Pro-Labor Thread

Attached: 3c23da81-a9be-4a56-9059-6750d6802a96..jpg (992x744, 54K)

they make enough to quit.

>>Not understanding that labor value theory takes into account gross vs. net surplus value.
>>Not understanding that labor value theory takes into account the uptake costs of maintaining and reproducing means of production.
>>Not understanding that all the commodities and services described that the owner has to do is done by other workers.
>>Not understanding that the point of labor value theory is that profit isn’t guaranteed — the capitalist purchases labor power like any other form of commodity, alienating and objectifying the worker.
>>Not understanding that competition on the free market leads to crashes in the economy, monopolization, uneven geographical development, de-industrialization, globalization, rising inequality, etc.

kek

Cringe

Based

That’s because your a NEET in your parents’ basement roleplaying as a business owner.

Attached: AE4D5BB7-9FA7-46DB-90D2-BD376EE7A381.jpg (356x599, 74K)

Attached: 1540511585561.jpg (696x6843, 813K)

If Bernie or Yang loses the nomination (which they will) im going to vote Trump. Fuck the democratic party, fuck the gun grabbers, and fuck this clown world.

Net surplus value? Uptake costs? Cost of labor being part of the final price? Profit isn't guaranteed? These are all basic parts of capitalism, and having nothing to do with the labor value theory.

And it's not competition that causes crashes, crashes are caused distortions of the market signals like price fixing, barriers to entry, or, most of all, by inflation (i.e. printing money). All of which are caused by governmental intervention. With one possible exception in the history of the world (de Beers), monopolies tend to quickly collapse without government support.

The geographical argument is demolished by comparing resource-poor Japan to resource rich Russia or Nigeria.

Geographical development doesn’t necessarily refer to different countries retard kekekekek

It's based on the idea that certain areas are more resource rich. You could use it to describe different levels of development in different areas with comparable resources, but that's far less common.

I've been saying this for years. Politics should be decided with a caged death match. No need for months of advertisement, the candidates (from both sides) wouldn't be any worse than the chooses we're offered, and as a bonus, each "election" would result in one less politician.

It’s based on the idea that certain areas are more economically developed. Doesn’t have to be resources, can be industry or finance or whatever. The rust belt is an example of uneven geographical development compared to coastal cities. It’s wherever PPP comes into play.

>and as a bonus, each "election" would result in one less politician.
We can do better

Not understanding who put up all the money upfront to start a business.
Not understanding if said business fails, the only one bankrupt is the owner.

Lol like modern businesses are started by one individual and not through sale of stocks or angel investors. Or that capitalists hold all their financial investments in one basket. Muh risk.

That's the alternate definition, but when talking about socialism it's more common to discuss the comparative advantages and disadvantages when it comes to resources in different areas, which favor certain workers. It's also more common when talking about capitalism, where it's often brought up in the context of trade barriers and comparative advantage.

Or that bankruptcy means anything when you’re rich enough to get away with murder.

Welcome comrade, viva anarchism

Most startups fail. Something like 90% of them. The 10% that succeed have to return enough value to make up for the other 90%, or nobody would ever give them money. Risk management 101.

When talking about socialism it is more common to discuss the first, because the one of the many critiques of Capital is that irrational and uneven development can lead to de-industrialization when the one industry sustaining a region collapses, is relocated, etc.

You're blaming a failure of law enforcement on businesses? The government makes the laws, enforces them, and judges them. They have all the power, and all the responsibility.

Yep, that’s why capitalists invest in start ups. Because as a whole, they break even. Hahahahahaha. Read about the M-C-M’ cycle, where M’ = M + deltaM.

If your pro-labor you should be voting for Trump in the first place. see The "socialists" just promote open doors and more government subsidies. The capitalist is arguing for policies that are actually good for labor. Its clown world for sure.

Back to plebbit

>>implying that capitalists hold no influence on our government.

Attached: B78CEA1A-EADA-4A14-A5A2-C5592E76B4A2.png (512x359, 46K)

Not in the texts I've read, but debating the frequency of a definition within a specific body of literature doesn't seem very productive.

It's true that capitalism is uneven, but that's a feature not a flaw because it's not a random. It's the reallocation of resources from less productive to more productive uses. Companies go bankrupt not because capitalism is evil, but because capitalism is very good at clearing out the deadwood. Areas decline because of shifts in the overall economy, for instance when steel becomes labor intensive or is available from more or cheaper sources, towns dependent on steel tend to fade. That will happen no matter whether you have a socialist system or a capitalist one, it's just capitalism is much more efficient at it. There is a cost in terms of people out of work or areas in decline, but since that's inevitable, the solution is to support the natural trends by helping people move or learn new skills, instead of trying to freeze time.

Attached: FB63ED3F-5F4E-4B38-8102-B1F91CCCB415.png (512x342, 41K)

They have an easy very little skill job. You can train someone in minutes on most things. Customer service takes a little time. Thats why the better employees work on thr front line. They will replace cooks with automation very soon. I can see 1 maybe 2 people there in the near future pershift. During nights 1 person. Someone has to make sure the machines got no issues and stays clean. During normal hours a front line person to help with orders cause people be stupid.

Nobody said anything about breaking even, so your argument is invalid.

>>Feature, not a flaw.
>>what’s most important is economic efficiency in the distribution of resources no matter the human cost.
>>over abundance yet starvation
>>heroin/opioid crisis in America, Indian farmers mass suicides.
>>ecological crisis

If capitalists don’t break even, then they consistently earn a surplus through investment, and thus are making passive income.

No, they definitely do. But again, who makes the laws, enforces the laws, and judges the laws? Cronyism is bad, but the control is entirely in the hands of the government, not business. And to stop cronyism, the solution isn't to say that business is bad (they just operate in the environment created by the laws), it's to reduce the ability of government to give out all those little favors and privileges. In other words, shrink government, give the legislators and regulators less discretionary authority, and curtail all the industry groups and tiny incremental changes to laws, that invariably favor those who the legislators want to reward.

You're absolving the real villains.

Muh small business you stupid fuck. Go research and learn. Everyday the little man starts his own thing risk it all. Most fail. They dont fail cause they suck. They fail cause not enough to stay going. Takes times and need some luck and connections to be successful.

Yes, let’s bring back the days of child labor, the 12 hour working day, no environmental standards. Because business influence in government, leading to its corruption, means that businesses should have no restraints whatsoever.

Never said that. In fact, I explicitly addressed the human cost. If you'd like to address what I actually said, try again.

And externalities are another whole argument. But again, who is responsible for accounting for externalities? Not the market, because it's outside the market. That's a governmental failure.

Muh Small business lol. Keep dreaming. Class mobility is becoming less and less possible with the rise of neoliberalism. But don’t worry! Maybe you’ll get to be the boot on top one day.

Lol unions and "that isnt may job" isnt do shit but sitting and crying. We need real unions that are there to support the workers to help them when management treats them like shit. We dont have any real unions.

