Since when is owning a car a fundamental human right?
No joke, my gf's rent (because she has room mates) is about the same cost as my car. $200/mo for the insurance, $200/mo for the gas, add in some maintenance costs and this thing looks pretty damn expensive. Keep in mind that's the cost of a car I already own. If I had car payments or if it was a ghetto used car that broke down a lot... holy shit that would be expensive. Cars are a very expensive luxury.
Bus pas is $84 in this city and yes my gf has a bus pass. Throckmorton, I live in Edmonton, Canada.
Do you really not understand that there are other factors at work?
The only way they wouldn't is if the revenue from each employee doesn't exceed that $15.
Everything in australia is super expensive even after factoring in the conversion rate. Video games are $100. Gasoline is about $1.50/L which is about $5.60 per US gallon.
It seems like an awful lot of economists disagree that minimum wage affects employment; England instituted it in 1999, and it didn't affect unemployment at all.
Probably because the economy was booming at this time. Again, the issue is whether unemployment would have been even lower but for the minimum wage (also they initiated a national minimum wage in 1999, don't be so sure there were no price controls before then.) And you may think this or that but the professional economists in the OP have reviewed the literature and found a negative relationship. You don't have any criticisms of their methodology. You just don't like their findings because you would have to change your mind about something.
Of course it has some effect on employment rate. The question is whether the benefits for people on minimum wage outweigh the employment decrease.
Considering every working Australian has a living wage, and the unemployment rate is at the optimum, looks like a complete WIN.
Probably because the economy was booming at this time. Again, the issue is whether unemployment would have been even lower but for the minimum wage (also they initiated a national minimum wage in 1999, don't be so sure there were no price controls before then.) And you may think this or that but the professional economists in the OP have reviewed the literature and found a negative relationship. You don't have any criticisms of their methodology. You just don't like their findings because you would have to change your mind about something.
The natural state of a free market economy is similar to the third world. Wealth concentration at the top and a huge pool of poor workers.
That's the kind of efficiency you're talking about Infohawk... And it sucks for most people.
I like how you sidestep the fairness issue. Fuck those people that aren't employed right? As long as long as the people that are employed get more.
The developed country that is most like us, aside from maybe Canada, has a $15 minimum wage, is doing great, and you argue that it doesn't prove shit because it's a different country. So I guess all comparisons to other countries are worthless?Are you really so naive that you think that by adopting a living wage in the US we would turn into Australia? Australia's economic situation is completely different than ours. Australia's situation doesn't prove shit because we don't have access to an alternate universe where Australia didn't adopt a wage floor. Again, it's very well that they would be EVEN BETTER off without the wage floor.
Minimum wage forces more wealth down to the bottom, without the government having to disproportionately tax the rich and distribute handouts.Also I guess you never really liked the idea of directly helping the poor which I suggested was a better alternative than the minimum wage. Nope, you prefer to keep blathering about it as if it's a good thing.
Too bad you won't accept other countries as examples otherwise I'd point you toward the third world, where wages are low for workers, and wealth is concentrated at the top.... which seems to be the natural state of a capitalist economy.And no I'm not advocating for concentrated wealth. You're intellectually dishonest.
Want to make a deal? We won't respond to each other's posts or threads from now on. I am not getting anything from having discussions with you because you can't debate honestly or intelligently. And you don't have anything to gain from discussing issues with me since you think I'm some evil conservative and refuse to listen to reason. So there's no point for either of us. Sound good?
The only cases where people have escaped that kind of grinding poverty you're talking about in recorded history are where they've had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that.
- Milton Friedman
No, the only cases where people have escaped grinding poverty is where they've had capitalism with strong government regulation and good government services like education and healthcare.
People didn't escape grinding poverty in the US from the late 1800s to the 1920s?
Those people saw a massive rise in the standard compared to people living around the world and throughout history.
Where was government healthcare and department of education there?
Where was your precious big government?
Oh wait, there wasn't.
The Dept of Education was created in 1867 http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
LMAO and what was it budget?
How much actual control did it have? Very little.
It was an office, not even a cabinet level department.
The modern dept of education didn't exist until the 70s.
See you left out healthcare as well.
Riddle me this Batman... When did public education start in America?
Considering we only have public health insurance for the old and the very poor, and we have many more uninsured, lower life expectancy, and higher infant mortality than there rest of the developed world, I think it's clear we'd be better off with it. In that respect we're right in between the undeveloped and the developed world. And runaway medical costs bankrupt people every day here-- putting them right back down into poverty.
Bullshit.
The government is heavily involved in medical care today as well.
Its got its hands all over the place, from licensing, to regulating insurance, schooling, medical procedures.
Tax incentives for companies to pay out benefits in healthcare.
There is no free market in healthcare, not even close. don't know when you people will stop spouting this bullshit.
The parts of healthcare that have seen decrease in costs are parts that the government have NOT been involved in, plastic surgery, lasic eye surgery etc
Hows our public education system working today by the way?
Its the biggest its ever been, has the most funding its ever had. Must be great right?
Oh wait, its shit.
Quality of education is extremely low and costs have never been so high.
Just about everywhere in our life that the government has stuck its hands in has gone to shit. And the more it does, the shittier it gets.
Many other things happened between 1880 and 1920: unionization, child labor laws, progressive taxation, anti-trust laws, various kinds of government regulation of business. And prosperity increased during that time. And the standard of living continued to increase well beyond the 1920's into the era of social security, medicare, etc. by every known statistical measure.
I'm still looking for the empirical example that proves libertarian economics is consistent with a high standard of living. U.S. economic history certainly doesn't consitute any such proof.
I don't think you have to look much further than Vietnam post 1986
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Vietnam
and China post 1978.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-11/01/content_7164734.htm
At least in these cases, I think you can say that a freer economy is conducive to higher per capita income, which one would think lends itself to a higher standard of living.
Don't think that is actual empirical evidence though. Just an impression.