the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is very cute considering that is exactly what yuor essay does here:
Actually, it doesn't. But let's see why not.
Thomas DiLorenzo wrote:
In the capitalist society there prevails a tendency toward a steady increase in the per capita quota of capital invested. . . . Consequently, the marginal productivity of labor, wage rates, and the wager earners’ standard of living tend to rise continually.
Yes, this is going from a known fact (the trend of investing more into capital) to a conclusion utilizing a naturalistic
a priori
reasoning process. If there is more invested into capital (factories, equipment in them, better equipment), then more can be produced, prices will fall, real wage rates increase (due to falling consumer prices), and the worker enjoys a better standard of living. There is no
post hoc
fallacy. Your problem is that you do not understand the naturalistic
a priori
--that is that one starts from a few basic observations (
a posteriori
) and axioms (such as that we exist and we act) and then reason from that without needing to do any experiments or such.
Thomas DiLorenzo wrote:
The shorter work week is entirely a capitalist invention. As capital investment caused the marginal productivity of labor to increase over time, less labor was required to produce the same levels of output. As competition became more intense, many employers competed for the best employees by offering both better pay and shorter hours. Those who did not offer shorter work weeks were compelled by the forces of competition to offer higher compensating wages or become uncompetitive in the labor market.
Again, this is the naturalistic
a priori
. Given that man acts, etc., when more is invested into capital, more can be produced. Thus, an employer can expand production, thus hiring more workers. To hire them, he must offer them a compensation they will accept. I hope you can figure it out from there.
Thomas DiLorenzo wrote:
Young people originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because it was a matter of survival for them and their families. But as workers became better paid—thanks to capital investment and subsequent productivity improvements—more and more people could afford to keep their children at home and in school.
This is simply proper conclusion drawn from the above. Please tell me that you DO have some modicum of knowledge of economics.
Machiavelli wrote:
note the pro-child labour tone of the piece:
Thomas DiLorenzo wrote:
child labor laws have always been protectionist and aimed at depriving young people of the opportunity to work
unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive young people of the right to work
That much is simply true. Given that the unions wish to maximize the income for their members, they must keep out those who would work for less or would be paid less due to their inexperience/low marginal productivity. Thus, it only makes sense that unions would not only not wish to see children work, but also would endorse a minimum wage, further driving up the cost of labor.
Now then, if a child wishes to work, and you are not the employer that the child is looking at--who are you to say that the child should not be allowed to work? The child is asserting his or her own self and is moving toward adulthood.
Machiavelli wrote:
it was not just the laws but also the fact that workers started to have the ability to win concessions from their employers through collective bargaining. ithink that generally it is agreed that high wages+shorter hour=better standards of living.
But why did those things happen?
Machiavelli wrote:
how did workers get higher wage/shorter hours? though strikes. notably through the struggle for the 8 hour day:
However, it wasn't necessary for laws to be passed for that to happen. Notwithstanding the fact that wikipedia is not the best source, here's something from the article which should cause a red flag for your beliefs:
Quote:
On January 5, 1914, the Ford Motor Company took the radical step of doubling pay to $5 a day, and cut shifts from nine hours to an eight hour day, moves that were not popular with rival companies, although seeing the increase in Ford's productivity, most soon followed suit.
So Ford did 2 things there:
1. Doubled the pay
2. Cut the hours/day by 1 hour.
Ford also was investing more in the equipment, and standardizing manufacturing processes on an assembly line.
What happened?
Productivity increased. Worker standard of living increased. More companies followed suit.
Did it take a law?
No.
It's basic economics.
And yes, the unions did lobby for such things, and in places where they were the only supply of labor, they got what they wanted, since there was nothing else an employer could do. But, of course, without the employer, there's no jobs.
So one example of a company that was cutting wages IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION is a valid example?
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
Hint: you can't, since the laws are protectionist in nature.
Machiavelli wrote:
???????
I take it that you don't know what protectionism is.
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
How sad that you believe people have the right to be provided with a high-paying, cushy job.
Machiavelli wrote:
yes how incredibly ridiculous that i think people should not have to choose between food and medicine or food and housing
Except that such a thing happens when the government intervenes and fucks things up. And you've also set up a false dichotomy in there.
