Peter Schiff: "Mental retards are maybe worth 2$ an hour"

[acri1]

You answered your own question really. I also find people respond less aggressively to that smiley

But to the point, shouldnt the value of labor be decided by the two parties directly involved, not a third far removed from the situation? If citizen A voluntarily agrees to perform a specified task for citizen B at a specified rate. Where exactly has the evil/injustice occurred?

That's a vast oversimplification of how wages work in the real world...but then again you could say that about Libertarianism in general.

Main problems:

1. Very often one party (usually not labor) is much more powerful than the other, and there's often little incentive for companies to do anything other than pay their workers as little as they can without said workers leaving. This is especially true in an economy with high unemployment.
2. "Voluntarily" is relative. Is it really voluntary if your options are "Work for whatever I feel like paying you, or go hungry"?


But let's go back to the two parties thing -

If we really want the value of labor to be a fair negotiation between workers and a company, then the only way workers will have a real influence would be to negotiate as a group. So with that said, where do you stand on unions?

 

[Type Username Here]

I like this new breed of Anarcho-Capitalists. They are very vocal about where they stand and take pride in greed and their evils. Their pride and greed will be their downfall.

It makes the opposition's "job" much easier.

 

[DEAD7]

That's a vast oversimplification of how wages work in the real world...but then again you could say that about Libertarianism in general.

Main problems:

1. Very often one party (usually not labor) is much more powerful than the other, and there's often little incentive for companies to do anything other than pay their workers as little as they can without said workers leaving. This is especially true in an economy with high unemployment.
2. "Voluntarily" is relative. Is it really voluntary if your options are "Work for whatever I feel like paying you, or go hungry"?


But let's go back to the two parties thing -

If we really want the value of labor to be a fair negotiation between workers and a company, then the only way workers will have a real influence would be to negotiate as a group. So with that said, where do you stand on unions?

1. You are talking specifically about low skilled labor yes? I doubt you believe that to be the case for doctors, lawyers, software developers etc. human capital seems to be the issue. Not evil employers.
High unemployment does worsen all of these pains I agree.

2. It's voluntary. Even if it's a slam dunk choice, it's still a choice. So yes it is really voluntary.
And it's more, do this work, which is worth this much to me, or not. Where this notion that people are to be paid what their worth according to them, or a third party comes from, I will never know

Also who do you know that's literally starving to death? Or are you just trying to stir an emotional response?
The safety nets in place provide room and board for those down on to their luck as well as healthcare now...

 

[kevm3]

Typical mindset of the upper echelon. They love money so much, human lives are expendable in order for numbers in their bank account to go up.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You answered your own question really. I also find people respond less aggressively to that smiley

But to the point, shouldnt the value of labor be decided by the two parties directly involved, not a third far removed from the situation? If citizen A voluntarily agrees to perform a specified task for citizen B at a specified rate. Where exactly has the evil/injustice occurred?


Oh we have lots of answers, they just aren't tenable.

to an extent.

Thats why REGULATION of SOME SORT is important

You can't be completely anti-regulation...and I know you're not.

So the goal is to ultimately preserve some dignity to the situation and establish some means in which absolute anarchy cant take place.

The question is how much regulation, not if we're having any.

 

[sakano]

How do you decide who is mentally retarded?
By what standard/test do you use?

 

[acri1]

1. You are talking specifically about low skilled labor yes? I doubt you believe that to be the case for doctors, lawyers, software developers etc. human capital seems to be the issue. Not evil employers.
High unemployment does worsen all of these pains I agree.

2. It's voluntary. Even if it's a slam dunk choice, it's still a choice. So yes it is really voluntary.
And it's more, do this work, which is worth this much to me, or not. Where this notion that people are to be paid what their worth according to them, or a third party comes from, I will never know

Also who do you know that's literally starving to death? Or are you just trying to stir an emotional response?
The safety nets in place provide room and board for those down on to their luck as well as healthcare now...

Man, you dodged that union question like a pro.

1. Yes, this applies more to low skilled labor...I don't think it's ethical or beneficial to society for "low skill" labor to be exploited. And aside from that, something like a minimum wage overall helps the economy, because excessively low wages are a drag on the economy. People making excessively low wages are much more likely to be getting govt. benefits and thus increasing the tax burden on everyone. However, "low-skilled" workers aren't really in any position to actually negotiate, so we'd either have to set a minimum or promote unionization more.

2. Like I said, that depends on how you define "voluntary". Someone could put a gun to your head and threaten to shoot you if you don't give up your wallet...technically you have a "choice" as to whether or not to do so, but only one option is really viable.

Replace "Starving to death" with "not being able to pay rent" then. My point still stands, if we had a more reasonable minimum wage then there would be less need for safety nets in the first place.

