Jump to content


Photo

What do you know about the financial world?


  • Please log in to reply
344 replies to this topic

#21 Moriarty

Moriarty

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 13 February 2016 - 05:21 AM

When you get into the real world you will see that capital absolutely dictates working conditions both physically and psychologically. That labor is not in short supply and cannot dictate or walk away. Many work as wage slaves or they don't eat. By your logic there should be no minimum and labor can command higher wages due to market forces. Capital has crushed unions with offshoring labor. The world is awash in the oversupply of labor.

Exactly what do you mean by capital dictating conditions?


I have no idea what that thing under my avatar is. I've always liked stickers

#22 QueenofHearts

QueenofHearts

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 13 February 2016 - 05:50 AM

Good grief can you see this becoming much like the religion topic? Keynesian or Austrian economic theory? I remember taking classes in High School called Americanism vs Communism. What is the purpose of governance but to even the playing field? Communism didn't work for many reasons. People don't like to share. It is also governed by fear, the irrational and paranoid and greed driven humans. Capitalism back during the cold war was far superior. It provided a more level playing field and government paid college educations and jobs to those returning from war. Since the Soviet Union collapsed Russia has reverted to a plutocracy ruled only by the most ruthless and one of the world's most wealthy in guise of Vladimir Putin. Not terribly unlike the Tsars of old

 

Americanism or Capitalism is only now starting to run into end game monopolies and banking cartels are still skimming profits from the few pensions that are left. Promises that cannot be kept abound in the liquidity trap of entitlements due to the disproportion of age demographics. These entitlements make up 85% of the government budget. This is also happening in Europe and Japan as well. Wealth is being concentrated into the top .01% and power comes from wealth. Congress can no longer levy taxes and balance the budget so we fall back on money printing and ZIRP. Almost all newly created wealth fills the pockets of those who fill their own and they make the rules. Government is controlled by money i.e. Citizens United. Labor no longer lays claim to political power that was once concentrated in Unions so it must follow the rules if it wants the crumbs from our governing class's table.

 

What does it mean to be conservative these days?


Edited by QueenofHearts, 13 February 2016 - 05:54 AM.

Queenbee


#23 Moriarty

Moriarty

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 13 February 2016 - 05:59 AM

Good grief can you see this becoming much like the religion topic? Keynesian or Austrian economic theory? I remember taking classes in High School called Americanism vs Communism. What is the purpose of governance but to even the playing field? Communism didn't work for many reasons. People don't like to share. It is also governed by fear, the irrational and paranoid and greed driven humans. Capitalism back during the cold war was far superior. It provided a more level playing field and government paid college educations and jobs to those returning from war. Since the Soviet Union collapsed Russia has reverted to a plutocracy ruled only by the most ruthless and one of the world's most wealthy in guise of Vladimir Putin. Not terribly unlike the Tsars of old

 

Americanism or Capitalism is only now starting to run into end game monopolies and banking cartels are still skimming profits from the few pensions that are left. Promises that cannot be kept abound in the liquidity trap of entitlements due to the disproportion of age demographics. These entitlements make up 85% of the government budget. This is also happening in Europe and Japan as well. Wealth is being concentrated into the top .01% and power comes from wealth. Congress can no longer levy taxes and balance the budget so we fall back on money printing and ZIRP. Almost all newly created wealth fills the pockets of those who fill their own and they make the rules. Government is controlled by money i.e. Citizens United. Labor no longer lays claim to political power that was once concentrated in Unions so it must follow the rules if it wants the crumbs from our governing class's table.

 

What does it mean to be conservative these days?

I dont see how any of my points are answered


I have no idea what that thing under my avatar is. I've always liked stickers

#24 QueenofHearts

QueenofHearts

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 13 February 2016 - 06:43 AM

Capital=Owners or Corporation Executives dictate working conditions and those conditions are constantly changing. When I agree to take a job for a salary tomorrow those obligations can be changed. I may hire you to pick apples from 5.00 a bushel and tomorrow pay you two. I may provide an environment that you like and on the next day decide to save on overhead and cut off the AC. As a laborer all I can do is walk away is that not your premise? That Capitalists competes on an even playing field with other capitalists for my labor? That if there they can get the job done through automation that I may become irrelevant. The owner has his money in a bank that loans money to labor, but labor cannot meet obligations due to not having marketable skills and the bank goes under from delinquency taking with it the capitalist's money less what is backed by the FDIC? The FDIC cannot meet it obligations as it don't not prepare for massive foreclosures and people who walk away from debt obligations.