Externalities are another argument. The free market should alone manage the use of all resources, but externalities are somehow another conversation. And the liberal government order didn’t rise with the emergence of the economy. There’s no such thing as political-economy, just politics, economy!

hey man i know you're probably like 13 to believe this, but you can't get food stamps/WIC without a social security number, and if you think "state and local clinics and emergency hospitals" provide free care to people without insurance, i don't even know what to say to you

Many capitalists go broke. If you look at the wealthiest people over time, wealth usually dissipates after a couple generations. Or look at the performance of managed mutual funds vs. index funds -- experts actively doing their best to make money often underperform the market as a whole. The successful do make money, but it's not passive money. They're providing a service, specifically providing funding. Conceptually, not much different than a bank loan, just much higher risk and so requiring more due diligence.

SEIU 1199, CTU

Based

Wow everyday small businesses start with 1 person and a dream. Yes most fail but some succeed.

Being a commie i guess you can work where the masters tell you to. You im sure love that idea. Muh free shit and oh wait they making me work in the mines i want muh freedoms.

Anecdotal story vs actual evidence. Class mobility is decreasing with the weakening of government regulations and “free-er” markets.

Attached: CBA13A95-B89A-4A17-B337-B0D09F8722BE.png (596x409, 9K)

This justification by people who don't know how business works. Unless you're a complete idiot you're private self and your business self are two different legal entities. Yes the owner takes a hit if they invested a lot of money from their personal self and the business goes belly up in the first few years, but by the time a business is profitable, the private self has been fully compensated for their investment by the business self via higher wages and more perks. After this their risk is no more than any other employee and their value is really no more than any other employee. If the company goes bankrupt creditors can only go after the business self and the business assets. Its not like the owner has to start selling off houses and luxury cars because of the business bankruptcy. If forced to do this its for the same reason as any other employee, he didn't properly budget to account for the possibility of loosing their job..

Funny, the earliest child labor laws predate the rise of socialism or unions. It was passed when capitalism was running full throttle. And working days? When they pushed the steel industry to 8 hour days, it was price fixing, an attempt to spread out the money so more people would make less. The actual steel workers hated it, and wanted to keep working 12 hours days because they wanted the money. And the EPA? The law that founded it was passed under a Republican administration.

Keep sucking business owners dicks lol. Freedom is when citizens can’t vote on an enormous sphere of our lives — working conditions, economic development, resource management, and consumer products. The free market perfectly takes care of those without needing to involve democracy or common sense.

You're just spouting nonsense. Look at the word itself, "externalities". External. External to what? The market. You're claiming the market is somehow supposed to control everything, by pointing to a term that, by it's very nature and definition, refers to things that the market cannot handle.

And since you're ranting rather than providing details, I don't know what you mean by "liberal government order". Classical liberalism is about personal liberty, including democracy or at least representative governments, and capitalism.

Evidence says you don’t know anything.

Attached: 784A0C13-1315-4985-9D56-182A61F62E65.jpg (750x988, 385K)

>Not understanding if said business fails, the only one bankrupt is the owner.
I've never understood this line.
The employees are still out of work.
Everybody suffers when a business goes under,
unless management has a golden parachute.
Or they loot the pension fund, like at Hostess.
And you're ignoring the part where most business rely on investors for funding.
But I guess the really important part is, to what extent to we want to perpetually widen the gap between haves and have-nots by letting people with more money get ahead by renting out their money to make more money.
Considering the middle class is vanishing, and how the GINI index has been doing for the last 70 years, I'd say it's time to steer the ship of state a little farther towards "we the people", and maybe Republican voters should be a little less worshipful of a success they'll never see themselves.
The alternative is to wind up like Mexico, with nearly everyone shit-stain poor, the economy in the crapper because no one has any disposable income and corruption running rampant from local levels to the highest levels.

Attached: 1386858812173.jpg (640x476, 81K)

Imagine not knowing about the Haymarket Massacre or pretending that workers are all reactionaries.

You do realize that study has been thoroughly debunked? Among other things, it doesn't account for the rise of wages among immigrants, who don't have parents to compare with. There are other flaws, but I probably won't dig them out before the thread ends.

So should the bank teller take most of the cash simply because they handle it more often?

How can Environmental resource management be external to capitalism when capitalist firms are pretty much the sole arbiters of how much is used to produce however many commodities? How is government external to capitalism when capitalists have, and still do, hold disproportionate power over legislation?

I would kill that stupid nigger chink Andrew Yang if I could

Thoroughly debunked. Sure.

Attached: 3E7112D9-2AD3-49FD-93AE-4FE08E2C7F12.png (189x267, 3K)

Try to find a source that doesn't contradict itself. Child labor laws were passed in early 19th century, well before the rise of trade unions, but trade unions are responsible their passage? kek

Laws get passed but aren’t enforced until trade unions gain power. Wow. Such an own.

I'm not pretending that workers are all reactionaries. Try to come up with an argument.

meme dump incoming

Attached: 1386858188770.jpg (301x480, 40K)

Attached: 1386858572175.jpg (500x324, 45K)

But this all falls to the wayside when the government props up industries, which it has been doing for decades. When the deadwood is kept from failing there is no incentive to stop being deadwood.

This argument also falls apart with globalism. Unless there is a true world government, different countries can undercut each other through varying laws and regulations. Industry didn't get moved to China because they could be more efficient or make a better product. It was because the Chinese system allows a higher disregard for their people. .

Attached: 2EGSA8z.jpg (800x800, 117K)

Attached: 1386851276785.jpg (512x358, 39K)

The eight hour workday originated as a socialist ideal and was fought for through countless strikes

Attached: 1393616258334.jpg (500x400, 109K)

Attached: 1393618295212.jpg (636x408, 77K)

The market is about accounting for costs, which result in final prices. Some things can't be accounted for in the market, because they're external to the transactions on which the market is based, for shitting upstream affects the drinking water of people downstream. That's why they're external, because they're external to the market, and have to be accounted for by non-market processes, generally governmental intervention of some kind.

You're also switching between been market and capitalism as if they were the same, they're not. The government is a fundamental part of capitalism, because they create the playing field. They write the laws, and enforce them. But it's not part of the market. It's external to the market.

And again, it's the government who has all the power, even when we're considering cronyism. Funny how the government blames business, while exonerating themselves, isn't it?

Attached: 1394110868116.jpg (960x918, 276K)

Attached: 1395930945486.jpg (550x452, 60K)

Thoroughly. Read Discrimination and Disparities by Thomas Sowell, if you want a source.

Attached: 1419221211829.jpg (1200x1220, 556K)

Didn't happen. Wow. Such a logical failure.

Attached: 1456487590724.jpg (450x266, 60K)

This world needs Leaders.
This world needs ditch diggers.

If you don't like your place in this world, either do something about it or if you can't, blame your blood line for shitty genetics.

>there is no state where someone working minimum wage can afford a two bedroom apartment

what a flat out lie

Attached: 1456487726204.jpg (650x650, 56K)

Attached: 1456487815664.jpg (388x280, 18K)

As I discussed upthread, the 8 hour workday in the US was a reaction to the Great Depression, an attempt to spread work around. It failed badly, and the steel workers it affected hated the law, because they wanted more hours because they wanted more money.

It was popular idea in socialist circles, but what's that got to do with anything?

>24.6 million (2017) australian population
>327.2 million (2018) american population

Attached: 1456488013366.jpg (640x640, 78K)

.6 million (2017) australian population
.2 million (2018) american population
And your point is?