 

[NZA]

im not gonna defend those pay practices but lets not act like any dikkhead can be the CEO of a corporation

actually, many CEOs are lucky dikkheads who do bad jobs and leave with a golden parachute.

 

[NZA]

Read the Bible.

Unproductive trees were cut and burned.

the bible says christians will be judged by how they treat the weakest people among them. today, there are a lot of pundits and politicians who, according to the bible, are so demonic

 

[DEAD7]

Man, you dodged that union question like a pro.

Low skilled workers do lack leverage, and collective bargaining is something I support

1. Yes, this applies more to low skilled labor...I don't think it's ethical or beneficial to society for "low skill" labor to be exploited. And aside from that, something like a minimum wage overall helps the economy, because excessively low wages are a drag on the economy. People making excessively low wages are much more likely to be getting govt. benefits and thus increasing the tax burden on everyone. However, "low-skilled" workers aren't really in any position to actually negotiate, so we'd either have to set a minimum or promote unionization more.

2. Like I said, that depends on how you define "voluntary". Someone could put a gun to your head and threaten to shoot you if you don't give up your wallet...technically you have a "choice" as to whether or not to do so, but only one option is really viable.

Replace "Starving to death" with "not being able to pay rent" then. My point still stands, if we had a more reasonable minimum wage then there would be less need for safety nets in the first place.

1. I believe the cost of living to be too high(artificially) not pay too be too low. Minimum raise has been raised like 29 times now, and still hasnt solved the problem... At what point do you begin to consider that you may be wrong here? The 40th time? The 50th? Its text book insanity to do the same thing over an over and expect different results.
I also see the number of low skilled workers as a problem, and rather than make being low skilled more comfortable, I wont to enable people to lift themselves up. mainly by removing barriers into the market.(free or not)
Just for reference sake Singapore and Sweden both have no min wage, and people are doing fine. In fact Sweden is a popular go to for liberal policies. If we are going to look at their model we should look at all of it no?

2. there is a clear definition of voluntary. What you are looking at is purely how viable the alternative is. And I agree work or die, is a pretty straight forward choice, but still a choice regardless of how bad one option is.





How about this, I think stronger safety nets, and removal of the minimum wage would be a net good.

 

[DEAD7]

The question is how much regulation, not if we're having any.

This is the question. I think now that it obvious that regulations are working in the favor of big business, we should consider removing some...

I dont really get why that comes across as so extreme to people...

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

This is the question. I think now that it obvious that regulations are working in the favor of big business, we should consider removing some...

I dont really get why that comes across as so extreme to people...

Dude that has NOT been the case in this thread.

NOT EVER regulation works in the favor of business.

You DO realize that in order to maintain a nation-state, you need workers to be PROTECTED to some degree, correct?

Governments aren't ENTIRELY flawed. You MUST acknowledge this.

Yes. They may not care about the individual as much, but AS A POPULACE, its in their best interest to secure the well-being of a few of the citizens.

 

[DEAD7]

Dude that has NOT been the case in this thread.

NOT EVER regulation works in the favor of business.

You DO realize that in order to maintain a nation-state, you need workers to be PROTECTED to some degree, correct?

Governments aren't ENTIRELY flawed. You MUST acknowledge this.

Yes. They may not care about the individual as much, but AS A POPULACE, its in their best interest to secure the well-being of a few of the citizens.

Absolutely, but what we have now is govt. securing the interest of those at the top... and regulation is their primary tool.


edit: along with the federal reserve.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Absolutely, but what we have now is govt. securing the interest of those at the top... and regulation is their primary tool.

edit: along with the federal reserve.

Holy shyt you're dense as fukk.

NO ONE BROUGHT THIS UP.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MINIMUM WAGE YOU JACKASS.

You can't HESITATE to just throw your bullshyt talking point in, can you?

And you're FLAT OUT WRONG.

We're talking about minimum wage and CONSUMER protections.

AGAIN. Not all protections are some grand conspiracy to keep out competition. Some are. Some aren't.

This is whats so flawed about you ideological libertarians.

Young and full of absolute hard-line bullshyt devoid of any nuance to reality.

 

[kermit da hustla]

peter schiff predicted mass riots in the streets and runs on the banks would happen in 2009. he said that we'd be trading in gold by 2010. he's an idiot. pretty much everything he's predicted has not come true. when he speaks, smart people go

he was able to scam gullible people and make a couple million. and he thinks that means we should listen to his stupidity. what people like peter schiff and these other rich losers running off at the mouth don't seem to understand is, a tide of populism is rising up against them. they think they're immune. look at history and tell me they're immune.

bolsheviks? reds in russia? mao? history is a great predictor of the future. people like peter schiff eventually find themselves hanging from poles. history is littered with people like peter schiff, and they all ended up falling to the predictable populist response to their oppressive capitalist fanaticism.. if peter isn't careful,