 

It feels like I am losing your premise and I don't know what you want me to answer.


Queenbee


#25 astros

astros

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 13 February 2016 - 06:54 AM

Capital=Owners or Corporation Executives dictate working conditions and those conditions are constantly changing. When I agree to take a job for a salary tomorrow those obligations can be changed. I may hire you to pick apples from 5.00 a bushel and tomorrow pay you two. I may provide an environment that you like and on the next day decide to save on overhead and cut off the AC. As a laborer all I can do is walk away is that not your premise? That Capitalists competes on an even playing field with other capitalists for my labor? That if there they can get the job done through automation that I may become irrelevant. The owner has his money in a bank that loans money to labor, but labor cannot meet obligations due to not having marketable skills and the bank goes under from delinquency taking with it the capitalist's money less what is backed by the FDIC? The FDIC cannot meet it obligations as it don't not prepare for massive foreclosures and people who walk away from debt obligations.
 
It feels like I am losing your premise and I don't know what you want me to answer.


Your definition of capital is incorrect. Capital in economic terms refers to a factor of production ie machinery. Or it could be the money used for investing.

In every job I have worked and in most jobs one signs a contract detailing compensation in terms of salary and benefits. What you are describing sounds like the exploration of illegal labor.

Firms do not exist to provide one a living. They exist to make a profit. Without regulation why should they pay you more than the profit maximizing amount?

Worrkng hard and valuing education are crucial to improving one's human capital and securing a good wage.
  • QueenofHearts and Moriarty like this
3 - 0

#26 Moriarty

Moriarty

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 13 February 2016 - 07:08 AM

Your definition of capital is incorrect. Capital in economic terms refers to a factor of production ie machinery. Or it could be the money used for investing.

In every job I have worked and in most jobs one signs a contract detailing compensation in terms of salary and benefits. What you are describing sounds like the exploration of illegal labor.

Firms do not exist to provide one a living. They exist to make a profit. Without regulation why should they pay you more than the profit maximizing amount?

Worrkng hard and valuing education are crucial to improving one's human capital and securing a good wage.

Yes. I was confused by her definition of captial as well, so I thought it was a bit odd. This is a friendly debate Queen. Just pointing out economic factors in our nation.

I feel I have brought this a bit off topic.

 

The one thing to remember about captialism is that people profit off the backs of others by benefiting others.

 

All trades (not including frauds) benefit both sides. Lets say I sell you a Jeep for 2000. You accepted it, meaning you value the Jeep more than 2000. I value 2000 more than the Jeep.  In a free economy like the most of the US (one of the most free economies int he world)), you always make a choice in economic terms. Laborers are making that choice to work for 5 bucks. The next day they may leave if you decide to pay them two. If you look at the Demand/Supply curve for labor in perfect competition, the employers must pay the laborers their MRP. Their marginal revenue product is equal to their wage. That is how competition for labor in the labor market works. Since you seem to be pretty learned in economics astros I hope you can back me on this. I am not sure if everything I say is correct.

 

Read through the Labor Market section in this pdf Queen:

http://2012books.lar...ive-market.html


I have no idea what that thing under my avatar is. I've always liked stickers

#27 astros

astros

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 13 February 2016 - 07:12 AM

Being stuck in a job happens at low wages. If someone leaves a minimum wage job they likely end up not being able to pay their rent. Therefore, they are stuck in a bad job and unable to look elsewhere or increase their abilities.

Most labor markets are competitive but not perfectly competitive. Some minimum wage type jobs tend to favor the employer even more when hiring labor.

Edited by astros, 13 February 2016 - 07:16 AM.