Attached: 1456488061929.png (640x640, 517K)

The dude has literally billions of billions of dollars and still this ugly af cheap carpet

australia can afford to print more money, we'd be more affected by inflation

Attached: 1456488335358.jpg (516x649, 58K)

Why don't you just make it illegal to hire him and then actually enforce that law with massive fines so they don't hire Juan?

Attached: 1456488876886.jpg (640x640, 55K)

That's a retarded analogy.

Attached: capitalism.png (1220x625, 40K)

This. So much this. The problem is that to become part of the leadership you have to have so much money that your completely out of touch with the lives of the people you're supposed to be leading. Good example is McCain. He was at a union hall meeting and talked about how the US needs the Mexican farm laborers because no one else was going to pick lettuce for $50 an hour. Or Kerry who didn't know how many houses he owned.

I agree with your first paragraph. "Too big to fail" is a toxic concept, and we have a real problem with cronyism protecting established and politically active companies from competition. That's cronyism.

You're wrong about globalism, though. Look up competitive advantage. For the human side, think about it from the perspective of a sweat-shop worker. The people working in almost all those sweat-shops are there voluntarily, in fact what usually happens is they have more applications than they can handle. Why is that? Because the pay and conditions are better than any alternative they have in that country. By pulling out those countries, you're taking away their best option.

That's not downplaying the often terrible states in those countries, but we can't fix those problems by waving a magic wand. What you're arguing for is making the situation even worse, by taking away their best option.

>australia can afford to print more money,
They aren't paying McDonalds employees more by "printing money".

>we'd be more affected by inflation
No idea why you'd think this, or how it relates to a larger population.

Attached: 1456491110116.jpg (642x615, 133K)

Infographics often lie, some more than others...

Attached: 1456489243483.png (640x640, 267K)

>Infographics often lie, some more than others...
I know memes aren't facts, but your argument didn't even refute a single point.

Attached: 1457116822044.jpg (540x549, 36K)

Bullshit. To become Leadership on a Corporate or Political level, you work your fucking ass off and start hanging around the right people.

I'm 33, was born and raised in a trailer park. Followed this philosophy and am being groomed to head up the City Management Board and the Vice-Chairman at the largest non-profit in my County. On top of my regular job, physical training, and marriage.

You're both wrong.

Generally speaking, and this is taught in business school, a western employee's ROI per hour is 3x. Meaning, what you pay an employee generally returns 3x on their labor.

So, for example, if you're paid $10/hour, you make the company roughly $30 per hour of labor.

Attached: 1481234888922.png (480x480, 265K)

Doing something about it would result in something happening to a bunch of people who would rather not have it happen to them

all because a bunch of people couldn't act civilized

Attached: 1482029592725.jpg (1200x785, 191K)

Minimum isnt to live on. You go learn skills make more money. Not hard at all. Very easy. Only people doing this are people with issues. They dont drug test ke dk background checks when you pay that low. Shit you can cut grass and make more. But you got to be willing to work. They are paid above fair wage. Also since you dont get this. Pay them more everything goes up. So people like me take a pay cut. The minimum wage people in the same boat.

Fucking preach user.

Compare young adult unemployment before and after the first minimum wage laws was passed in the 1950s.

Then compare how much it affected white vs. black youths.

Hint: It skyrocketed, and it hurt young black adults a lot more.

Agree that Republican economics are generally shit, though.

no one is going to reply to the refuted facts

What does wealth have to do with the minimum wage? Many well off Americans live on credit cards, and don't save.

>compares to cost of burger in country where employers dont provide the benefits they do in the u.s.

if mcdonalds didn't provide benefits here, they could charge less too

>denmark total population 5 million
>denmark total number of mcdonalds 88
>usa total population 330 million
>usa total number of mcdonalds 14k
>lol mcdonalds can totally just do this everywhere

it's almost like there's more pieces to the puzzle than you're letting on with your fucking retarded picture.

That would also be good, but more of a bandaid

And those 3.7 billion people have never done anything fiscally productive in their entire lives. Their life has been solely focused on their own survival and the survival or their friends and family.

Should people be compensated if they tend a garden? Should they be compensated when they clean their own homes? Should they be compensated if they build their own shed?

Nah. Those 3.7 billion people are either duly compensated in an appropriate proportion for their labor and the expenses of their geographic area, slaves, or are just doing their own thing and neither require nor deserve compensation.

But they do?

Read the thread, I actually wrote out an argument. You just posted a shitty infographic.

Funny. Democratic congresses haven't bumped up minimum wage or refused to vote for their own wage increases. Its almost as if being a rich asshole has nothing to do with political affiliation.

>Minimum isnt to live on. You go learn skills make more money. Not hard at all.
There are so many dual-income couples, including so many 6-figures-each dual incomes there aren't enough "real" jobs for everybody who's trying to feed there children.
I get it. You're espousing an individualistic philosophy, "I got mine because I'm better than those other people".
But in the big picture, there just aren't enough good jobs to go around.
Besides, if bullshit minimum wage jobs all went to high school kids, who would be working the day shift at all these places when the kids are at school?

Attached: bpW31Pb.jpg (650x477, 254K)

you clearly have no idea what danish employers pay for. merifags and their retardation

mcdonalds does provide benefits in the u.s., yes

>it's almost like there's more pieces to the puzzle than you're letting on with your fucking retarded picture.
I'm still 100% lost on why you think population size matters at all.
Do us all a favor and present a complete, coherent argument.

Attached: 1503324263698.jpg (750x547, 30K)

>if bullshit minimum wage jobs all went to high school kids, who would be working the day shift at all these places when the kids are at school?

Managers/keyholders, the ones that get paid more than minimum wage? Do you even understand what minimum wage workers do in retail/fast food positions?

there are plenty of good jobs to go around, until people decide to have kids they cant afford

Assuming that delivering pizza is a complicated and nuanced job that is deserving of compensation comparable to a factory worker or accountant is retarded.

If a job doesn't require high qualification, it doesn't matter if the person performing the job is highly qualified. Compensation is determined by the nature of the job, not by the nature of the employee.

>true story
>source: dude, trust me

The total wealth of the world is $360 trillion (with a t).

Jeff Bezos is worth $150 billion (with a b).

You're arguing that there are 62 people who are each worth 20 times as much as the richest man on the planet.

Your infographic is beyond stupid.

Venture capitalist. I have lots of money. I'm going to make tons more money by finding desperate people with great ideas and not enough money and take 4% or more off everything produced by that great idea in perpetuity. Damn greedy republicans.

Attached: B8WT3EF.png (747x583, 161K)

Dual income couples are only a thing because women entered the workforce in the advent of the birth control pill, thereby doubling the supply and halving the value of labor.

>Do you even understand what minimum wage workers do in retail/fast food positions?
I'm pretty sure there's more than one person working a given McD's at a time.

Attached: bikoEZv.jpg (598x598, 57K)

Ever been there at 5am? There's like 2 people there, and one of them is the manager.

>didn't read
>villain of story is brown, so ur racist

moving the goalposts
No matter how we got here, we ARE here.
It's not 1956 any more.
You can't claim "no adult should have those jobs".

