Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Rothbard Communities wrote:Seems like not only your allies are falling apart, but also your puppets cease to exist...hmmmm, is it possible 90 percent of this great region are only puppets?

Possible, but more than likely it's people who joined and saw the word "war" and "defeat communism" but then realized this was a game about solving issues.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Condealism Envoy Unit One

Anyways, what I wanted to happen is happening. Sans a few folks, all the really stupidly named nations are CTEing... now that I'm back recruiting will be a priority again.

Muh Roads wrote:Anyways, what I wanted to happen is happening. Sans a few folks, all the really stupidly named nations are CTEing... now that I'm back recruiting will be a priority again.

This is good! A nice automatic clear-out of all the dead nations and non-contributors is what we need. Even if we drop down to 100 nations or lower, our recruitment run was successful, because it brought several new, active contributors to the region.

Miencraft, Kings Island, Hallo Island, Condealism Envoy Unit One

Islamic Comintern has been bombed to the ground.

Comintern Members Down: 1

Comintern Members to Go: 16

Kings Island, Humpheria In Libertatem, Condealism Envoy Unit One

Well, here we are - fighting for the forces of democracy against the authoritarian left, just like the old days.

Personally, I liked our period of peaceful retirement, but it's like Ronald Reagan said in his California Gubernatorial Inauguration Speech: "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again."

Miencraft, Pevvania, Hallo Island

With 3 Hallo/ 1 Abs/ 1 NV, Hallo Island has been elected Chairman.

Humpheria In Libertatem wrote:With 3 Hallo/ 1 Abs/ 1 NV, Hallo Island has been elected Chairman.

I thank my voters, and I promise this board term to be productive and effective. We will continue and expand the war on communism/authoritarianism, and continue to strengthen Libertatem's government and infrastructure. I promise efficiency, transparency, and strength.

Miencraft, Humpheria In Libertatem

Salah Jadid wrote:"If they can't see the light, let them feel the heat." - Ronald Reagan

That is what Reagan was thinking when he compared the Contra rebels in Nicaragua to the founding fathers, and when the Nicaraguan people consistently kept supporting the Sandinistas. He stated, more or less, that the US would continue supporting the Contras and performing economic sabotage against the revolutionary movement. Reagan did not want the war to end until the Contras were forced from power; you claim to be anti-imperialist, when in fact you quote one of the most ardent Chauvinists of modern history. You will not get away with this hostile takeover of a peaceful reason you fascist sympathizers.

If there's one thing correct about your accusation, it's that our mistake was the same as Reagan's - but the terrorists we supported and refused to bear arms against during my Presidency were the regions associated with the Comintern and Antifa! This is a mistake we will not repeat.

In the words of Winston Churchill, "The Fascists of the future will call themselves anti-Fascists." Our goal is, and has always been, to roll back the destructive influence of totalitarianism and defeat the organizations that have replaced fascism with more fascism. But rest assured - when this Comintern falls at the hands of democracy's proponents, and the Fleet becomes shipwrecked on the shores of regional sovereignty and liberty, the destruction of the fascists will come next.

Pevvania

Condealism Envoy Unit One wrote:What, too strongly worded?

Not in the least

Hallo Island wrote:I thank my voters, and I promise this board term to be productive and effective. We will continue and expand the war on communism/authoritarianism, and continue to strengthen Libertatem's government and infrastructure. I promise efficiency, transparency, and strength.

I can vouch for Hallo island as having honesty and integrity, and I am excited to see the transparency his chairmanship and future endeavors will bring.

Pevvania wrote:Islamic Comintern has been bombed to the ground.

Comintern Members Down: 1

Comintern Members to Go: 16

Cool! That's what was going on. 5 more days until I can join in.

Actually, I think I'll use this puppet here. And make it permanent, this time.

Condealism wrote:Actually, I think I'll use this puppet here. And make it permanent, this time.

Finally. Yay!

Pevvania, Condealism

What a coincidence, that this raid happened on the firate day of LeftExpo.

Condealism wrote:LeftWhatpo?