Your problem is that you, like sjc, have no knowledge of economics. It's really sad.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:51 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
In the capitalist society there prevails a tendency toward a steady increase in the per capita quota of capital invested. . . . Consequently, the marginal productivity of labor, wage rates, and the wager earners’ standard of living tend to rise continually.
these perfectly symmetrical markets do not occur in nature, only in economics text books.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive young people of the right to work
That much is simply true. Given that the unions wish to maximize the income for their members, they must keep out those who would work for less or would be paid less due to their inexperience/low marginal productivity. Thus, it only makes sense that unions would not only not wish to see children work, but also would endorse a minimum wage, further driving up the cost of labor.
Now then, if a child wishes to work, and you are not the employer that the child is looking at--who are you to say that the child should not be allowed to work? The child is asserting his or her own self and is moving toward adulthood.
why would you want little children to work? why should we stop kids from working?: why do we stop kids from running out into the street to play in traffic?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
it was not just the laws but also the fact that workers started to have the ability to win concessions from their employers through collective bargaining. ithink that generally it is agreed that high wages+shorter hour=better standards of living.
But why did those things happen?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
On January 5, 1914, the Ford Motor Company took the radical step of doubling pay to $5 a day, and cut shifts from nine hours to an eight hour day, moves that were not popular with rival companies, although seeing the increase in Ford's productivity, most soon followed suit.
So Ford did 2 things there:
1. Doubled the pay
2. Cut the hours/day by 1 hour.
Ford also was investing more in the equipment, and standardizing manufacturing processes on an assembly line.
What happened?
Productivity increased. Worker standard of living increased. More companies followed suit.
Did it take a law?
No.
many companies already had the 8hr day by that time, Ford was simply following in the footsteps of Bismark(who instated the first pension program) in an attempt to undermine labour and the competition
So one example of a company that was cutting wages IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION is a valid example?
you need only look at the labour history to find other examples
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
Hint: you can't, since the laws are protectionist in nature.
Machiavelli wrote:
???????
I take it that you don't know what protectionism is.
tariffs and the like
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
How sad that you believe people have the right to be provided with a high-paying, cushy job.
Machiavelli wrote:
yes how incredibly ridiculous that i think people should not have to choose between food and medicine or food and housing
Except that such a thing happens when the government intervenes and fucks things up. And you've also set up a false dichotomy in there.
no, such things occured long before there was any major goverment intervention, in fact people could often not even afford food.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:33 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
In the capitalist society there prevails a tendency toward a steady increase in the per capita quota of capital invested. . . . Consequently, the marginal productivity of labor, wage rates, and the wager earners’ standard of living tend to rise continually.
Machiavelli wrote:
these perfectly symmetrical markets do not occur in nature, only in economics text books.
Yet the reality of the situation is what I described. Fancy that.
Thomas DiLorenzo wrote:
unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive young people of the right to work
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That much is simply true. Given that the unions wish to maximize the income for their members, they must keep out those who would work for less or would be paid less due to their inexperience/low marginal productivity. Thus, it only makes sense that unions would not only not wish to see children work, but also would endorse a minimum wage, further driving up the cost of labor.
Now then, if a child wishes to work, and you are not the employer that the child is looking at--who are you to say that the child should not be allowed to work? The child is asserting his or her own self and is moving toward adulthood.
Machiavelli wrote:
why would you want little children to work?
Who said anything about "little children"? And who are you to say that the child should not be allowed to work? Why do you think that you have the right to run everyone else's life? Yes, you DO believe that.
some wikipedia article that Machiavelli linked to wrote:
On January 5, 1914, the Ford Motor Company took the radical step of doubling pay to $5 a day, and cut shifts from nine hours to an eight hour day, moves that were not popular with rival companies, although seeing the increase in Ford's productivity, most soon followed suit.
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
So Ford did 2 things there:
1. Doubled the pay
2. Cut the hours/day by 1 hour.
Ford also was investing more in the equipment, and standardizing manufacturing processes on an assembly line.
What happened?
Productivity increased. Worker standard of living increased. More companies followed suit.
Did it take a law?
No.
Machiavelli wrote:
many companies already had the 8hr day by that time,
But not many in the auto industry.
