want, but be aware it highlights the fact that you are a midwit.


>you also don't understand that the common man, historically, has ONLY ever been lifted up and gained durable standard of living increases via free market capitalism.

Nice assertion, shame that it is false. Since no evidence is given I'll leave it at.

>the industrial revolution of the 19th century
Nigger the industrial revolution started deep into the 18th century.

>brought the greatest gains in standard of living to the common man that the world has ever seen, but yes let's do the opposite of that because that will somehow end up helping the common man because of emotions

Yes, tools, machinery, automation are awesome. I love how you seamlessly switch from 'muh capitalism' to 'industrial revolution' as if they are synonymous. I guess it is too hard of a sell otherwise.

>>51666042
>What reasons are those?
why do I have to repeat myself?
see: >>51665694

>I see no fundamental difference in behavior between states and the 'security firms' in the scenario you describe.
Really? Are you actually retarded? Honest question.

A private firm cannot tax it's population to fund wars. It cannot enslave others to fight it's wars. Wars are insanely expensive to a private firm, so it's always cheaper to negotiate. This has happened countless times in historical examples of statelessness.

>>51666047
What is so hard to understand? Yes, if you pay your wagies 30% less than you paid them before and that is their minimum wage, you are by definition, underpaying them and you are still not solving your issues becuse the issues are that your business is fucking dogshit.

Man, you are desperate now.

>>51665638
Mr. Autist
You fail to account for the price that upholding free market capitalism at all costs brings
You show only the limited upsides like muh iphones, muh working hours (increasing again now)
You do not show the waste your system produces, the breakup of communities, identities, nations, religions, in favor of turning of people into goyslop eating demoralized and atomized individuals like you

We hate your liberalism, your materialism, your utilitarianism, your naturalism, in a word: your autism

>>51666128
>you are by definition, underpaying them
okay so what's your definition of underpaid? that is analogous to what i've already asked 5 times now

this is the first time you've alluded to a definition of underpaid despite me asking several times. clearly you have some jejune definition but please verbalize it so i can laugh at you

>>51665939
oh I thought you had said only unqualified people tried to negotiate down but it's a perfectly legitimate strategy if you can do a good job quickly and want to take on a larger volume of business. for example there are only so many people that need their house painted and if you can do it for less you will get a larger share of the houses and ultimately more profits

>>51666098
That response is nonsensical, though.

>>51665694
>States can tax and conscript people to fuel wars. Private firms have to hire people and finance everything themselves.
Says who? What is stopping the security firms from taxing and conscripting? There is no higher law that prevents them from doing so.

>A private firm cannot tax it's population to fund wars. It cannot enslave others to fight it's wars. Wars are insanely expensive to a private firm, so it's always cheaper to negotiate. This has happened countless times in historical examples of statelessness.
All these claimed limitations are nonexistent unless they are imposed by a more powerful state.

>>51666138
>You fail to account for the price that upholding free market capitalism at all costs brings
What cost? Any benefits far outweigh any potential negatives.

>muh working hours
How is this not an insanely good thing?

>(increasing again now)
Due to government intervention, yes.

>waste your system produces
Not my problem. There is more production than waste so it literally doesn't matter.

> the breakup of communities, identities, nations, religions
This has been happening for all human history. I don't give a single fuck about this.
NOT
MY
PROBLEM

>>51666172
>okay so what's your definition of underpaid?
retard alert
>if you pay your wagies 30% less than you paid them before and that is their minimum wage, you are by definition, underpaying them
The entire problem was around minimum wage. Retard.

>>51666076
>Nice assertion, shame that it is false. Since no evidence is given I'll leave it at.
obviously there's no point in having a discussion with someone who can't even agree on the basic facts. the easy way to disprove this would be to point to even one counterexample. the fact that you chose to not even attempt to do that is telling

>Nigger the industrial revolution started deep into the 18th century.
yes and that doesn't invalidate what i said at all. your retorts are petty and retarded

>I love how you seamlessly switch from 'muh capitalism' to 'industrial revolution' as if they are synonymous
that's because the 19th century was known as a period of true free market capitalism. you know, the robber-baron era? i made the mistake of assuming you knew that. next time i'll assume you're the uneducated retard leftist that you are and spell everything out for you.

what does it say that the period of freest markets also saw the highest gains in standard of living for common folk? even you can figure it out

>>51666236
>retard alert
non-argument alert

seventh time: what's your definition of underpaid?
(aside from just "feeling" that you are)

>>51665852
If you're willing to take a small wage cut, I know of a business that would hire you

>>51666209
>That response is nonsensical, though.
Oh really? Surely you'd be able to counter it instead of just seething and claiming it's wrong with no evidence.