It's this forum thread the left regions on nation states do every year where they get together and talk about god knows what.

Kings Island wrote:It's this forum thread the left regions on nation states do every year where they get together and talk about god knows what.

Oh.

Kings Island wrote:What a coincidence, that this raid happened on the firate day of LeftExpo.

Excuse me, the first day.

Sorry, I accidentally clicked on the move button to Islamic Comintern.

What a productive day! We tagged Islamic Comintern and saved The Hyatt Islands from a Communist invasion.

Good work to the 20+ REATO operatives (including Steam Mercs) and several others from different regions who volunteered to fight against imperialism.

But we still have a lot of work to go, so if all available WAs could move a nation to The Hyatt Islands to endorse the delegate, please do so. TG me for the password.

Kings Island, Condealism

(fundamentalist) Islam is an ideology of hate, yet the socialists am all too keen on allying with them. Well deserved tag.

Pevvania wrote:What a productive day! We tagged Islamic Comintern and saved The Hyatt Islands from a Communist invasion.

Good work to the 20+ REATO operatives (including Steam Mercs) and several others from different regions who volunteered to fight against imperialism.

But we still have a lot of work to go, so if all available WAs could move a nation to The Hyatt Islands to endorse the delegate, please do so. TG me for the password.

Hell yeah!!!

Pevvania

I encourage all citizens to begin writing and proposing legislation. I eagerly await seeing what our fresh minds in Libertatem can accomplish, and I reccomend that they get started in politics early! I welcome the new generation of Libertatemites, and would like to see their ideas for our great region.

Kings Island

I am proud to say my nation's first military operation was the protection of our glorious region's close allies, The Hyatt Islands, and Wovenland has now got a taste for Commie blood.

Pevvania wrote:What a productive day! We tagged Islamic Comintern and saved The Hyatt Islands from a Communist invasion.

Good work to the 20+ REATO operatives (including Steam Mercs) and several others from different regions who volunteered to fight against imperialism.

But we still have a lot of work to go, so if all available WAs could move a nation to The Hyatt Islands to endorse the delegate, please do so. TG me for the password.

Of those 20+ operatives, the IRU has lent six. Not bad for our first real operation in more than half a year.

Pevvania

Hallo Island wrote:I encourage all citizens to begin writing and proposing legislation. I eagerly await seeing what our fresh minds in Libertatem can accomplish, and I reccomend that they get started in politics early! I welcome the new generation of Libertatemites, and would like to see their ideas for our great region.

Thank you! I plan to announce the formation of a new party and a legislative agenda for said party as soon as I gain citizenship.

If we have a precedent for citizenship transfers (I can't quite remember where our region stands on that), I'd like to replace my main nation with this one on the citizenship register.

Regardless of whether or not I'm able to do that, I would also like to announce that I seek membership in the Reaganist Libertarian Party. (And in case it wasn't already obvious, ACOP is more or less disbanded.)

Condealism wrote:If we have a precedent for citizenship transfers (I can't quite remember where our region stands on that), I'd like to replace my main nation with this one on the citizenship register.

Regardless of whether or not I'm able to do that, I would also like to announce that I seek membership in the Reaganist Libertarian Party. (And in case it wasn't already obvious, ACOP is more or less disbanded.)

Citizenship transfer are by precedent allowed.

Welcome!

Excellent job guys!

Later on today I'm going to put up some proposals for review. Any legislation still in waiting or that has not been presented yet, today is a good day to present it.

Congrats to Hallo on becoming chairman!

New citizens: next time board elections come around, give it a shot! It's a great place to get involved!

Condealism wrote:If we have a precedent for citizenship transfers (I can't quite remember where our region stands on that), I'd like to replace my main nation with this one on the citizenship register.

Sure.