Machiavelli wrote:
Ford was simply following in the footsteps of Bismark(who instated the first pension program) in an attempt to undermine labour and the competition
1. Ford was trying to find an edge so that he wouldn't have to keep training new workers, but would be able to hold on to them, thereby cutting costs.
2. It has nothing to do with "undermining labor", but everything to do with a rational desire to lower costs.
3. Bismark had nothing to do with it.
So one example of a company that was cutting wages IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION is a valid example?
Machiavelli wrote:
you need only look at the labour history to find other examples
O RLY?
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
Hint: you can't, since the laws are protectionist in nature.
Machiavelli wrote:
???????
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
I take it that you don't know what protectionism is.
Machiavelli wrote:
tariffs and the like
And zoning laws, child labor laws, minimum wage laws.
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
How sad that you believe people have the right to be provided with a high-paying, cushy job.
Machiavelli wrote:
yes how incredibly ridiculous that i think people should not have to choose between food and medicine or food and housing
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
Except that such a thing happens when the government intervenes and fucks things up. And you've also set up a false dichotomy in there.
Machiavelli wrote:
no, such things occured long before there was any major goverment intervention, in fact people could often not even afford food.
Due to government intervention.
Look, you've got nothing to offer here. You haven't got a clue as to basic economics. Please educate yourself and then come back.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:31 pm
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yet the reality of the situation is what I described. Fancy that.
to use your method of arguement: no, it isn't
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
Who said anything about "little children"? And who are you to say that the child should not be allowed to work? Why do you think that you have the right to run everyone else's life? Yes, you DO believe that.
who am i to stop a child from running out into traffic?
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
But not many in the auto industry.
note that the topic of shorther hours was first disscussed among unions, long before ford
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
1. Ford was trying to find an edge so that he wouldn't have to keep training new workers, but would be able to hold on to them, thereby cutting costs.
2. It has nothing to do with "undermining labor", but everything to do with a rational desire to lower costs.
3. Bismark had nothing to do with it.
undermining labour is the first step to cutting costs
Machiavelli wrote:
you need only look at the labour history to find other examples
Hint: you can't, since the laws are protectionist in nature.
Machiavelli wrote:
???????
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
I take it that you don't know what protectionism is.
Machiavelli wrote:
tariffs and the like
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
And zoning laws, child labor laws, minimum wage laws.
so where's the problem?
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
Due to government intervention.
what do you base that on?
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
Look, you've got nothing to offer here. You haven't got a clue as to basic economics. Please educate yourself and then come back.
if you are tired of debating simply stop responding to my posts.
BTW you sound like religous fanatic who says they have the truth and everyone else is stupid for not seeing the light
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:54 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yet the reality of the situation is what I described. Fancy that.
Machiavelli wrote:
to use your method of arguement: no, it isn't
Actually, I simply use gainsaying because you offer blatant assertions. But, idiots like yourself never grasp that. You just think "oh, he's just saying no". Well no--you offer nothing but an assertion, period. Therefore, I can just say no. That's it.
If you don't like it--offer something more than an assertion.
Now then, the reality of the situation is as I said.
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
Who said anything about "little children"? And who are you to say that the child should not be allowed to work? Why do you think that you have the right to run everyone else's life? Yes, you DO believe that.
Machiavelli wrote:
who am i to stop a child from running out into traffic?
False analogy.
Now then, who are you to say that the child should not be allowed to work? Please answer the question. Further evasions will mean that you concede that you're simply trying to be a dictator. That is what happens when you refuse to properly discuss the matter.
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
But not many in the auto industry.
Machiavelli wrote:
note that the topic of shorther hours was first disscussed among unions, long before ford
Note that the example was Ford.
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
1. Ford was trying to find an edge so that he wouldn't have to keep training new workers, but would be able to hold on to them, thereby cutting costs.
2. It has nothing to do with "undermining labor", but everything to do with a rational desire to lower costs.
3. Bismark had nothing to do with it.
Machiavelli wrote:
undermining labour is the first step to cutting costs
No it isn't.
Once again: you made a blatant assertion. You backed it with nothing. Therefore, I can just gainsay it. If you don't like it--offer something more than a blatant assertion! See how simple that is?
Machiavelli wrote:
you need only look at the labour history to find other examples
Hint: you can't, since the laws are protectionist in nature.
Machiavelli wrote:
???????
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
I take it that you don't know what protectionism is.