Attached: Gini_since_WWII.svg.png (1280x927, 189K)

Walmart actually pays about $11 per hour to off the street hires, offers benefits to full time employees (about $60 out of your paycheck for health and dental), and even part timers can invest in a 401k.

Engineer roleplaying as a NEET, thank you very much. Debt free and making 6 figures, just don't make retarded decisions and you will do fine.

Also fuck unions for anything less dangerous than mining.

Attached: 1549744958678.png (498x743, 616K)

>5am is the " day shift at all these places when the kids are at school"

Attached: GyCKDcy.png (720x216, 68K)

Hypothetical - I come up with an idea to make new widgets. I get investors, hire people to make widgets, and the product sells amazingly well. Biz does well enough that I can pay off the investors and be sole owner. As biz gets bigger I decide to incorporate and hire more workers and become CEO and expand biz internationally. Shouldn't the amount I make be significantly more than the average worker since 1- it's my company and 2- I am ultimately responsible for making sure the business continues to be successful?

You can't blame wealth disparity on the creation of dual income households when the only reason they exist is because women won't stay in the fucking kitchen.

I was the first in my family to ever go to college and served on my district's school board. So what? How about you get back to us when you're a senator in Washington.

Labor doesn't have inherent value. The product might, or might not. Regardless most companies don't make a huge percentage of profit. My employer gets between 6-13 percent on each unit they sell. Many industries are running close to 1-4 percent profit. Labor is selling their work for a fixed rate with little risk. The owners are running their business while risking their capital. Therefor they are entitled to whatever profits they can get away with. Labor can always work for somebody else. It's not like there are real "company towns" anymore.

The value added guys working a line might think they are being screwed, but considering that they have no work without sales, no product without designers, and no equipment without maintenance, and no direction and coordination without management...

Oh, for sure. 100%

And how many people are being employed and given a wage by these 62 people?

Of course, but by how much? And should you or should you not pay your employees more as you/your company makes more money or do you think that you/your company should make more money, much much more money but your employees should still make the same money that they've always been making?

No skill job that anybody can do will always be the lowest paying. Even if it is shitty. The only thing that will raise the labor rate is supply and demand, price floors will just shutter most places and the employees, being unskilled, will be unemployed.

You give me enough time and I could. Multiple people out of this town have ended up either in the State Capital or in Washington.

If you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.

True, they still lag behind Target, and a lot of other retailers but yeah, the meme's a little out of date.
Minimum wage has been held back by GOP lawmakers so long even the free market is driving actual starting wages higher.

Attached: jM5vWjG.png (1280x1254, 498K)

Oops lost the zero. 4% might would reasonable

I have a more or less honest question as someone that's only vaguely familiar with unionism, although it's kind of leading because it pertains to a flaw that seems to permeate this dichotomy.

Where does the line between labor and capital happen? I've heard of 'management' as a category, but that doesn't seem to include floor managers or foremen, so how managerial do you have to get before your work no longer counts as labor? How is that line drawn? Is the CEO capital, or just the shareholders? And if he is capital what does his work count as?

>not understanding that the memes being posted conviently forget all that, too

:^)

>You can't blame wealth disparity on the creation of dual income households when the only reason they exist is because women won't stay in the fucking kitchen.
Not sure how your logic works here.
If the only reason we have so many dual income households is women leaving the kitchen, leaving many lower class people scrambling for minimum wage jobs, how would that not mean there are less good jobs left available for lower income couples?

Attached: 1557274925378.jpg (500x574, 49K)

Depends on the location. Also Walmart, like many other big chains hires most of their employees part-time so as to avoid having to offer these benefits.

Oh god, somebody who thinks still thinks the LTV is anything other than Marxist garbage.

Yup, fast food sucks, that's why I got a better job once I graduated high school.

Attached: kWeaETt.jpg (2048x1365, 757K)

Federal minimum wage working only 40 hour weeks takes home $1150 a month after all taxes, medicare, and social security. This is enough for a two bedroom rental in every state except for New York, California, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Connecticut (note, this is only by median housing rates and is somewhat artificially inflated by Boston, LA, NY City, etc.). This assumes that you work no extra hours, make no more than the absolute bare minimum as dictated by federal law (not state law which can only increase your pay) and you are living in a two bedroom apartment with only 1 income provider while working a job intended to keep college students out of trouble for the summer.

I know you didn't go to school so research and math are beyond you, but fuck off with your infographic.

Attached: 1522974790720.jpg (208x199, 8K)

Well that's where free market capitalism comes into play. I will pay my workers what the market allows. If I'm losing good workers to another company due to wages and benefits then guess what? I'm going to improve wages and benefits to attract and keep good employees. So profit has nothing to do with pay. However the more !obey my company makes the more we spend (also goes with me making more money) which in turn helps other businesses grow which then helps drive wages up due to better economic conditions

Attached: lcYzZCU.jpg (1122x960, 67K)

Measuring by purchasing power, the minimum wage has falled a full dollar per hour since its last raise in 2009.

>This is enough for a two bedroom rental in every state except for New York, California, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Connecticut (note, this is only by median housing rates and is somewhat artificially inflated by Boston, LA, NY City, etc.)
Sure, unless you also want to eat.

The free market SHOULD be the drivers of wages whether up or down,not the government

That image is so fucking stupid. If you work in someones company, you are working for them with the promise of compensation. All of the work you do is theirs because you most likely used their equipment and their facility to do whatever work you did for them. If you want to make full profit for your labor, bankroll yourself otherwise shut the fuck up you communist piece of shit.

Maybe don't eat out and eat like a fat piece of shit all the time? Lose some weight, you'll save money and live better (Walmart(tm))

The free market can only supply a fair contract when both sides are free to walk away, and have adequate information about the contract.

That's why the government levels the playing field by supporting those who can't walk away (and are therefore at the mercy of the other party), and guaranteeing that a lack of information has only finite negative impact on you. This guarantees a much higher degree of positive freedom, at the expense of only a very minor degree of negative freedom.

so long as people are lining up to work for that job, its worth what it is paying.

I love how you immediatly proceed to personal attacks. But no, being reasonably frugal won't be enough either.

>I can pay off the investors and be sole owner
Once this is done you and your employees carry the same risk. The quality of your product and the efficiency of your company has as much to do with your employees as it does with you. People always act as if the responsibility of the company is a negative when its should be considered a perk. If you have a crappy employee you can fire them. If the employee has a crappy CEO all they can do is hope they don't fuck things up too badly. Pay should be based on how demanding a job is to your health and the number of hours you put in. Nothing an owner or CEO does justifies the disparity in pay. A 5-10x disparity from bottom wrung to top guy can be seen as acceptable given the justifications that they give. The more common 100-1000x disparity is not. When you have people making the equivalent of $10,000 / hr its ridiculous. Anyone making that much needs to be able to raise the dead or cure cancer with a touch to justify that.

And you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're", which explains why you work in fast food.

You can walk away from a job.

Plus, the government does none of those things. They say they do many things, but holding them to their objectives is like trying to hug a greased eel in rapids.

>Federal minimum wage working only 40 hour weeks takes home $1150 a month after all taxes, medicare, and social security.
???
Forty hours of minimum wage is only $290 gross. Let's ignore vacations, personal leave, sick days, etc and just call it 160 hours a month.
That's $1160 per month, gross.
FICA alone takes $88.74, leaving $1,071.26 before any other taxes.