Seems spqr has returned. But has he matured? =P

FRAUD Act

Future Regional Activity Unfair Discourse Act*

Section I

Purpose of the Act

Subsection I

Clarify specific laws on puppet use

Subsection II

Address voter fraud

Subsection III

Foreign puppets

Subsection IV

Citizenship

Section II

Clarify specific laws on puppet use

Subsection I

Any nation classified as a Citizen is entitled to the use of puppets

Subsection II

Said puppets ARE NOT Citizens, and do not have voting rights nor the right to stand for public office

Subsection III

Puppets of foreign, non-citizen nations, when not officially representing a foreign region, may not apply for citizenship

Subsection IV

Citizens are entitled the ability to exchange citizenship between the nations under their control, but only if the receiving nation is also eligible for citizenship

Subsection V

All public offices and ranks shall be transferred along with their respective nations

Section III

Address voter fraud

Subsection I

Any Citizen may have only one vote in any office or legislative election or referendum

Subsection II

Only Citizens of Libertatem may vote in any office or legislative election or referendum

Subsection III

No nation that has resided in Libertatem for less than five days may apply for citizenship

Subsection IV

Any nation convicted of voter fraud will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by the sitting Attorney-General

Section IV

Foreign dignitaries

Subsection I

Foreign nations acting on behalf of any foreign entity must identify themselves as dignitaries to be granted proper rights

Subsection II

These puppets must identify themselves as foreign dignitaries to the manager of internal affairs before being granted citizenship

Subsection III

After having residency for at least ten days, these nations may apply for citizenship

Subsection IV

If a foreign dignitary retires from their diplomatic position before they are eligible for citizenship, yet remains in Libertatem in an unofficial capacity, their required residency period will be lowered to no more than five days unless granted citizenship by the board

Section V

Citizenship

Subsection I

Only Citizens may hold office and vote in public elections, they are not required to do either

Subsection II

One must be a resident by at least five days before being eligible for citizenship

Subsection III

Citizens who wish to stand for public office must identify their World Assembly if any nation to the President or Manager of Internal Affairs

Subsection IV

Once attaining office, they must inform the President or Manager of Internal Affairs the location of their World Assembly nation whenever relevant

Subsection V

After the residency requirement is met, a nation must notify the Manager of Internal Affairs

Subsection VI

The Manager of Internal Affairs will keep a public list of Citizens, and will manage the status and list of Citizens appropriately

Section VI

Annulment of Citizenship

Subsection I

Every Citizen has the right to renounce their Citizenship

Subsection II

Once renounced, their Citizenship can be restored upon an application to the Manager of Internal Affairs followed by enduring the five day waiting period once more

Subsection III

Alternatively, an individual that has renounced citizenship may bypass the five day waiting period, at the Board's discretion

Subsection IV

Citizenship of a nation can be revoked by the Manager of Internal Affairs or President, on the grounds of treason or other grievous violation of the law[/box]

Authored by [nation]Humpheria[/nation] and signed into law by [nation]Pevvania[/nation].

*Act amended by [nation=short]The New United States[/nation] on 27th of June 2014. Amended material highlighted in bold.

Some simple changes, lowering citizenship requirements. Changes underlined.

Changes in bold and underlined

The WAR Act

Section IV

Establish official guidelines for the government of Libertatem, when handling SC proposals and votes

Subsection I

The President shall be given the discretion of voting on SC proposals and votes however they wish, and shall be trusted to vote in a fashion that benefits Libertatem

Subsection II

The citizenry of Libertatem are entitled to vote on SC matters however they wish, except in the event of an SC liberation on a region captured by Libertatem

Section III

In the event of a SC liberation against a region captured by Libertatem, it will be considered treasonous and punishable to the highest degree of Libertatem law to vote "for" unless explicit instructions to vote "for" are given by the incumbent President

Do we have to vote on these or did you just push them through with executive order?

Hallo Island wrote:Do we have to vote on these or did you just push them through with executive order?

I believe it was an executive order. Assuming that's correct, I will shortly apply for citizenship.

https://youtu.be/HaZpZQG2z10

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/bitburg.html

Given the opportunity to pay his respects to the victims of the Holocaust at concentration camps like Dachau, Ronald Reagan instead decided it much more important to lay wreathes on the graves of Waffen-SS members against the very public protests of thousands of Holocaust survivors like Elie Wiesel. In an attempt to contain the uproar against him, Reagan eventually relented upon his visit to Germany and visited Bergen-Belsen, leading Menachem Z. Rosensaft to say, "Today we say to them that they can either honor the memory of the victims of Belsen, or they can honor the SS. They cannot do both. And by entering Bitburg, they desecrate the memory of all those who were murdered by the SS, and of all those whom they pretended to commemorate here at Belsen."

