Unemployment Rate

[Gustaf]

haha, the minimum wage boogeyman again!

Do you think companies just sit back and lose money and nothing happens?

[Gustaf]

haha, the minimum wage boogeyman again!

Do you think companies just sit back and lose money and nothing happens?

If you think McDonalds and WalMart are going to lose money by paying $7 something instead of $5 something I would say you're being a bit unrealistic, Gustaf.

Ok, let's back up. Jim has 2 dollars. Jim then has to give those 2 dollars to Bob.

Did Jim just lose money.

I say yes.

I mean, I know mathematics is not your strong suit, but seriously. Thinking that you don't lose money when you, for lack of a better expression, lose money is thick-headed stupidity even by your standards.

[Gustaf]

haha, the minimum wage boogeyman again!

Do you think companies just sit back and lose money and nothing happens?

If you think McDonalds and WalMart are going to lose money by paying $7 something instead of $5 something I would say you're being a bit unrealistic, Gustaf.

Ok, let's back up. Jim has 2 dollars. Jim then has to give those 2 dollars to Bob.

Did Jim just lose money.

I say yes.

I mean, I know mathematics is not your strong suit, but seriously. Thinking that you don't lose money when you, for lack of a better expression, lose money is thick-headed stupidity even by your standards.

Obviously by 'lose money' I meant - enter into a state of unprofitability.  Please strive, in future, Gustaf, to conduct yourself more like a young gentleman and avoid ad hominem attack.

No need to pretend that you are a gentleman. You routinely treat other people with ridicule and contempt and deride those who disagree with you. I don't show respect for those who treat others that way.

So, besides the strange idea that an extra cost of roughly 4 000$ per employee annually couldn't possible drive a company to unprofitableness, there is a fundamental error in your reasoning.

See, I never mentioned profitability. I merely stated that they would lose money, which you now seem to also agree to. Most companies try and maximize their profits. If the situation changes resulting in a loss of money they are likely to adapt. If it suddenly costs them more to hire people they will hire less. If they could make money on paying those kinds of wages they would have hired more people before the raise.

[Gustaf]

...Most companies try and maximize their profits.

Precisely, Gustaf!  So why shouldn't people working at McDonalds and Walmart try to do that too?

That's not relevant. They already are, through negotiations over payment contracts. But nice way of trying to wriggle your way out of being proven wrong.

The point is that when the company has re-adapted to maximize its profits it is not given that all its employees will have benefited. What is likely to occur is that the least productive of them get fired while the remaining can cash in the higher wage. Thus, we see an increased inequality.

Anyway, Jacobtm, McDonald's is an extremely successful company. Companies go bankrupt every day, so there are plenty teetering on the edge. Some of those may keel over from an increase in the minimum wage, but I never meant that one of the world's largest most successful corporations would.

However, as I said, unprofitability is not the point. Stock-owners expect a decent return on their investment, otherwise they go somewhere else. Losing money by itself will lead to changes, regardless of at what level it is.

[Gustaf]

...Most companies try and maximize their profits.

Precisely, Gustaf!  So why shouldn't people working at McDonalds and Walmart try to do that too?

That's not relevant. They already are, through negotiations over payment contracts. But nice way of trying to wriggle your way out of being proven wrong.

The point is that when the company has re-adapted to maximize its profits it is not given that all its employees will have benefited. What is likely to occur is that the least productive of them get fired while the remaining can cash in the higher wage. Thus, we see an increased inequality.

Which is why I have always advocated a generous dole from which the privileged (employers) must tempt workers with high pay, Gustaf.  I believe that is a better method of moving towards privilege reduction than a simple minimum wage.

So, I take it that you are admitting that I was right and you wrong. Why couldn't you do it openly and honestly to begin with instead of wriggling around and throwing away smart-ass remarks?

[Gustaf]

So, I take it that you are admitting that I was right and you wrong. Why couldn't you do it openly and honestly to begin with instead of wriggling around and throwing away smart-ass remarks?