>Says who?
Says reality?
>What is stopping the security firms from taxing and conscripting?
Other security firms? Other people with guns?
>There is no higher law that prevents them from doing so.
Game theory prevents them from doing this.

>All these claimed limitations are nonexistent unless they are imposed by a more powerful state.
lmao I love how you didn't even attempt to counter my argument and just went back to "NO U!"

What I am describing actually existed many times historically.
You're just denying history because it makes you seethe.

>>51666211
>waste your system produces
>Not my problem.
>the breakup of communities, identities, nations, religions
>Not my problem
There you have it. To libertards and ancappedos nothing is sacred. Their only real argument is that they don't care.

>>51666300
>non-argument alert
I literally gave you the answer in the post you quoted.
You are unironically over and done. You can't salvage this so don't even bother.

>>51666333
>To libertards and ancappedos nothing is sacred.
If you want to conserve your gay ass "culture" then preserve it on your own. Don't force others to join your gay ass larp nigger.

>>51666346
so if you paid a wage, then paid less than that, that is underpaying.

so as long as you start with the lowest possible wage you can never be underpaying. interesting rationalization you've crafted for yourself.

to recap: if i paid you 1$ an hour originally, then pay you 2$ an hour, i'm suddenly overpaying you.

but if i started paying you 2$ to begin with, and never decreased that amount, then you were never underpaid. makes perfect sense

>>51666333
free markets aren't mutually exclusive with your cringy conservative ideals, retard

in fact, they are conducive to them. stop being your own enemy and acting against your own economic interests, dipshit

>>51666266
>to point to even one counterexample
Any successful empire in history would do, but clearly you are so uneducated you think everyone everywhere always was poor and miserable before your holy saviour capitalism.

>>51666266
>your retorts are petty and retarded
Nah, you were wrong and can't even own it.

>>51666266
>19th century was known as a period of true free market capitalism. you know, the robber-baron era
The wealth of an industrial revolution, a continental landgrab and backed by fucking Empire is hardly evidence 'capitalism' works. If anything militaristic boarding schools, a strict class system, a strong state and military and fucking over peasants and natives worked. As it ever did.

>the uneducated retard leftist that you are and spell everything out for you.
You are the definition of midwittery. Muh robber-barons lmao.

>>51666470
>but clearly you are so uneducated you think everyone everywhere always was poor and miserable before your holy saviour capitalism.
they were though
it legit was capitalism that lifted billions out of poverty

>>51666399
Being obtuse on purpose and doubling down on your stupidity is not going to help you out.
The problem was minimum wage. Anything below minimum wage is by definition being underpaid. In the problem, even while illegally cutting wages down 30% under minimum wage (I'm cool like that, I can give you that much wiggle room) the problem still persisted because the problem wasn't wages.

You lost. This makes you upset. (You) me again.

>>51666470
the biggest increase in worker living standards in history happened during the gilded age in America, where the market was the freest in the world, much freer than what we have today

>>51666470
>Any successful empire in history would do
1. not actually sustained when the empire collapsed
2. to the extent that any gains were durable, it was because the empire adopted free market principles. when the empire collapses and withdraws those principles in a desperate bid to save itself, the common man is once again destitute and fucked. you are utterly ignorant of economic history

>The wealth of an industrial revolution, a continental landgrab and backed by fucking Empire is hardly evidence 'capitalism' works
what do you think caused the revolution to begin with? Lol.