I guess it's true, scratch a Republican or a right-"libertarian" and you'll find a Nazi!

Industrial City

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkbr0uTKpkM

I made this for y'all so you better appreciate it. Especially you, [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation].

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkbr0uTKpkM

I made this for y'all so you better appreciate it. Especially you, [nation=short]Pevvania[/nation].

Well, the joke's on you, because I like The Offspring.

Pevvania wrote:Well, the joke's on you, because I like The Offspring.

Are you implying someone doesn't?

Post self-deleted by Trf Submarine Group I.

Here's a line of questioning that minimum wage advocates cannot answer.

A: The minimum wage should be X!

Q: Why?

A: Because it'll raise wages for poor people!

Q: OK, if a minimum wage of X would result in higher wages, then why don't you want a minimum wage worth 100X?

A: 100X?! That's ridiculous! That would cause unemployment.

Q: So if a minimum wage that high would cause unemployment, at what point does the minimum wage not cause unemployment?

A: Umm, well.. It's... Uh... YOU'RE A FASCIST WHO HATES POOR PEOPLE!!!

Hallo Island wrote:Do we have to vote on these or did you just push them through with executive order?

Vote on them, sorry I'll make clear next time.

Just out of interest, how does increasing the minimum wage produce unemployment?

Custadian Fallschirmjager Company Ii wrote:Just out of interest, how does increasing the minimum wage produce unemployment?

Put simply, raising the cost of hiring displaces marginal workers, because businesses often cannot afford to increase the wages of employees that produce less than their co-workers. Therefore, the minimum wage is a price floor that hurts lower-income workers and non-whites that have lower productivities. Being Classically Liberal puts it this way: "seeing as the minimum wage is a price floor which is set above the market equilibrium price, which is where the quantity of labor supplied equals the quantity of labor demanded, microeconomic theory predicts that there will be a surplus of unsold labor, which is called unemployment." - https://www.facebook.com/notes/687788521255573/

The counter-argument to all this is that any negative effects of minimum wage increases are offset by multipliers resulting from increased consumer spending, with workers using their pay raises to put money back into businesses, meaning that they can hire more people, improve productivity and so on. But this strikes me as a very 'trickle-down economics'-based argument that fails to make an obvious connection: a business cannot gain more in revenues from paying their low-skilled workers more if they can't pay them at all.

Another often-cited argument is that wages would not rise without minimum wage laws, but this seems to be fairly obvious, since 99% of workers earn above the minimum wage. Capitalists must compete for a worker's labour as much as a worker must compete to work for the capitalist, which is why companies must pay employees close to the value of their labour in accordance with supply and demand.

The minimum wage is essentially a price floor that punishes young, black and poor workers for producing less. For this, it is a monstrous tool of the bourgeoisie and the state that has destroyed entire communities of people. This is all not just true in economic theory, but the empirical evidence supports this as well. If you want to help the workers and poor people, fight for a $0 minimum wage.

85% of studies on the minimum wage have shown job losses and reduced job opportunities for low-skilled workers: http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf

Employment Policy Institute study on the subject:

http://www.epionline.org/studies/sabia_05-2006.pdf

http://www.epionline.org/study/r144/

A good introductory video on the minimum wage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct1Moeaa-W8

Some other articles: https://www.facebook.com/notes/being-classically-liberal/empirical-data-shows-the-harmful-effects-of-minimum-wage-laws/661156887252070

https://www.facebook.com/notes/676139835753775/

Kings Island, Condealism

Wouldn't it all be easier if you just had central planning, eh?