What, you are saying that you were right in claiming that $7/hour is more than $5/hour?  Sure, but I think we all knew that, Gustaf.

You didn't seem to. You claimed that one does not lose money through paying more wages. Anyway, what I claimed more specifically was that it is not given that a higher minimum wage will benefit workers since companies are not likely to sit back and accept the loss. Then you claimed that the losses did not exist. I showed that they did and you then claimed they weren't very big. I then explained why that did not matter.

Finally, you replied "that's why I don't think a minimum wage is such a good idea" to paraphrase slightly. Which seems like a pretty clear admission that I was right. I am wondering why you didn't accept, what I agree was, a fairly obvious statement immediately instead of claiming that companies don't lose money by paying higher wages. 

[Gustaf]

You didn't seem to. You claimed that one does not lose money through paying more wages. Anyway, what I claimed more specifically was that it is not given that a higher minimum wage will benefit workers since companies are not likely to sit back and accept the loss. Then you claimed that the losses did not exist. I showed that they did and you then claimed they weren't very big. I then explained why that did not matter.

My apologies.  As I have stated repeatedly, I was referring to 'loss' as in 'going out of business'.  I don't know how many times I have to restate this, but I do apologize that we were referring to different things.

You see, I always look at economic arrangements as hierarchies, not as absolute 'amounts'.  Which is why I always think that the upper class seems a bit nit-picky when it disputes the difference between $5/hour for its serfs and $7/hour.  The way I look at it, they are still clearly on top, riding around on the fellow, and the amount is pretty irrelevant to the position in the hierarchy.

Now you are applying your personal, subjective moralistic outlook. I'm not really interested in that. I was merely pointing out that there is nothing stopping employers from firing people in order to maximize their own profit. You seem to be unable to separate that factual observation of what is with your personal feelings as to how it should be.

Btw, do you pay your hookers minimum wage? Or are you too busy being on top?

[Gustaf]

Now you are applying your personal, subjective moralistic outlook.

There is nothing moralistic or subjective about the analysis that the owner is above the worker in a hierarchy.  This is fairly demonstrable in various ways - the direction in which commands pass, the relative power over this or that, punishments, rewards, etc.

I was merely pointing out that there is nothing stopping employers from firing people in order to maximize their own profit.

Yes, this is a political reality, Gustaf.  It is completely arbitrary that we arrange things in this way.  We all know that the owners have all the power.  I merely object to it as policy.  You seem to pretend that it is some sort of rational inevitability. 

Minimum wage is a policy which can only be very useful or effective when combined with other measures.  To say 'well the owners can just utilize their powers and destroy workers in return' if we implement the minimum wage does not, to me, suggest that we should just give up and acquiesce, but that we must remove that power from the owners (after all our State gives it to them in the first place).

Btw, do you pay your hookers minimum wage? Or are you too busy being on top?

Hookers in Thailand make between $10 and $60 per hour (more or less than that range being a rarity), and certainly the majority closer to $15 than $60.  And of course they don't provide 40 hours of service per week, so much of their time is spent waiting.  But as for hours worked, $15/hour is a reasonable guess.

This is, as you can imagine, a very comfortable living in a country where meals are $1-2 and apartments $70-100/month.  The great majority of prostitutes have a very easy life compared to people who work at regular jobs - at least until they're 35 or so, when marketability becomes slightly impaired.  But its a great life up until that age.

Most of my service providers make nearly what I make, and some make more.

Your assessment that people are nit-picky and immoral when they want to make more money was a subjective political opinion. At least, you finally admitted that I was correct on all my factual statement. The next time I hope you can think your way into admitting this immediately instead of feeling the urge to disagree with my facts just because you don't like them.

Anyway, these must be foreigner-only prices, correct? Since I assume Thais would be unable to pay these kinds of prices.

[Gustaf]

Anyway, these must be foreigner-only prices, correct? Since I assume Thais would be unable to pay these kinds of prices.