>median housing rates
Median isn't a realistic average here, since most people live in the big city (duhhh).
I live in the suburbs of Virginia, and I just checked rentals in my county.
I can't afford a _single_ bedroom apartment for even the 1150 you (erroneously) claim.

>fuck off with your infographic.
You're in luck here. I'm out of econ memes, and I've got to get back to work anyway.

ta-ta, asshat

Attached: uXJLsaQ.png (540x558, 266K)

So what you're saying is that workers are indentured to their employers for life with no way out? If an employee doesn't think they are being paid fairly they are free to explore their options. I once increased my salary by $10k/yr by switching companies but still doing the exact same job. I realize that geography can sometimes hinder that but 99% of workers have the ability to find other employment. Or they could learn another skill and make themselves more marketable. Not rocket science

>The free market SHOULD be the drivers of wages whether up or down,not the government
If you just let poor people underbid each other for labor, we're all gonna fucking starve.

Are there infographics on why people are fit and others are obese too?

>You can walk away from a job.
Yeah, you can also jump from a roof.
> Plus, the government does none of those things.
They enforce a minimum wage, which is a plus for workers who can't walk away from a job offer. They also enforce standards (both at the workplace and on the product itself), which help the consumer that doesn't have perfect information about the product.
But I guess you'd rather keep letting perfect be the enemy of good.
> So what you're saying is that workers are indentured to their employers for life with no way out?
Not for life, no. That's just you painting everything in ridicolous extremes. In the long run, most workers can find another job.
But on the spot, they often do depend on the job. And given the link between health coverage and employment in the US, it may be their life depends on it. Even if not, they're at danger of ending up on the streets, as many have.
Which suits the owning class just fine. That threat keeps the workers in line.

Are you just anti rocket science in general or do we have enough of them atm?

That's a ridiculous argument. The market isn't based on your personal, subjective valuations. It's based on what everyone, collectively, is willing to pay. It's the ultimate democracy.

Mcjobs

So you're saying that being responsible for thousands of workers is the same thing as worker being responsible for making a widget? The job of upper management is much more complex and their mistakes are much more costly(especially to the the workers) . Pay increased as skill level needed for the job increases. The skill, competency, and education level needed to be upper management(in most cases) is way more than that needed at the bottom wrung. So, yes, $10k/hr may seem like too much for you but it's the right amount for what that job entails and the responsibility attached to the job.

I love you OP. one day, the wage slaves will realize what they are - enslaved

Walking away from a job is like jumping from a roof? Do you live in some socialist hellhole where you're forced to slave away in a gulag? Because that's completely unlike any experience anyone else in the thread has ever had.

And yes, they enforce a minimum wage. Which raises unemployment, as people who don't produce as much value are driven out the market. This disproportionately affects marginal workers, because they're the ones with the skills that produce the least value. It also creates lifelong problems, because those affected are disproportionately the young, who are unable to get work, and thereby develop skills and a resume, and thus get a higher paying job.

If you want an example, look at the first minimum wage that was instituted in the 50s. Unemployment jumped, particularly among the young and the minorities. Young black males had one of the lowest unemployment rates before the law, and the highest after. And their inability to get jobs started the generational cycle of poverty -- their wages had been increasing since the Civil War, but became much flatter afterwards, despite all the advances in civil rights.

That's what I mean when I say the government programs rarely meet their objectives. In fact, they often have the opposite effect.

Aggressively against.

>I struggle to express empathy in all forms. I have not had a hug in months.

So is this a debate about healthcare or wages? Now I'm confused....

>Walking away from a job is like jumping from a roof? Do you live in some socialist hellhole where you're forced to slave away in a gulag?
Not him, but...
A LOT of people in this country can't be out of work very long before suffering some serious consequences.

>So, yes, $10k/hr may seem like too much for you but it's the right amount for what that job entails and the responsibility attached to the job.
What responsibilities? Getting bought out of your job with more money than most workers make in their life?
> Walking away from a job is like jumping from a roof?
If missing your next paycheck means you don't eat? If your employer-provided healthcare being cancelled means you no longer get the essential medication you need? Yeah. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen to people in your country, every day, all the time.
> Which raises unemployment, as people who don't produce as much value are driven out the market.
Not correct. First, we have empirical evidence. Minimum wage raises don't lead to higher employment. Second, this disregards that a job worth doing still needs to be done at the higher level. The price for doing it just goes up. If you could just cut that worker, they'd already do that, to squeeze out every last penny.
> That's what I mean when I say the government programs rarely meet their objectives. In fact, they often have the opposite effect.
Go chew on asbestos.

Distribution, you dumb fuck. The bottom 50% don't control 50% of the money. You're failing at doing some pretty basic math. If you want to actually try to make a point, then write out the equations you are assuming in your head. What numbers are you using to get that 20X number?

What's confusing you? That you're not aware how the two are linked in the US?

Ok so lets live in your pretend world for a second.
>cbs news cited sources says average rent in the us is $1400
That alone takes away your argument, BUT WAIT THERES MORE

Have you added up the car note? The gas bill? Electric and uts? How about food? Emergency situations? Oh and I see you forgot to deduct for healthcare as well didnt you? Rent isnt the only bill people have. You're obviously a clueless troglodyte boomer or a sheltered MAGA hat drooler

answer this faggots

People are at risk of ending up on the streets? Look, everyone has choices. If you choose to live in an ultra expensive city(San Francisco) instead of moving to some place less costly (anywhere else) that's on you. Don't try to guilt me into paying you more just because you don't want to go where you can afford to live. And don't give me the bs about moving is expensive. Just get in your car and drive.

Post debunking, fag.

Jesus you really are dense huh.

If I have a job, I have healthcare. If I don't I still have the ability to buy healthcare through the exchange or go on Medicaid if have no money. So.... Not sure what the issue is

Wow the totally reliable totally non-ideological totally good scholarship of Thomas Sowell and the amazing Chicago School. Thanks Pinochet!

No they're are risking the capital of their business. People always act as if its the owners own money that is being risked. I take $100k and buy a house. I rent out the house for $3000 per month. Yes if the house burns down in the 1st year and I have no insurance I take a hit of $64,000 so yes there is some risk at the beginning. But after 3 years I've earned all my money back. It doesn't matter if it burns down tomorrow or never. That house is not in any form a risk. Yet as long as it stands I can keep raking in $3000 grand a month. And yes if we want to get into nitty griity there's property taxes and upkeep (al the overhead). even after the hose is paid. Even if that's something ridiculous like $24,000 a year that still leaves $12,000 that's nothing but profit. Now take the typical capitalist argument that says he deserves every penny of that $12,000 because he carries the risk. No, he carried some risk when the company started, but how much should the owner make before that initial risk should be considered duly compensated. According to the capitalist there should be no limit and the answer is never. .

The fun part about those affordable places is that the only industry in them is meth cooking, so good luck getting a job to afford even that "affordable" area.
Congratulation to the most clueless and detached post in this thread.

I both have sympathy and a lack of sympathy. Sympathy, because there are some real shortfalls. Lack of sympathy, because there has been some excessive government support (99 weeks?), and a lot of the problems are self-made.