3 - 0

#28 QueenofHearts

QueenofHearts

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 13 February 2016 - 08:24 AM

Well I stand corrected on my using the word capital in place of Employer or owner. I am not above saying I was incorrect as that was clearly not my point. All I am saying is the scales have tipping in favor of the employer. I am not an economics major. I still stand behind the fact that employers have the leverage and not the other way around. Also that we have widespread fraud in the banks and trading markets and a toothless regulatory agencies in the SEC and the EPA. That was what this all started with.

 

Please feel free to correct me on definitions, but I am not sure I understand a situation whereby Astros stated "Most labor markets are competitive" In what way are they competitive?

 

I am talking about low wage labor and most employees sign no contracts so this is not within my real world experience. When you walk into a McDonalds you can't say hell no I won't work for 7.25 and hour, but I will work for 10.00 per hour. You just lost the job. I have never in my life signed a contract for employment and I think it is very rare except at the highest levels.

 

You submit a resume. You are interviewed among a hundred others and if you are lucky you are hired and they tell you what they will pay. There is no negotiation and after a year or more even though you produce more the employer is under no obligation to increase your wages. 

 

That is when I decided to become and entrepreneur so that I was no longer dependent on my employer for an increased salary. Now it fell on my hustle and determination.

 

Did I miss it or do you think there should be no minimum wage. Should we cut entitlements for the elderly, raise taxes or print money? Should we regulate the banks or is it just buyer beware? Maybe we don't need and EPA and FDA or any oversight. Let's get rid of licensing fees and state taxes. Let the Federal government print entitlement money and the states are forced to balance their budget without borrow future generations into unpayable debt.


Queenbee


#29 Moriarty

Moriarty

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 13 February 2016 - 08:44 AM

When we say competitive, we are not saying they are competing, perfectly/imperfectively competitive is a term for a type of market, althought it is realted to competing firms.

 

No minimum wage, as little as possible government regulation.

 

I think government regulation is only necessary in the case of a monopoly.

 

When you walk into the Mc Donalds you are a wage taker. You take the market wage in a perfectly competitive enviroment. The market determines your wage, not employers.

 

You have to understand the basics of supply and demand. It is different in a monopsony though.

 

So under perfect competition, EVERYONE offers a the market wage. No one will offer a penny less, because they are price takers. No one will offer a penny more in wage, as they would be losing money for no reason. That is the model of perfect competition. Mc Donalds hires as many employees as they can afford (where MRP = MFC in economic terms), all at the market wage. Employees cannot pick and choose their wage. They all accept the market wage.

 

At a minimum wage, yes the wage grows but Mc Donalds will fire more employees. If you know economics you should know about consumer/producer surplus. After a minimum wage, there is Deadweight loss. Sorry for using so many terms, Deadweight loss basically results from nonefficiency.

 

So the real question is, does the benefit of having higher wages for hired employees outweigh the cost of the amount fired because of the minimum wage? The answer is no, illustrated by Deadweight loss


  • QueenofHearts likes this
I have no idea what that thing under my avatar is. I've always liked stickers

#30 kokokitty

kokokitty

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 13 February 2016 - 12:07 PM

One speaks from the econs text and will ace his college papers in short measure. The other is a battle-hardened streetfighter who speaks from real life encounters.

Having been on both paths, no worries, I know Moriarty and queen are both right. ;)
  • QueenofHearts likes this

#31 Fairway

Fairway

    General

  • Junior Tournament Management
  • 2,253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver General

Posted 13 February 2016 - 04:18 PM

oh dear

more arguments.

 

can't we just all get along?


  • Lonello and QueenofHearts like this
I'm always a winner- win or lose the game. I take my mistakes and learn from them!

#32 astros

astros

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 13 February 2016 - 04:58 PM

Well I stand corrected on my using the word capital in place of Employer or owner. I am not above saying I was incorrect as that was clearly not my point. All I am saying is the scales have tipping in favor of the employer. I am not an economics major. I still stand behind the fact that employers have the leverage and not the other way around. Also that we have widespread fraud in the banks and trading markets and a toothless regulatory agencies in the SEC and the EPA. That was what this all started with.

Please feel free to correct me on definitions, but I am not sure I understand a situation whereby Astros stated "Most labor markets are competitive" In what way are they competitive?