Machiavelli wrote:
tariffs and the like
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
And zoning laws, child labor laws, minimum wage laws.
Machiavelli wrote:
so where's the problem?
Please tell me that you're really not that stupid. Please tell me that you think that being forced by law to pay higher prices is a bad thing. Please tell me that you're really not so stupid as to believe that being forced to pay higher prices by law is a good thing. Please--please tell me that.
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
Due to government intervention.
Machiavelli wrote:
what do you base that on?
On the reality of the government interventions.
Knight of BAAWA wrote:
Look, you've got nothing to offer here. You haven't got a clue as to basic economics. Please educate yourself and then come back.
Machiavelli wrote:
if you are tired of debating simply stop responding to my posts.
You could actually try to educate yourself, rather than staying stupid. You sound an awful lot like a creationist--you rail against something that you have done no research about.
See how I can turn your statement around on you? Yeah--it's best for you to actually educate yourself. Don't mess with me; I know more than you. Yeah, that might sound arrogant, but it's true. I know a lot more than you, and you need to educate yourself as to economics. Period. This is not meant to be mean; it's meant to help you. If you just want to spout economic fallacies, then I am more than happy to lay the smack down on you for it. If you do not like it--educate yourself. Period.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:57 pm
quite simply, we dont have a free market, no place ever has because it is not possible.
when you yank a child out of the street you are acting in a totalitarian way, you stop the child because you know they might hurt themselves becasue they are not old enough to exersise judgement. that is also why i dont think we should allow children to work. because they are not yet fully developed mentally or pysically.
sometimes we all act as dictators like in choosing what we wear in the morning.
it's perfectly logical unions have contracts with the companies to protect the workers, including stuff like wages, breaks, and other benifits. if the company wants to cut costs(maximize profit) the first place they will look to is were it will hurt the companies productive capacity the least. so they cut pentions and wages and so on.
its a list of strikes that talks out why the strikes happened
they just raised the minimum wage in my state and i have not noticed any higher prices, i doubt i will either since people now have more money to spend too.
how does goverment intervention cause starvation?
since your so keen for me to educate my self perhaps you could suggest were to start?
i actually know quite a bit about the "free" market as it actually is, not this theoretical stuff
the truth is that there is no free market its more of a corperate mercantalism.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:33 pm
Machiavelli wrote:
quite simply, we dont have a free market, no place ever has because it is not possible.
Nicely unsupported statement.
Machiavelli wrote:
when you yank a child out of the street you are acting in a totalitarian way,
No you're not.
Machiavelli wrote:
it's perfectly logical unions have contracts with the companies to protect the workers, including stuff like wages, breaks, and other benifits. if the company wants to cut costs(maximize profit) the first place they will look to is were it will hurt the companies productive capacity the least. so they cut pentions and wages and so on.
No they don't.
Machiavelli wrote:
its a list of strikes that talks out why the strikes happened
With any accuracy? Not really.
Machiavelli wrote:
they just raised the minimum wage in my state and i have not noticed any higher prices,
Wages are a price, so yes, you see higher prices. And you'll see greater unemployment among the younger crowd, since they tend to have a lower marginal productivity rate, and hence will not be employed at a rate comparable with those who have a higher one for that higher wage.
Machiavelli wrote:
how does goverment intervention cause starvation?
Hi, I'm Kim Jong-Il. I run North Korea. Just look at my country for the answer.
Machiavelli wrote:
since your so keen for me to educate my self perhaps you could suggest were to start?
i actually know quite a bit about the "free" market as it actually is,
Which isn't free, as you yourself pointed out.
I'd suggest actually reading what I post to you for starters. But that's just me.
quite simply, we dont have a free market, no place ever has because it is not possible.
No, we don't have a free market. Yes it is possible, and I want some evidence for your claim.
Machiavelli wrote:
when you yank a child out of the street you are acting in a totalitarian way, you stop the child because you know they might hurt themselves becasue they are not old enough to exersise judgement.
I don't think you can rationally say that genuinely trying to help someone in clear and present danger who appears to be acting irrationally is an initiation of force. In any case, you are preventing a transgression upon the property of others by the child. If you want to kill yourself, fine, but do it with your own property.
Machiavelli wrote:
that is also why i dont think we should allow children to work. because they are not yet fully developed mentally or pysically.