For instance, during the government shutdown, NPR was running stories about government workers and the hardships they were suffering because they missing paychecks, and had to dip into savings or make a loan. I had no sympathy, because these are people who make 33% more than the average worker, have great benefits on top, they were guaranteed to get their pay it was just held up a bit, and if they don't have enough money socked away to hold them them over for a couple months, that's their own damn fault. These are people with ample resources, living paycheck to paycheck because they're spending beyond their means.

On the other hand, healthcare being linked to jobs is fucked up, has always been fucked, and no governmental proposal I've ever seen to fix it has been anything except fucked up. But plenty of people including me work around it, so it's not this horrible tragedy either.

if labor has no inherent value than why does sales, design, maintenance or management have inherent value? If labor doesn't make the widget the widget salesman is just a guy in a suit.

Ah yes, the Have’s and Have-nots.
You know, I know way too many people who are whip-smart, and work til they bleed so they can move forward in life— but they never do. The Have’s just caught a lucky break, and usually aren’t all that special. Yet they live on the backs of everyone else, more often then not. So in a system where there can only be so many rich, and wealth is the main factor in quality of life (expensive insurance, nice house, good diet, daycare), what does everyone else do?

Also, a reminder: you’re one of the Have-not’s. How does it feel?

That's exactly what OPs cartoon shows, genius.

Attached: 3D25322E-2321-46E8-92F9-A865676B7F74.jpg (703x818, 312K)

You're almost giving more fuel to the politicians are out of touch argument with that platitude. By your own admission
>>and start hanging around the right people
your success has as much to do with access to the "right" people to snuggle up with as it does hard work. Yes some people who weren't born millionaires can make a success at politics if they're willing to be bought and paid for by those that were.

I gave you all the numbers in the post, and the equation is both obvious and trivial.

Your claim: 62 people own 50% of the world's wealth

World wealth: $360 trillion ($360,000 billion, from Credit-Suisse website)
Total wealth of your 62: $360,000b / 2 = $180,000b
Average wealth of your 62: $180,000b / 62 = $2,903b
Jeff Bezos wealth: $150b
How many times richer the average member of your mythical 62 is compared to the actual richest man in the world: $2,903b / $150b = 19.35, which I rounded to 20.

You're completely innumerate.

If you truly believe that, you are just as ignorant (if not more so) as you believe I am.

You can change your family tree, believe it or not. But clearly, yours will never change.

Start off in a trailer park and end up running a multi-million dollar business, being groomed for political leadership in your local city, and running the largest non-profit in the county all before the age of 35. Then come speak to me.

Wow da spooky info graph will trick yoo. You can use a computer, right? Have you ever thought to fact check things you hear? Have you ever practiced critical thinking? Christ so many retards here

>Your claim: 62 people own 50% of the world's wealth
Wrong. His claim is 62 people own as much as the bottom 50% of people.

The bottom 50% of people do not own half of the worlds wealth. They own less. Because they're the poor half of the world.

yeah and in practice the democrats now aren't even democrats

>Start off in a trailer park and end up running a multi-million dollar business
Ah, yes, the good old "one in ten million can do it, so why can't you" bullshit.

Okay, then go start your own business, take on the liability, put down the fucking capital, and deal with the logistics of actually selling what you create. Dumb fuck wage slave mentality here can't see beyond their stupid fucking 8 hour work day. This is why you're on the bottom of the totem pole, because you're a fuckwit.

He makes good arguments.

I don't care if you want to identify as a reactionary or an attack helicopter.

survivor bias, survivor bias everywhere

I gave you a cite to a well researched work. Reading is up to you.

Hurr disparities have always existed in human society so they should continue existing durr

Ahh yes. The argument that its a meritocracy coming from the people starting the 50m dash at the 49th meter mark. Its interesting how the rich scream they deserve it because they're better and yet they are vehemently opposed to any form of inheritance cap. It's almost as if in their hearts they know their kids don't have what it takes to become billionaires if they only start with a mere $10,million.

Why doesn't the faggot on the left start his own business and share profits equally with his employees? He looks like a tradesman, and most tradesmen start their own businesses by the time they're 30, assuming they're not dumb as dirt.
Yet, the ones who do, somehow choose to follow in the footsteps of their supposed oppressors, instead of doing some kind of communal bullshit that would give everyone an equal share. It's almost as if that shit doesn't work.

I’ve already read it.

Okay, that's valid. But it makes the infographic pointless. We know a lot of people live in pretty desperate circumstances around the world. It says nothing about the people who are better off.

Also, I suspect it's out of date. The wealth gap between countries has been narrowing rapidly, since the 1970s. There are still some very poor countries, but they've become outliers. Most of the world has moved into the middle income range. There's no longer a sharp continuum between developed and undeveloped.

I agree, but consider this: if an employer is hiring for a full time position, they should pay enough for that person to get by. They’re demanding the bulk of employees’ waking hours. Otherwise, the costs become externalized to the rest of society in healthcare, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc. Why do we have to pick up the employers slack? A standard of living is supplied either way, but the proper way is for the greedy bastards to have to pay enough in the first place

t. Literally can’t do math

>Christ so many retards here
Stop looking in the mirror.

>The wealth gap between countries has been narrowing rapidly, since the 1970s.
While true, at the same time, the wealth gap between the workers and the superrich has massively increased.

He makes no such claim. He says disparities have always existed, and points out how those disparities have helped everyone, and how attempts to eliminate the disparities have almost universally made things much, much worse.

Try living in Somalia if there’s not a “sharp” continuum between developed and undeveloped countries.

It has, but the degree has been overinflated.

Ah yes. Any form of government intervention is bad because of Nazism. Fucking lol. He’s a fringe academic because he makes ridiculous claims.

politico.com/story/2010/06/palin-praises-column-linking-obama-hitler-039030

Bump. Same for my area. Almost all part time, but they still want you to have experience. It’s hilarious

I explicitly said there were outliers, but if you mapped incomes by country in the 1960s, there were two big clusters, one the developed countries, and the other everyone else. But today, those two big clusters have turned into one stretched out blob, and the average of the blob has shifted way up. Watch Hans Rosling's TED talk sometime.

You're an idiot.

Hey, guess what?

The places where all the jobs are, are usually big cities with really expensive rent.

Also, cut the condescending shit. You clearly haven’t thought of it all yourself

It's notable that while the average went up because a shitton of people in India and China were lifted up, at the top end, there's been stagnation. Workers in the west have been largely shafted since the 70s, and the profits from automation have been pocketed by the owning class. A higher skill level hasn't translated into higher wages anymore either, it just raised the new normal in terms of skill expectations (which is why everyone has to go to college now).

Hans Rosling is an optimist to the point of denialism. His whole sctick is selecting data that fits his everything is getting better worldview while consciously neglecting data that doesn’t.

Except it will always favor the people with power. Your average person will go back to sweatshops and child labor. The government works to protect and serve the majority of the people, not the special interests of the rich. In theory.

Thomas Sowell is an idiot who compared Obama’s policies to Hitler’s. So I wonder what that makes his little acolyte?