Happy independence days guys, if you know what i mean 😉😉😉

did i misread or did you mistype your first sentence or are there actually people that think the only reason a business making billions of dollars in profit can't afford to raise wages is because of minimum wage?

counting $0.50 above minimum wage also seems like it's cheating. you're also ignoring that a lot of minimum wage jobs have high turn over and are not the kind ones you can really have a wage dispute over. the reality is that depending on region there can be anywhere from 2x to 10x more unemployed people than jobs and the competition between workers for jobs is stronger than the competition between capitalists for workers. to thinks the guys that put up advice on how to claim benefits in their break rooms are fighting tooth and nail against each other to hire unskilled labour at the lowest possible wage when there are 10 more people that will take their place they can pay is delusional.

i also struggle to understand the other arguments. i found a post from a manager on the subject and it was very interesting. apparently he was debating with a guy and the guy was legitimately shocked when he was told that no if minimum wage was halved he would not hire twice as many workers. in order to maximize profit he is already working with the least workers he can get away while still running the place. if he has 3 janitors and 5 cooks and has to pay them $7.25 is he going to go hire 6 janitors and 10 cooks if we get rid of minimum wage? of course he isn't. he would be, in his own words, be a bad manager if he wasn't already getting rid of excess labour. i really can't understand why he would hire more workers than he needs to just because he could pay them less.

Alyakia wrote:did i misread or did you mistype your first sentence or are there actually people that think the only reason a business making billions of dollars in profit can't afford to raise wages is because of minimum wage?

counting $0.50 above minimum wage also seems like it's cheating. you're also ignoring that a lot of minimum wage jobs have high turn over and are not the kind ones you can really have a wage dispute over. the reality is that depending on region there can be anywhere from 2x to 10x more unemployed people than jobs and the competition between workers for jobs is stronger than the competition between capitalists for workers. to thinks the guys that put up advice on how to claim benefits in their break rooms are fighting tooth and nail against each other to hire unskilled labour at the lowest possible wage when there are 10 more people that will take their place they can pay is delusional.

Well perhaps if there was less regulation and costs imposed on businesses by the federal government then perhaps they could afford to pay their employees more

Pevvania

Yeah, those Chinese sweatshops are really struggling to find labour. It's absolutely not as if anybody in the third world is forced to choose between earning less than three dollars a day or starvation, is it? Oh, wait. It is.

Hallo Island

Custadian Fallschirmjager Company Ii wrote:Yeah, those Chinese sweatshops are really struggling to find labour. It's absolutely not as if anybody in the third world is forced to choose between earning less than three dollars a day or starvation, is it? Oh, wait. It is.

I mean, considering the fact that less than three dollars a day is a significant improvement over absolutely nothing, especially in countries where absolutely nothing is the norm...

Pevvania

Miencraft wrote:I mean, considering the fact that less than three dollars a day is a significant improvement over absolutely nothing, especially in countries where absolutely nothing is the norm...

But what it does prove is that there is little to no competition amongst employers for workers. If you wanted people to work for you, you wouldn't offer them pay as awful as that.

Custadian Fallschirmjager Company Ii wrote:But what it does prove is that there is little to no competition amongst employers for workers. If you wanted people to work for you, you wouldn't offer them pay as awful as that.

You're using the example of sweatshops (often the only viable source of income) to prove that there isn't competition.

Well, of course there isn't going to be competition for employment if the only means of employment is sweatshop labor; everyone's going to be flocking to them anyways because that's the best income they have. There's no need to compete for something that you're guaranteed to get.

Also, "awful" is really, really subjective. I literally just said that it's a great improvement over what they would normally make. Just because we think it's bad doesn't mean they don't see two dollars per day as a blessing.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Well perhaps if there was less regulation and costs imposed on businesses by the federal government then perhaps they could afford to pay their employees more

but why would they?

if the argument is that minimum wage puts the wage above what their market worth would actually be then surely the result of repealing minimum wages laws would be that their wages would fall back into line with the value of their labour (i.e. down)? and like i said, companies that make literal billions do it as well, they are not being strangled by regulation and wish they could pay higher wages but just can't those poor souls. it is not an "afford" problem.