Thailand has an enormous middle class, Gustaf.  And anyway even working class Thais could afford a $15 hooker visit say once a month.

I suppose many people such as yourself are a bit out of date or confused about the standard of living in developing countries.  This one is not so poor at all.

Since you have argued innumerable times that the American workers are poor, how do you reconcile that with the idea that Thai workers are well-off?

So, I'm going to be rude again  and include pesky little facts in my post: US GDP per capita, PPP, so as to include reference to the prices in the country is roughly 47 000 USD, which is about 6th to 8th in the world. Thailand is about 8 000. So America is about 6 times as rich. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Now, THailand's gross natioal income in nominal terms is about 3 400 USD. Which means that the average Thai has about 300 USD a month to spend (or 10 USD a day). So, either the poorest, cheapest street-hookers are 10 times richer than the average Thai or you're talking nonsense. Or they work only 1 hour per day. All of them.

Finally, as regards the middle-class, the United States has a Gini coefficient of roughly 40-45, Thailand has 42. So they have equally equal income distribution. The richest 20% in Thailand has 7.7as much money as the poorest 20%, compared to 8.4 for the US. So income is spread evenly if you compare the two, it is merely that the US is much, much richer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

But, of course, being an owner in Thailand is nice, I can understand that. Exploiting the poor while telling yourself they acually have it pretty good sure feels nice, doesn't it?

[Gustaf]

Ok, wait, wait, wait.

Let me get some fact straight here:

1. You think workers are better off in the United States than in Thailand? Is that on the record?

2. Hookers have to give HALF the money to the owner? Sounds like they are being used and exploited to me. (and I'm going to save you the embarassement of saying "why, Gustaf, you silly Swede, half is a lot more than the slaves under American capitalism can expect" and tell you right now that labour providers typically recieve about two-thirds of GDP in developed countries, with capital owners getting roughly a third). Besides, I did a little internet research and it seems as if half is the best they can hope for.

3. So, 18 dollars a day. That equals about $2 an hour then. Let's multiply that by 6 to account for price level differences compared to the US and then tell me again what people can be expected to live on, or however your tirade usually goes. And, of course, I'm letting the assumption of the number of customers here go. I suspect, from the research I did, that it is difficult for the higher-priced girls catering to foreigners to have more than one customer a night. And again, given my general experiences with tourist countries, prices are usually significantly lower for the domestic market. Most internet stories I come across seem to have 500 to 1000 baht as the price range. But that is for Swedish 50-year olds going to bars specifically catering to them. I'm pretty sure Thais buy their prostitutes much, much cheaper.

4. Oh, I'm sure you avoid the poor as much as you can. Why would you mingle with the poor and downtrodden? Your warm heart could get seriously hurt by that, after all, given how much it already bleeds for the American workers.

5. And you talk about the attraction of the job - do you mean to imply that these Thai prostitutes are free agents following their ultimate goal in life, as opposed to the rest of us deluded drones working in the West?

[Gustaf]

Ok, wait, wait, wait.

Let me get some fact straight here:

1. You think workers are better off in the United States than in Thailand? Is that on the record?

2. Hookers have to give HALF the money to the owner?...

dude, what are doing?  the only serious conversation you can have with him is about car engines.  you should know that

I don't like intellectual dishonesty and general hypocrisy, so sometimes I expose it a little bit. I suspect he will give up soon and make some kind of sweeping insult to end the discussion and escape with a little dignity, so it won't last much longer. I do most of this stuff while being bored at work, to be honest.

[Gustaf]

I don't like intellectual dishonesty and general hypocrisy

huh?  he is dishonest and admits to being dishonest.  where's the hypocrisy?

you both should stop replying.

let's have peace

No, at least I haven't seen him admit to it. If he does, I will let it go.

[Gustaf]

I don't like intellectual dishonesty and general hypocrisy

huh?  he is dishonest and admits to being dishonest.  where's the hypocrisy?

you both should stop replying.

let's have peace

No, at least I haven't seen him admit to it. If he does, I will let it go.