True but this is as much an issue of the leadership of the left as it is the right. They want to play the socialist game but they don't want to cut into the rich so they do everything in the form of government subsidies instead. For example, I hate Obamacare not for the fact that its "socialist" but because it isn't. As long as you have a private insurance industry and for-profit healthcare, universal care is just another government subsidy program and ultimately yet another form of corporate welfare under the guise of a working class benefit.

Comparing different things across history is what academics do, you precious little child.

You linked to a sensational article on a fringe website that thinks "alikens" is a word, and uses an unpopular politician to drum up opposition. Yet if you actually read what was said, it's a simple defense of the rule of law. The opposing idea that governments should have unlimited discretionary authority is fringe extremist totalitarianism.

> anything the market does is perfect and it can do no wrong. It is Above you.

Oh, and some people can pay more (have more votes). So you’re willing to admit that the rich and powerful will control everything in a “free” market?

Alikening similar things is what academics do. Alikening anything falls under the fallacy of the slippery slope.

They believe you can create a political power vacuum and nothing will fill it.

> The job of upper management is much more complex

holy hell I haven’t laughed that hard in a minute. Thanks. Keep licking the boot, scrub

>muh free market

Also when you tell someone their argument is ridiculous you have to actually explain why, not fall back on an argument which itself depends upon a logical fallacy to remain true. The free market is not even close to "the ultimate democracy" except in your little utopian paradise that only exists within the confines of your mind. Fact is price fixing, price gouging, lying and general fraud are rampant in today's capitalist society. Just because something is "better" than the alternatives doesn't mean it's perfect or that it's beyond reproach, it just means it's better. Better is an entirely subjective thing all on its own.

Christ. You are a very confused person, aren’t you?

Also, “you precious little child”? What a fucking neck beard thing to say.

Attached: 81006C7E-97EC-4742-9EE2-E420DC04295F.jpg (1536x2048, 290K)

The issue isn't disparities. The issue is how these disparities come about. If everybody starts out on the starting block, as long as no one was punching or tripping people or no one was wearing rocket shoes, no reasonable person is going to bitch about the fact that one person came in first and one person came in last. (and yes the everyone gets a medal and everyone is equal ie those that demand equal results cause more problems than they solve). But the socialist complaint isn't that people aren't equal but that the race is fixed from the beginning. Unrestricted inheritance and nepotism allows some to start at the 49th meter mark and then celebrate how great a runner they are.

India and China are big, and so is Brazil, but it's been a lot broader than that.

Wages in developed economies haven't been flat, though. You didn't say that explicitly, but I'm bringing it up because it pops up all the time, and it's a false claim. But it is true that they haven't kept up with the growth of the economy as a whole. So people have more stuff than ever, but feel like they're falling behind.

Automation is a factor, but more broadly it's been a technological shift. The people at the forefront of the shift are doing well, the people who are not (i.e. most manufacturing workers) are not. There's no real way to fix that, except to give workers new skills and shift them to new jobs. Some of that is training for the displaced, but even more importantly we need an educational system that focuses on the areas where we need new workers.

Your claim about profits is false, tho. Business profits have been about the same percentage of the economy throughout the whole period. There's been a growing wealth gap, though.

Alikening similar things and pointing out the possible extreme consequences are also what academics do.

It seemed appropriate. It was such a precious little post.

That guy's a total bitch. I hope he enjoys a life getting fucked raw and cucked by his employers while he sings their praises on the internet like a retarded parrot. At least his level of stupidity is so pathetic it swings back around to being kind of funny.

Let me spell it out for you: people need jobs to live. Through a job, people get healthcare, which they also need to live. Which makes it that much more important they have a job.
> Walking away from a job is like jumping from a roof? Do you live in some socialist hellhole where you're forced to slave away in a gulag?

Yes. It’s called capitalism, where you starve and die just the same if you don’t work.

What jobs are in Bumfuck, Wyoming, where the rent is so cheap that it drives down the median cost?

The free market is an ultimate democracy because you don't vote every few years for a person, who won't believe what you do, and probably won't keep their promises anyway. Instead, you vote with every dollar you spend, choosing this product over that, and this company over that one. You have compete freedom of choice, at an extremely atomic and graduated level, and the combination of all those choices sets the overall price of everything in the economy.

Now, not everyone starts with the same amount of dollars, but if you add value, you can earn more.

Christ. You have reading comprehension issues, don't you?

Again, you're totally ignoring everything that proves you wrong (like basic human nature) suggesting that it will all just "honestly sort itself all out nicely" which is a copout for "I don't have an actual answer because I didn't really think my position through all the way"
You're definitely not doing yourself any favors suggesting that an idea wholly dependent on human greed and predation is the "ultimate democracy."

I wish you had the capacity to understand why you sound so incredibly stupid.

> You're completely innumerate.
You literally don’t get the point.
t. Retard doubling down

The elephant in the room you don't notice is that more than half of the world survives on less than $1 USD per day

It always gives me a laugh when people who don't understand statistics alert everybody reading their post that they don't understand statistics.
My recommendation is that you take a remedial course at your local community college before making idiotic posts such as these in the future.

I don't really disagree with any of that. The problem is, there's no real way to ensure everyone starts at the same place. You can't make people smarter, and it's hard to make them harder working. Some parents are worse than others, but how do you fix that when the government tends to be much worse at raising kids? And it runs up against personal freedoms, as in the case of inheritances. But in that case, it also tends to fix itself over time -- wealth tends to dissipate, over the generations; and new people rise up to take their places. But as long as there is a significant amount of social ability, it works pretty well.

So I definitely support things that increase social mobility, or more specifically reduce barriers to it. I'm suspicious of government solutions, but that's because they're often much worse than what they're trying to fix. Good programs with strong outcomes can be worthwhile.

>Yes. It’s called capitalism, where you starve and die just the same if you don’t work.
Funny how it's all those "capitalist" countries that seem to have the biggest social safety nets.

You completely missed my point, and are now bragging about your rise to being a Have. And of course, now that you’re on top, you don’t need those other politics, do you?

>groomed for political leadership
and we have one of the many glaring issues with the political system on full display for all to see!

> I have reached the limit of my intellect, and will now resort to sick burns

back when I earned minimum wage, I was still living under my Dad's roof. By age 18, I was able to find jobs that paid a little more.

That faggot deserves to get 2nd Ammendmented

I'm not ignoring anything. When I say things work themselves out, that's based on the historical record. If you want to believe that social mobility has never existed in a free market society, and people are perpetually stuck and never advance, then I'll point you to the Korean shopkeepers in the US, or the Jewish before them. Or the Chinese expats across SE Asia, or the Edo in Nigeria.

Also, the market isn't based on greed on predation, because it's based on the free decisions of individuals, who will only make trades when there is a mutual benefit. There is certainly corruption and abuse, but almost invariably comes from the government side.