> If anything militaristic boarding schools, a strict class system, a strong state and military and fucking over peasants and natives worked
>source: my fashy feelings

>You are the definition of midwittery. Muh robber-barons lmao.
>not petty and retarded
okay retard

>>51666510
>The problem was minimum wage. Anything below minimum wage is by definition being underpaid
okay, so what objective metric is used to determine what is a "fair" minimum wage? you keep dancing around the critical question of objectivity, choosing instead to believe that whatever big-daddy gubmint chooses as your state-sanctioned wage is by definition fair without a second though as to if there's any actual process that goes into the central planning

>>51666537
So people had a mostly unexploited continent to go at with ever new tools and machinery and their wealth is not because of the industry or the free land and resources, but because they didn't have strong governments. Sounds legit.

>>51666647
>new tools and machinery
why did they have new tools and machinery?

>technology just randomly exploded for literally no reason at all!
your one-dimensional thinking is typical of your ilk

>>51666605
>so what objective metric is used to determine what is a "fair" minimum wage?
Zero relevance to anything I've said. Keep grasping.
>how do the economists in the government come up with that number huh? why aren't you answer huh? despite having nothing to do with anything huh? CHECKMATE
lol

The sad part is that you STILL don't understand that even if you bring up the minimum wage down to any number you want the point still stands. Very sad.

>>51666715
what's sad is that your archetype is so transparent and common that i was able to predict that you would refuse to answer the question. 9 posts in and you still haven't given any objective measure to justify the claim that any worker is "underpaid"

>>51666583
>gets the whole of history as counterexample
>yeah, ok but it didn't last
topkek

>>51666583
>what do you think caused the revolution to begin with? Lol.
Where do you think the industrial revolution started? More to the point, do you actually think 18th century Britain was a capitalistic society?

>>51666583
>source: my fashy feelings
What's the matter? Reality too complicated for your tastes? All you have said so far is 'it was the great capitalism' when discussing the 19th century.

>>51666583
>>not petty and retarded
Poor libertard can give it but he can't take it.

>>51666779
Yeah man. You sure showed me or something, lol.

>>51666795
>>gets the whole of history as counterexample
it wasn't a counterexample. my original post had the word 'DURABLE' in it. that means you have to provide an example of DURABLE increases to standard of living, which you did not do. how are you this retarded

>Where do you think the industrial revolution started?
England, you illiterate monkey

>What's the matter? Reality too complicated for your tastes? All you have said so far is 'it was the great capitalism' when discussing the 19th century.
>>not petty and retarded
more petty nonsense. you are objectively retarded as per point 1. please feel free to provide an actual counterexample this time. the "wealth of empires" you're fallaciously alluding to is based primarily on plunder and not real productivity gains. you should know this. you're trying to rewrite history to rationalize how you feel about things.

>>51666696
>technology exploded because of muh Capitalism trust me bro even though shit happened in a highly class based society first

You have one and only one dimension in your thinking yet lack the self-awareness to realize it while posting that. Shit is hilarious.

>>51666882
the fact that you're trying to argue against free markets while claiming to not be a leftist is hilarious

you wont even acknowledge that free markets have lifted the common man out of poverty time and time again. you are a historical illiterate and just another arrogant dipshit looking to rationalize his feelings instead of looking at the facts.

also, you think the industrial revolution started in the united states which is a blatant rewrite of history. unironically read a book dumbass

>>51666779
Wait, you are actually retarded.
I've been avoiding reading your dumb shit for a while now but I just noticed this
>you still haven't given any objective measure to justify the claim that any worker is "underpaid"
Which is kind of funny when I already said
>>51666510
>Anything below minimum wage is by definition being underpaid.
numerous times.

Man, you must be fuming so hard if you are actually asking 9 times for something that I gave the answer to like 15 posts ago if not more.

>>51666910
well no, because when pressed about how the minimum wage is objectively determined, you dodged that question. all you did was offload one undefined term to another

>>51666934
>you dodged that question
I'm not dodging a question if I don't know the answer for it. Ask biden or whoever is in charge in deciding this shit.

Not like any of that matters. You were proven wrong nonetheless.
>your company makes $1 in profits
>your 3 workers make $1000 minimum wage
>"I don't care, you guys are going to work FOR FREE"
>now your company makes $3001
Your company is still the problem.
Are you going to argue now that $0 is still a fair wage?

