you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No.

Basically in small tribes everyone is family. There's a strong biological impetus to share food and assist because the people you are with are parents, siblings, grandparents, cousins, childhood friends and mates. Everyone knows everyone else, there's no space for parasites to hide behind societal anonymity. There's a biological impetus to assist in their survival. You loose this in large groups.

you grab my food off my plate, you'd get KTFO.

There would have to be a major famine for an HG tribe to kick out a family member for stealing food or they'd have to do something pretty heinous or do it consistently to the point where it threatens their survival. Remember these are family, not strangers. There is no anonymous crime here.

Exploitation does happen in a limited extent in HG settings, but its usually sex slavery of women abducted from neighbouring tribes.

As I said, there's zero reason for HGs to exploit the labour if others because a mobile life dies not allow crap to accrue that cannot carry itself around (women and kids are an exception).

You shouldn't romanticise HGs, they are just as nasty as everyone else.

Unearned benefits taken off the backs of the working man.

Working man doesn't work unless someone organises the complex system to provide him with a job. He'll either be sitting on his ass and starving, or he'll end up as a subsistence farmer.

The people who run large companies typically only make a slight per hour profit off each workers labour as well. It's usually less than ten percent of what is paid to the worker, the boss makes his living by collecting 1-10% off lots of employees. If you give the employers cut to the staff it would make very little difference to the income and lifestyle of the worker.

For example; say I run a cleaning company. I charge clients £12 ph give the cleaners £10.

Out of that £2 that's mine, I pay for advertising and office staff. My net is about £1 per hour.

I can't charge more (clients won't pay it). So that's the reason the pay is £10 ph. The amount if difference my cut makes per week is about £15 per cleaner, of about £300 she makes.

My usuable income comes from employing about twenty cleaners. It's why companies tend to grow. It's about £1 per HR X 35 X whatever staff you have... Then take away the tax.

In the food industry the profit margin is about 1%. It's why any increase in minimum wage shuts cafes.

why people hate royalty, nepotism and corruption.

Nepotism is the default setting for humans.

[–]sudd3nclar1ty 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Firstly, I assert that families don't exploit others because you are accountable if you don't milk the cows and I do your share. It's obvious. Skimming all of our salaries adds up to a big chunk of change and is not exploitive if I voluntarily contribute for specific benefits as in a union. But that's not what you are saying. What you are saying is that it's not obvious when corporations do it. I disagree.

Your claim that the five levels of managers on top of me at evil Corp deserve half my pay, not 10%, for organizing doesn't wash. You shouldn't romanticize exploitation.

This is the same argument used to justify contractors vs. employees. Inserting a middle man is capitalism in a nutshell but adds no value other than driving down the cost of my labor. This is the entire justification for the us healthcare industry that delivers less health value for far greater costs. It's an organized system, but not in the way you are claiming. It's not about efficient health outcomes, it's about concentrating wealth. That's all Capitalism is about.

Increasing minimum wage does not lead to shuttered cafes. Many states have min wage greater than the federal level and the actualuzed min wage is at historic lows. Per economic policy institute: "As stressed in the Card and Krueger book cited above, these studies...solidly reject the conventional hypothesis that any increase in the minimum wage leads to job losses among affected workers."

https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_viewpoints_raising_minimum_wage_2004/

Just because you use a lot of words doesn't mean you are making sense.

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Where to start:

I assert that families don't exploit others because you are accountable if you don't milk the cows and I do your share. It's obvious.

Yes, I said that myself. There's no anonymous crime or welfare dependency in small groups.

Biological drive to support your relatives is a thing, btw. Look up kin preference.

Skimming all of our salaries adds up to a big chunk of change and is not exploitive if I voluntarily contribute for specific benefits as in a union. But that's not what you are saying. What you are saying is that it's not obvious when corporations do it. I disagree.

Yes but it's not a big chunk of change from you. It's about ten percent or less of your income. If you don't like it set up your own company or be self employed. Plenty of people do this. It's only exploitative if the company is owning your ass like a slave. If you choose to work for them, it's voluntary to give them that 10% for organising your labour.

claim that the five levels of managers on top of me at evil Corp deserve half my pay, not 10%, for organizing doesn't wash.

Never said that. You're imagining it.

The rest of the rant about contractors etc was non relevant.

easing minimum wage does not lead to shuttered cafes.

Yes it does. It specifically causes small family businesses to shut down and be replaced by chains.

Fast food restaurants are more likely to shut down (exit) and open up (enter) after a minimum wage hike. The rise in entry is higher among chains, which use less labour.

Other relevant data.