Miencraft wrote:There's no need to compete for something that you're guaranteed to get.

exactly our point

I'm sure they are very grateful for the pittance they make-after all, without it they'd be dead. But these sweatshops are a result of your capitalist system. The produce they make goes to rich first world countries and is sold at a price much greater than production cost and yet somehow those who actually make the product still earn so little.

Two dollars a day is an awful wage, even if the alternative is death. What you're trying to say here is that because of two awful options one of them is worse than the other the other must therefore be good, which is clearly BS.

Hey guys! Whaddya think of this eh?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/30/cuba-first-eliminate-mother-baby-hiv-transmission

Ah, the advantages of a system that works for the good of the people, and not to line the pockets of the upper echelons of society.

Alyakia wrote:but why would they?

if the argument is that minimum wage puts the wage above what their market worth would actually be then surely the result of repealing minimum wages laws would be that their wages would fall back into line with the value of their labour (i.e. down)? and like i said, companies that make literal billions do it as well, they are not being strangled by regulation and wish they could pay higher wages but just can't those poor souls. it is not an "afford" problem.

Businesses know that they can't pay their employees crappy wages because of competition. Businesses have to futher themselves and in order to do that they need employees. Businesses have to make a certain percentage or they go under, and when you increase regulation and increase costs to run said business, it causes companies not to be able to pay employees as much. If you cut back regulation and restrictions and abolish minimum wage, businesses would pay whatever other competition would for jobs.

Post self-deleted by Alyakia.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Businesses know that they can't pay their employees crappy wages because of competition. Businesses have to futher themselves and in order to do that they need employees. Businesses have to make a certain percentage or they go under, and when you increase regulation and increase costs to run said business, it causes companies not to be able to pay employees as much. If you cut back regulation and restrictions and abolish minimum wage, businesses would pay whatever other competition would for jobs.

i don't feel like you actually addressed what i said. what government regulation is so big that a $5bn profit company cannot raise wages? why do you think there would be fierce competition for mostly unskilled labour when there are 10 people for every available job?

and again, isn't the fundamental point here that the problem with minimum wage is that it makes them pay more than they would otherwise pay, causing unemployment somehow?

The meagre wages offered by sweatshops often lead to domestic spending and eventually wealth, as was seen in the Asian Tigers (Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan).

So far as wages in developed countries are concerned, the minimum wage is a non-issue. In a truly free market workers would be allowed to form company unions (they currently can't in the US).

In such an economy the negotiations between employers and unions would lead to wages being set at the market price.

Alyakia wrote:i don't feel like you actually addressed what i said. what government regulation is so big that a $5bn profit company cannot raise wages? why do you think there would be fierce competition for mostly unskilled labour when there are 10 people for every available job?

and again, isn't the fundamental point here that the problem with minimum wage is that it makes them pay more than they would otherwise pay, causing unemployment somehow?

Why do you think the only available areas of employment are in giant corporations?

Unless of course, you are like Wal-mart, and lobby for the minimum wage increase, just so you can eliminate competition, and maintain a monopoly.

Employment follows the line of supply and demand. If there is a heavy demand for something, wages would increase. If there is a low demand, wages do not. And regardless, having a job in a low demand situation is better than having nothing.

Alyakia wrote:exactly our point

But then you completely miss the entire purpose of competition:

When competition is occurring, quality of pretty much everything rises because one would need to get ahead of their competitors; produce better goods for less, and you will sell more and make more money.

Without competition, you just get stagnation because nobody's trying to improve over anyone else, which is the driving force behind a capitalist economy: everyone has to be better than everyone else to get ahead, and those who can't do this fall out and have to go try something different.

With employment, if there is literally only one option that is literally infinitely better than the alternative, of course they're not going to change anything because, 1) it works, 2) there's no alternative so there's no reason to change anything, and 3) everyone is doing this.

I mean, sure, sweatshop conditions are bad compared to what we know, but compared to the alternative in the areas in which they exist they're a godsend. Otherwise they wouldn't be there in the first place.

