- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,183
- Reaction score
- 14,274
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Its bad for people who cannot achieve their first job, obtain the necessary skills for their career paths and people entering the labour force who simply just want to make a living.
These are why we have internships, as the only legal way for having a fully capable person to work below the minimum wage is if they work for free.
The point I was making was that the standard was incorrect, and that to claim a monopsony under it was foolishness.
It's not exactly like this was some grand hidden, nuanced, point that I really depended upon the reader to be able to infer from deep understanding.
Here's what I said:
Did you... did you even read what you were responding to? Or was your decision to mischaracterize it deliberate?
If people have knowledge about open positions and pay, the hiring firms labor supply curve should be completely elastic, or have a slope of zero.
In a competitive labor market, a single firm is a wage taker (not a wage maker!). This differs from the labor supply curve of the labor market itself, which should be upward sloping as workers would be more willing to work in positions that have higher pay.
The competitive labor market and the single firm should have a wage diagram as follows:
In the instance of monopsony, a single firms wage diagram becomes:
Do i need to explain why the wage in a competitive market will be higher than the wage in a labor market dominated by dynamic monopsony? Do i also have to explain why a minimum wage will essentially eliminate a monopsonistic wage?
Kushinator said:That is a flat out lie. This discussion started when i replied to WSV's post stating that the low skilled labor market can be summed up by monopsony. This fictional response to Dittohead is of no consequence to our discussion.
After all of our exchanges these past few years, your posts reflect an entirely different reality. Clearly you are an intelligent guy, so why do you allow your ideology to substitute for your capacity to learn?
My apologies for understanding the topic. Perhaps you can do better than claiming to understand a topic you clearly do not?
And what you *STILL* won't get is that even by those standards which you claim defines all jobs as monopsynies, there are still jobs which are not.
:doh Sangha, what I'm pointing out is that the standard is ridiculous because it is obvious that all jobs are not monopsonistic. I am making what is known as a reductio ad absurdum argument.
You kind of tick me off sometimes, Sangha, but dude, man to man, please stop making yourself look stupid.
Then you're very confused because arguing that he's wrong because not all jobs are monopsynies makes no sense when he did not claim that all jobs are monopsynies.
Reductio ad absurdum is when you use the others argument to show how it leads to an absurd result. Since no one argued that all jobs are monopsynies, you're not using anyone's argument; You're using a straw man.
He argued that if there were more workers than employers, that that was a standard for monopsony.
That is a characteristic of all job fields.
No, he didn'tcpwill said:he argued that if there were more workers than employers, that that was a standard for monopsony
No, it's not
You mean nobody is admitting to talking about it.
Really poor deflection.
Perhaps you'd like to prove a similar desire to ignore the relevant points in my post?
I could give two ****s if someone can live off of their wage...what I WANT, if for them to BUY more crap. I NEED them to buy more crap, so I can employ more people to make and SELL them more crap, so I can make more money MANAGING those people.
Perhaps YOU could do a BETTER JOB finding crap for PEOPLE to BUY. ONE DAY you MIGHT LEARN THAT.eace
Perhaps YOU could do a BETTER JOB finding crap for PEOPLE to BUY. ONE DAY you MIGHT LEARN THAT.eace
Post 259
...it doesn't absolutely have to be just one buyer, just that the number of sellers have to significantly outnumber the amount of buyers. So it seems at least somewhat fitting to me...
View attachment 67177457
There's plenty of crap for people to buy. There AREN'T currently enough people with money to burn to buy all the crap out there to buy.
In other words, production exceeds demand.
Most people already purchase all the crap they can afford. We buy 'til we aint got no more money. Just coming up with more crap, can't induce more buying, when the limiting factor isn't the crap that is available, it's the money that is available.
Seriously, can YOU not find ample crap to buy? Is your local Walmart and Best Buy empty? Is the car dealer sold out of cars? Are all the cruises sold out? Is your barber shop out of haircuts? McDonalds can't make any more Bigmacs?
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the states that raised their minimum wage the highest just happened to be the states that saw the worse employment opportunity for those of lower skill. I'm sure those two situations really have nothing to do with each other and employers don't find other ways to handle an effective wage increase of 30%.
Seriously, if a company can't figure out how to address changes in economic conditions they will just become another Desoto or Chrysler. There is always opportunity for growth and expansion under any market conditions.
I understand the "give people more money and all will be well" meme is firmly entrenched, so I'll leave it at that.
Exactly! There can only be one cause per effect. Duh!
The company I work for sends 80-90% of manufacturing to China. Look at quotes from the U.S., then look at quotes from China or other Asian country. They aren't even in the same ballpark when I comes to overhead and labor costs. Why pay someone more here in the states when you can just offshore the work for 30% less costs? You should only make what you are worth, PERIOD. If the market says the job you perform is only worth $5.00 an hour, you should get paid that. Unfortunately the FED thinks we need to maintain 2% inflation (which is really more than that when including costs not counted toward the inflation rate), so costs slowly rise every year requiring more pay. We are seeing the point of diminishing returns as a result. Our economy is F'ed. Goodbye reserve currency status. :wave:
Then you're selling the wrong mix of crap. Production will ALWAYS exceed demand. A smart owner will find ways to DEAL WITH IT. I've managed to do that for over 30 years.
An individual company growing doesn't expand our macro-economy when its at the loss of sales of another company.
You don't understand the difference between micro and macro economics.
Production rarely exceeds demand. Also production us always moving in the direction of equalibrium with demand.
So you think that the barber cuts more hair than he has customers?
LOL.
Clearly, you don't understand business.
I left out a word in my haste. I should have written production always has the ability to exceed demand.
A business waiting for more people to show up will inevitably fail. A business waiting on people to have more money to spend will inevitably fail. That is about as basic as it can be.
That is indeed the unfortunate reality.
I totally get that you believe that the failure and success of individual businesses depends on their own merit. And that's true. But that's microeconomics, not macroeconomics.
An individual company can do quite well, while our macro-economy is failing. When aggregate sales aren't growing, it doesn't particularly matter how well one business does, it could get 100% of the market share, and it still wouldn't effect unemployment, or produce more more for our macro-economy than was already being produced.
Apple could acquire 100% of the market for every product, expanding into literally all markets (retail, food, clothing, housing, everything), but if the market doesn't expand, Apples success hasn't improved our economy, it's only improved Apples economy.
You can't solve macroeconomic problems with microeconomic solutions. That's why at the college level, these are taught as different subjects.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?