UK:

The commission found that a £1 increase in the minimum wage lead to a 0.24 and 0.15 per cent decline in the share of jobs which could be automated or offshored respectively, which meant 45,000 people in total could be affected.

Other

A good deal of evidence indicates that the wage gains from minimum wage increases are offset, for some workers, by fewer jobs. Furthermore, the evidence on distributional effects, though limited, does not point to favorable outcomes from minimum wage hikes, although some groups may benefit. Other mechanisms, such as earned income tax credits, appear more effective at helping low-income families.

The CBO analysis lists some positives such as a wage boost for 17 million workers and the number of people living below the poverty threshold falling by 1.3 million. It could prove a poisoned chalice however, with the chance 1.3 million workers will lose their jobs.

Socialists tend to have a blind eye to the negative outcomes of minimum wage increases.

Minimum Wages and Employment: A Review of Evidence from the New Minimum Wage Research

Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.

And finally:

As stressed in the Card and Krueger book cited above, these studies...solidly reject the conventional hypothesis that any increase in the minimum wage leads to job losses among affected workers

No, Krueger Didn’t ‘Prove that Raising the Minimum Wage Doesn't Increase Unemployment

Why The Card And Krueger Paper On Minimum Wage Rises And Unemployment Is Wrong

The Crippling Flaws in the Card and Krueger New Jersey Fast Food Study

The results, compiled by independent economists, are not surprising: there was significant job loss stemming from New Jersey's decision to increase the state's minimum wage in 1992.

Just because you've read all the socialist propaganda doesn't mean you are well informed in economics or anthropology.

[–]sudd3nclar1ty 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Firstly, I read everything you sent and respect the fact that you make an argument instead of throwing snark and running away. So while this is my final rebuttal on this thread, I'm looking fwd to the next topic we discuss.

I'm seeing three issues: 1. H/G Equality 2. Recent Income Inequality 3. Minimum Wage

  1. H/G Equality No argument that people share more equitably in small groups. You claim kinship, I claim accountability and transparency. Doesn't matter for argument that people are socially wired to share.

SC 1 GC 0

  1. Recent Income Inequality You ducked this issue of contractors and US health care. Clearly, capitalism concentrates wealth leading to inequality which leads to exploitation. You basically said to start your own business, which is laughable when we see how Walmart both crushes local small business and forces their own suppliers to offshore business. Concentrating wealth and power kills innovation, diversity and equitable, sustainable opportunities for people.

"Most of Walmart’s 1.5 million US employees don’t earn anything close to that, of course, and its stores are famous for their deleterious impact on small towns. One study shows the opening of a big-box retailer results in as many as 14 local stores closing, while another argues towns in Iowa lost 47% of their retail sales after a decade of a Wal-Mart opening. The harm to small towns was multiplied when Walmart closed 154 stores, leaving some towns without any options for groceries"

https://qz.com/999040/walmart-is-famous-for-destroying-small-towns-heres-the-amazing-one-it-built/

I prefer how graphs really illustrate the impacts of inequality over the last 50 years. We are on a runaway gravy train for big business and the 1% as shown below.

"The median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000"

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/

SC 2 GC 0

Minimum Wage Keep in mind that data produced by Daniel Aaronson, Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, may be biased towards elites, especially considering his conclusions regarding offshoring and automation in the face of raising the minimum wage:

"The key mechanism behind the model – that more labour-intensive establishments are replaced by more capital-intensive ones – is supported by evidence"

But this is more clearly enunciated here:

"I take a radical position: I not only think the minimum wage should not be raised, but it should be abolished and Congress should use its power under the commerce clause to prohibit state and local minimum wage laws...society is better off having lots and lots of entry-level jobs" Thomas A. Firey, Cato Institute

These arguments from diehard neocons basically assume that financial opportunity >> people's welfare and do not consider social equality in any way shape or form. They want more inequality and a more ruthless system than we already have. Ugh

This discussion started with humans being equitable by nature and here we are discussing the lowest amount companies can legally pay a person. I disagree with the values expressed here and will leave you with a more balanced source that reflects the values we were originally discussing:

"A minimum wage is the lowest hourly, daily or monthly remuneration employers legally have to pay to workers. The main purpose of the legislation is to ensure employers, who usually have higher bargaining power in the labor market, do not exploit their workers and that workers earn a fair living wage."

"Distributive justice is achieved when there is fair distribution of benefits and burdens by the state, so that everyone receives their due."

https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/the-ethics-of-minimum-wage-legislation/

SC 3 GC 0

In the future I'll play nice if you play nice. Respectfully.