The myth of capitalism. First of all "free market" only applies to "want" items not "need" items. Yes I could be living butt naked in a Louisiana swamp but in any reasonable argument there are certain things people have to have to exist in society. Secondly, it doesn't mean everybody is motivated to give the best product at the best price. All capitalism requires is that you provide a slightly less shittier product at a slightly better price (compare the quality of Japanese cars from the 80s and now. They learned this lesson) Thirdly, as long as there is a sufficient percentage of people who can be convinced to by something overpriced (one born every minute) it ceases to be collectively what everyone is willing to pay. Or the Michael Jordan made my underwear more expensive economics. Stupid people follow celebrity endorsements and pay more for celebrity endorsed item. This becomes the top price comparison point. Competitors can either try to buy a better celebrity and charge the same or be the lower cost alternative. The kicker is the low cost alternative doesn't have to be inexpensive and just has to be less than the high price point that will have buyers no matter that the price is higher. My costs aren't based on what I'm willing to pay but what I have to pat because of what others are willing to pay. And as wage disparity increases, the power of a certain percentage of people being "price drivers" for everyone else increases.

You're really dumb, aren't you?

That's true. That's why I returned your insults, there was nothing of substance in any of your posts.

Attached: radlibs.png (815x1462, 1.3M)

>poor european country
>big mac costs almost 6 euros
>sundae costs 1.60
>make less than 4 euros a hour minimum wage
I cant understand what the fuck is going on

I think it might be you who is really really dumb if you can't figure out that's what the graph is talking about. Over half of the world lives on less than $1 USD. Let it soak in a bit, go back and look at everything and you'll figure it out chump.

No it's based on shit you've pulled out of your ass. Historically speaking the rich have only abused their positions of authority and wealth over the poor. This is historically speaking.

Are you done pandering to yourself?

Define "need". If you include air, food and a roof, that's fine. If you start to include this laundry list of everything you think everything should have, then you've moved a long way from a real "need".

In all modern advanced societies, the real needs are cheap for anyone working, and there are safety nets for those who can't. It's the stuff beyond that where we have to make decisions. Do you want a third bedroom, or a newer car? More expansive health insurance, or a fancy TV?

That's the point of a market economy. It's not about what you think everyone else should have. It's about what each individual prioritizes. They decide whether X is more important than Y when they buy X with their money. They choose their own wants and needs, and the relative importance, not you the central planner who thinks you know better than they do.

No you can only argue the heavy burden "responsibility" if the CEO is made into a pauper or taken out and shot if the company bellies up. When a CEO can drive a company into the ground from short sited incompetency and sail his golden parachute across the street into another 6 figure position while the workers are left unemployed and without a retirement fund they've paid into for decades you have no argument for "responsibility" By definition, responsibility means you're the one suffers from the consequence of your actions.

I'm not even anti min wage but comparing those two economies 1:1 is absurd

Throwing insults doesn't hide the way you're Ignoring facts and making patently false generalizations.

No, you're really dumb. If you were smarter, you would have read the rest of the replies.

In order to live lavish lifestyles, somebody has to do the work... Your own reply proves the point. The second one is also wrong, because miners get paid good money for hard and dangerous work. Fuck off.

You do realise that millions of people already live in relatively small cities, right?

>Facts
what facts, again? The part where you literally made up history? We're going to pretend like a few good things happening means all the bad stuff that is well documented in history. Endlessly well-documented peasant uprisings, some of which were successful. French Revolution ring any bells faggot? That's what happens when wealth gets concentrated in the hands of complete pricks.
>Facts
lol
>Patently false generalizations

again, you're the one who humanizes an idea and suggests that it carefully guides itself and sets itself right

god damn I can't tell if you're retarded or benefit from selling the lie but kill yourself anyway

Our money is worth almost half of yours. But hey, raise wages, cut hours, and force people to work faster. If they don't, there will always be more to replace them because nobody will have a job.

You made a stupid post totally ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of people on this planet live far far far far far far far beneath the poverty line.

Get over it dipshit.

Can all of you socialist fucks do me a favour and start demanding that the country be divided? That way you get your Muslim and faggot filled socialist "utopia", and we don't have to put up with your bullshit.

I gave you a list of examples of groups that succeeded in improving their lot, in most cases despite prejudice and legal restrictions. You just ignored all that, and brought up the French Revolution as an example of the capitalism failing.
kek

You gave me no list whatsoever

And you made another stupid post that completely missed the point. Congratulations (I guess).

But who are you going to whine and cry about when things continue to fuck up?

Your point was predicated entirely upon misinformation ergo you had no point
Quit coping user. Accept your mistake and move on with your life. This is getting pathetic. I've met children who took being wrong easier than you do.

I certainly did. The conversation hasn't branched, all you have to do is click the reply button a few times.

Again, you entirely missed the point. Swoosh. Despite being told where to look for the answer.

You did not give me a list.
Words have meaning user, those meanings are not whatever you want them to be. A list has a very specific format you did not follow. What you mean is that you offered me "Examples" but again, you didn't. You keep rambling about how a non-living, non-thinking concept naturally rights itself, which is frankly one of the dumbest fucking things I have ever heard.

Things are only bad now because of welfare leeches like you. But you proved my point. You aren't interested in your "utopia". You want to enslave us. I'd like to see you soy filled fucks try.

ultra cringe.

You don't and never did have a point. If you did you would have actually made it known by now instead of flailing around like an angered baboon.
Cope more

except he makes 250 times as much as them for doing paperwork and shaking peoples hands. he was born with the connections

Attached: 1573806839591.jpg (600x594, 75K)

lmao
how do you know he's a welfare leech? How do I know it's a he?! No really though you're creating an enemy in your own mind out of user's posts, a caricature of everything you hate.

That's what children do. Grow up faggot.

economist.com/news/2020/01/15/the-big-mac-index

looks like other countries pay even less for a Big Mac.

google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNRXNT20ekrraN1bDzazn6OmWhNQmQ:1580501720538&ei=2Io0XuPFIMO1tgWes5rYBg&q=peasant uprising&oq=peasant uprising&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.8221045.8223658..8223795...0.2..0.108.1249.15j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i273j0i67j0i131j35i39j0i10.8gDHTubjP18&ved=0ahUKEwjjkfrc067nAhXDmq0KHZ6ZBmsQ4dUDCAo&uact=5

>the free market just werkz

kys

Attached: 1580501349039.png (1220x625, 39K)

1150 a month wont get you a 1bedroom roach infested apartment surrounded by niggers where im at ...

>affected workers

Do you really think that other people's wages will stay the same when minimum wage increases?
Do you really think that companies would not raise the prices of their goods and services as the average wage increases?

What does it have to do with where people live?

oh, and I am sure companies will keep their goods and services at the same low price when their employees cost them more to pay and customers can afford a higher price point.

Its this clinging to every penny with inheritance and the myth that wealth dissipates that's the problem.. Its not like Paris Hilton was ever at risk of being impoverished no matter how much money she snorted. It is because people are able to start as economic nobility that we have so much disparity Really, how much does someone need to start with to ensure a happy life? Or you do you believe the average person should be happy with their Toyota whereas someone born into a life of wealth absolutely can not live without a golden Lamborghini? They should cap total asset transfer to 5x the lifetime medium income which would be around $12 million dollars. This s basically saying that if you have rich parents you can be the dumbest, laziest slug on the planet and still live out a life of ease and still live 5x better than the average joe. Isn't that enough? On the other hand, if they're on the ball and as deserving as the rich claim to be they should have no trouble turning that into multimillions if not billions. Not to get political but Trump was given about that much to start so either he's the capitalist genius he claims to be or getting richer when starting rich isn't that tough after all.