So a child is a person not fully developed mentally or physically. And you're against forcible prohibition of child labor because children are not fully developed. All you've said in that statement is that you're against forcible prohibition of child labor because you're against forcible prohibition of child labor.
Machiavelli wrote:
sometimes we all act as dictators like in choosing what we wear in the morning.
So in choosing what we wear we exercise arbitrary power over others?
Machiavelli wrote:
it's perfectly logical unions have contracts with the companies to protect the workers, including stuff like wages, breaks, and other benifits.
No one said it isn't logical. It's logical that a thief wants to steal the maximum amount of stuff as well.
Machiavelli wrote:
if the company wants to cut costs(maximize profit) the first place they will look to is were it will hurt the companies productive capacity the least. so they cut pentions and wages and so on.
They can only do that if the market price for labor is above equilibrium, otherwise they lose workers to other firms who offer more for their labor. In other words, they will not make the maximum profit.
Machiavelli wrote:
they just raised the minimum wage in my state and i have not noticed any higher prices,
Prices will be higher or incomes will be lower, however you want to look at it. This is because by prohibiting employers from paying anything below some arbitrary minimum, they have effectively made it illegal for those employees who cannot produce at that level in productivity to work. Thus most of the cost of this idiotic and evil legislation fall precisely on that group that is supposedly being helped. Moreover, with fewer workers being employed, there will be less being produced - meaning the society overall is poorer.
Machiavelli wrote:
i doubt i will either since people now have more money to spend too.
What. The. Fuck. Just when I thought you couldn't possibly say anything dumber, you surprise me. If people have more money to spend relative to some time in the past, prices will go up. See, if more money circulates throughout the economy, prices will rise because, as people have more money (not to be confused with wealth), they will bid prices up with the extra dollars. Fuck, I though your average 6th grader at least knew that. However, the icing on the idiot cake you've just baked yourself here is that people won't even have more money to spend. Certain people will (slightly higher-skilled workers than the displaced workers, and those employed in making the capital goods necessary to help mitigate the cost of higher wages for said workers), but the overall amount of money in the economy (in the free market, when we introduce central banks it becomes more complicated) has essentially nothing at all to do with the minimum wage.
Machiavelli wrote:
how does goverment intervention cause starvation?
Just to name a few:
By increasing the cost of producing products through regulations. By paying farmers not to produce. By implementing tariffs that artificially raise the price of food. In socialist countries, by collectivizing agriculture, thereby eliminating any incentive to be efficient and the ability to allocate capital to where it can best be used.
Machiavelli wrote:
since your so keen for me to educate my self perhaps you could suggest were to start?
i actually know quite a bit about the "free" market as it actually is, not this theoretical stuff
It's obvious you don't know anything about the market. And the above statement is like saying "I know a lot about astrophysics, just not this general relativity stuff."
Machiavelli wrote:
the truth is that there is no free market its more of a corperate mercantalism.
Indeed it is at present. However, that certainly doesn't help your argument in any way.
jcgadfly Grand Poster
Joined: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1413
Location: Bloomington IN
Posted:
Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:06 am
Saitou wrote:
If by help you mean help them put the businesses they work for out of business and lose everyone money and jobs.
For smaller businesses, perhaps.
For the larger, multinational corporations - how can one blame the unions for putting strains on them while exonerating the CEO and his salary/benefit package?
Doesn't the money he pulls out of the business have any effect?
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5012
Location: USA
Posted:
Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:04 am
jcgadfly wrote:
Saitou wrote:
If by help you mean help them put the businesses they work for out of business and lose everyone money and jobs.
For smaller businesses, perhaps.
For the larger, multinational corporations - how can one blame the unions for putting strains on them while exonerating the CEO and his salary/benefit package?
Doesn't the money he pulls out of the business have any effect?
Usually very little.
If you look at the compensation packages of these guys you'll find it is usually a small percentage of what the corporation brings in.
Now, when they make the company worse off than it was before, the compensation they get can seem quite disgusting. That's up to the people who make a contract with that CEO to do something about however.
Some of these highly paid CEOs who are successful have turned companies around from heading toward bankruptcy to growing by billions of dollars. Money well spent!
Unless you wouldn't be willing to pay someone 10% of your new income if they were able to double or triple it?
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file