>>51666839
>give me a durable AND historical
The Roman empire lasted ages and increased standards of living through centralized control. The entirety of 11-13th century Europe was thriving in again highly aristocratic monarchies with guilds controlling commerce.
The renaissance once again. Nigger the entire histories of prosperity were written before the steam engine let alone the 'gilded age'.

>ignores the 'was England capitalistic part
Of course you did.

I suggest you stop being petty and read some history books.

>>51666987
>I'm not dodging a question if I don't know the answer for it
he finally answers it

glad to know that your wild claims to rationalize your feelings were based on nothing all along, as expected. as i said, you aren't underpaid at all. workers are not underpaid. learn some skills and increase your productivity if you want to get paid more. stop expecting to be paid more than you are worth.

>>51666907
>also, you think the industrial revolution started in the united states which is a blatant rewrite of history. unironically read a book dumbass
Nigger wut? My bad, I did not realize you are actually retarded. Go forth anon, for Capitalism.

>>51667047
>noo you don't know how the government decides things internally so that means you are wrong about something that has nothing to do with that
You are like a child.
>as i said, you aren't underpaid at all. workers are not underpaid
Yes they are, if they make less than minimum wage. That's what minimum wage is.

You are completely obliterated.
>muh wages are the reason my company fails
literally coping

>>51667000
>The Roman empire lasted ages and increased standards of living through centralized control
you're so laughably ignorant it hurts. the roman people suffered a severe hyper-inflation because of the centralized control you're alluding to before subsequently tailspinning into decline and chaos. why? because the government started to debase its currency because it ran out of plunder bucks that was making the average roman citizen far better than than his cohorts. wow, a hyper-inflation, great gains for the common man there!

>The entirety of 11-13th century Europe
the peasants were poor as shit during this time, retard. now you're trying to commit the fallacy of pretending that i wasn't referring to gains for the COMMON MAN. seems no matter what you do you can't conjure an actual example (because none exist). that won't stop you from still believing your own horseshit, though.

>ignores the 'was England capitalistic part
England, like the rest of europe, was beginning to embrace free-market ideals due to the revolutionary thought created during the renaissance period. The answer to the question is thus: capitalistic tendencies were increasing, and you're claiming that this fact is just a coincidence that the western economy suddenly boomed like never before. why? because you're a disingenuous retard who tries to rewrite history like the leftist that you are

and you are a leftist. hate to break it to you but by definition you are a leftist since you clearly oppose free markets even though they're the only reason you aren't living in a gutter right now

>>51667072
yep please do put your ignorance on display for everyone to see. keep digging that hole dipshit

Amazing to see the subhuman lolspergs get BTFO over and over

>>51667602
What do you disagree with?
Price floors (minimum wages) harm low skill workers, AND are not inflationary.

>>51664105
>Then if it's making money it can afford to pay the minimum wages.
how can this possibly be calculated? Maybe if it paid its employees and arbitrary minimum wage then it wouldn't be making money. Do you think that the economy, and its employees, would be better off if that business never existed?

>>51668524
If your business suddenly doesn't turn a profit because you have to pay a bit more to a couple people then you are the owner of a failing business.

>>51668725
That's a bizarre and arbitrary metric. Anything that produces a profit is not failing. Anything that produces a profit while producing goods or services is a net benefit to the community. You would take that away to satisfy your lust for moral posturing.

>>51668926
>Anything that produces a profit is not failing
Factually wrong if you value your own time. If you are making peanuts with your own company then you are a failed businessman and you are basically a wagie with extra steps.
>muh community
Stop pretending you care about the community when all you want is to not even pay a living wage to your wagies.

What's with greedy jews like you and pretending it's not a profit issue? More than 90% of the wagies in America earn more than minimum wage and the country is doing fine (as in the current issues have nothing to do with minimum wages). Just be honest about it: I'm taking all the risks so I should reap the benefits and the more benefits the better. Simple as.

>>51666333
Trips der Truth

>>51669125
Just because minimum wages are not inflationary, doesn't mean they are preferable.

The reason why the minimum wage is largely not binding is precisely because of the harm it does to low skill workers.