Why do you care so much?

Because the most fundamental prerequisite for any sort of progress is clear thinking. If contradictions are allowed, it is impossible to have meaningful discussions.

Besides, it is the only sort of thing really worth my while to discuss. If someone says, "freedom is better than equality" and someone else says "no, equality is better than freedom" it doesn't usually lead anywhere. Just stating contrarian value judgements is a dead-end, since you are usually unable to convince anyone. Sure, it may be important for politicians to do it, but why would I waste my time preaching my opinions to random people on the internet?

Furthermore, why would I not care about this? BRTD cares about suburbs, Phnrocket about boobs, Jmfcst about the Bible, Stark about Jews, CarlHayden about Mexicans, etc...what makes inconsistency and dishonesty less worthwhile than the majority of subjects discussed here?

I try to do a little work by fighting stupidity. Hopefully, something good eventually comes out of that.

[Gustaf]

Let me get some fact straight here:

1. You think workers are better off in the United States than in Thailand? Is that on the record?

Yes, they have more money in toto, certainly.  I have never claimed otherwise.

2. Hookers have to give HALF the money to the owner? Sounds like they are being used and exploited to me. (and I'm going to save you the embarassement of saying "why, Gustaf, you silly Swede, half is a lot more than the slaves under American capitalism can expect" and tell you right now that labour providers typically recieve about two-thirds of GDP in developed countries, with capital owners getting roughly a third). Besides, I did a little internet research and it seems as if half is the best they can hope for.

Yeah, 1/2, 1/3, whatever.  I'm sure that there are plenty of hookers in Thailand who only pay 1/3 to the owner.  There are those - freelancers - who seem to get away with paying nothing.  Most girls working in bars which cater to foreigners tend to make a bigger percentage - probably more like 70%.  When I mentioned 50/50 I was referring to the lower end Thai venues - basically describing a 'worst case scenario'.

.. But that is for Swedish 50-year olds going to bars specifically catering to them. I'm pretty sure Thais buy their prostitutes much, much cheaper.

Some thais do, but middle class ones typically spend more than Swedes or Americans on holiday.  Thai men are very picky.  But, as you say, 500-1000 back (say 15-30 dollars) is normal in cheap beach towns, and double that is the norm in expensive bangkok.  High end Thai venues will be 1,500-2,500 per 1.5 hour session, with a very few in the 2,500-5,000 baht range who have to be 'model quality'.  Basic Thai brothels and so forth will be around 500 or so.

As you said, the foreigner serving girls usually get only a couple per day, while those in thai venues usually get several, and the lower down the rungs, they more they get.

And you talk about the attraction of the job - do you mean to imply that these Thai  prostitutes are free agents following their ultimate goal in life, as opposed to the rest of us deluded drones working in the West?

No, its just like any other job, Gustaf.  Perhaps with a little more social stigma and a big of a pay bonus as a result, but basically just like any other job.

So, they too are being exploited by their owners, living as miserable wretches under the capitalist boot, unable to do what they really want with their lives?

[Gustaf]

So, they too are being exploited by their owners, living as miserable wretches under the capitalist boot, unable to do what they really want with their lives?

Obviously.  Only owners have power, Gustaf, as you well know.  However, being a cute young girl does have some advantages, particularly in an aging society like Thailand (or the US, or most parts of the world).

And do you feel any moral qualms about exploting them, being the owner of the boot that presses them into the mud, so to speak?

[Gustaf]

And do you feel any moral qualms about exploting them, being the owner of the boot that presses them into the mud, so to speak?

Gustaf, you don't seem to know me very well after all these years.  I have always poo-pooed the idea of objective morality.  I never have any moral qualms.

So, you do not then, I trust, have any objections to other people exploiting the poor? This compassionate warm heart that you sometimes refer to is just pretending, I gather?