I am talking about low wage labor and most employees sign no contracts so this is not within my real world experience. When you walk into a McDonalds you can't say hell no I won't work for 7.25 and hour, but I will work for 10.00 per hour. You just lost the job. I have never in my life signed a contract for employment and I think it is very rare except at the highest levels.

You submit a resume. You are interviewed among a hundred others and if you are lucky you are hired and they tell you what they will pay. There is no negotiation and after a year or more even though you produce more the employer is under no obligation to increase your wages.

That is when I decided to become and entrepreneur so that I was no longer dependent on my employer for an increased salary. Now it fell on my hustle and determination.

Did I miss it or do you think there should be no minimum wage. Should we cut entitlements for the elderly, raise taxes or print money? Should we regulate the banks or is it just buyer beware? Maybe we don't need and EPA and FDA or any oversight. Let's get rid of licensing fees and state taxes. Let the Federal government print entitlement money and the states are forced to balance their budget without borrow future generations into unpayable debt.


Competetive labor markets have low barriers of entry and/or exit. There are many firms looking to higher. The wage rate is largely determined by the supply and demand for labor in industry.

Contracts or letters of agreement are standard. I have not explored the job market extensively but this is my understanding. Can someone confirm this?

If you are working a minimum wage job you do not have much bargaining power. You are already being offered a minimum wage above what the industry would offer without regulation. They can find someone to replace you. At a higher level job one has more bargaining power.

Some market regulation is needed to prevent negative externalities. Our regulatory agencies are rather weak. Entitlements will bankrupt our country if they are not revised. That will hurt.
  • QueenofHearts likes this
3 - 0

#33 Moriarty

Moriarty

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 13 February 2016 - 06:52 PM

oh dear
more arguments.
 
can't we just all get along?


No :P
I have no idea what that thing under my avatar is. I've always liked stickers

#34 Fairway

Fairway

    General

  • Junior Tournament Management
  • 2,253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver General

Posted 13 February 2016 - 06:53 PM

No :P

Yah, apparently not.


I'm always a winner- win or lose the game. I take my mistakes and learn from them!

#35 Moriarty

Moriarty

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 13 February 2016 - 06:53 PM

Competetive labor markets have low barriers of entry and/or exit. There are many firms looking to higher. The wage rate is largely determined by the supply and demand for labor in industry.
Contracts or letters of agreement are standard. I have not explored the job market extensively but this is my understanding. Can someone confirm this?
If you are working a minimum wage job you do not have much bargaining power. You are already being offered a minimum wage above what the industry would offer without regulation. They can find someone to replace you. At a higher level job one has more bargaining power.
Some market regulation is needed to prevent negative externalities. Our regulatory agencies are rather weak. Entitlements will bankrupt our country if they are not revised. That will hurt.


Me economics textbook has been quoted well
I have no idea what that thing under my avatar is. I've always liked stickers

#36 Fairway

Fairway

    General

  • Junior Tournament Management
  • 2,253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver General

Posted 13 February 2016 - 07:13 PM

Me economics textbook has been quoted well

haha lol just as well.


I'm always a winner- win or lose the game. I take my mistakes and learn from them!

#37 astros

astros

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 13 February 2016 - 07:17 PM

Me economics textbook has been quoted well

I was not quoting anything


3 - 0

#38 Fairway

Fairway

    General

  • Junior Tournament Management
  • 2,253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver General

Posted 13 February 2016 - 07:28 PM

I was not quoting anything

He is saying, his economic textbooks at school say the same thing basically as what you say. And i wholeheartedly agree with him.


I'm always a winner- win or lose the game. I take my mistakes and learn from them!

#39 Moriarty

Moriarty

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 13 February 2016 - 07:29 PM

I was not quoting anything

its a compliment.


I have no idea what that thing under my avatar is. I've always liked stickers

#40 Fairway

Fairway

    General

  • Junior Tournament Management
  • 2,253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver General

Posted 13 February 2016 - 07:37 PM

its a compliment.

Yes, what I was trying to explain to him. Basically that you (and ur textbooks) agree with him, right?


I'm always a winner- win or lose the game. I take my mistakes and learn from them!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users