Alyakia wrote:and again, isn't the fundamental point here that the problem with minimum wage is that it makes them pay more than they would otherwise pay, causing unemployment somehow?

It seems to me like you didn't actually read Pev's argument.

Miencraft wrote:But then you completely miss the entire purpose of competition:

When competition is occurring, quality of pretty much everything rises because one would need to get ahead of their competitors; produce better goods for less, and you will sell more and make more money.

Without competition, you just get stagnation because nobody's trying to improve over anyone else, which is the driving force behind a capitalist economy: everyone has to be better than everyone else to get ahead, and those who can't do this fall out and have to go try something different.

With employment, if there is literally only one option that is literally infinitely better than the alternative, of course they're not going to change anything because, 1) it works, 2) there's no alternative so there's no reason to change anything, and 3) everyone is doing this.

I mean, sure, sweatshop conditions are bad compared to what we know, but compared to the alternative in the areas in which they exist they're a godsend. Otherwise they wouldn't be there in the first place.

It seems to me like you didn't actually read Pev's argument.

he seems to be using the predominate argument against minimum wage. if he isn't then what he said makes no sense/

Alyakia wrote:he seems to be using the predominate argument against minimum wage. if he isn't then what he said makes no sense/

What?

Hi, thought I would provide you guys with some helpful advice! ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQGZ0A5t7Yk

Republic Of Minerva wrote:

Employment follows the line of supply and demand. If there is a heavy demand for something, wages would increase. If there is a low demand, wages do not. And regardless, having a job in a low demand situation is better than having nothing.

so when supply massively outstrips demand, there is no reason to increase wages? cool, can't wait to see all the wage increases that will come when we are free from government regulation.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Why do you think the only available areas of employment are in giant corporations?

Unless of course, you are like Wal-mart, and lobby for the minimum wage increase, just so you can eliminate competition, and maintain a monopoly.

because if smaller businesses are less likely to be able to increase wages regardless of minimum wage they are of questionable relevance to "well if government regulation specifically the one saying they need higher wages than they might otherwise get was gone they could afford to increase their wages"

Miencraft wrote:What?

look at the video he linked

Alyakia wrote:i don't feel like you actually addressed what i said. what government regulation is so big that a $5bn profit company cannot raise wages? why do you think there would be fierce competition for mostly unskilled labour when there are 10 people for every available job?

and again, isn't the fundamental point here that the problem with minimum wage is that it makes them pay more than they would otherwise pay, causing unemployment somehow?

It is not just about billion dollar corporations, there are small businesses that get destroyed by it.

Miencraft

Right-Winged Nation wrote:It is not just about billion dollar corporations, there are small businesses that get destroyed by it.

Arguably more so than the large ones.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:It is not just about billion dollar corporations, there are small businesses that get destroyed by it.

and what is your proposed solution? there is a reason the living wage is called the living wage. welfare? inhuman super workers with 3 jobs?

Most people who are under the minimum wage get a raise within the next six months.

Plus, if Thoreau could reduce his expenses to less than $10,000 a year, I don't see why it's not possible for anyone else too.

Also, many people do take 2 jobs.

Alyakia wrote:and what is your proposed solution? there is a reason the living wage is called the living wage. welfare? inhuman super workers with 3 jobs?

As i have stated before, get rid of regulation, make to where starting a business is not like getting a kidney stone removed. Do you know how much you have to spend on licenses and property to get going? Not to mention when the tax man comes rolling around. So if you make where it is easier to create a business, then more jobs are created.

Miencraft, Pevvania

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Most people who are under the minimum wage get a raise within the next six months.

Plus, if Thoreau could reduce his expenses to less than $10,000 a year, I don't see why it's not possible for anyone else too.

Also, many people do take 2 jobs.

i'm not familiar with the name. i do remember there was one guy that tried going poor as an experiment and it was fine... until his family got sick and he had to quit the experiment. not realizing that actually poor people do not have the option of deciding to not be poor anymore when serious difficulty come thus making the experiment basically useless. is that who you mean?

Alyakia wrote:i'm not familiar with the name. i do remember there was one guy that tried going poor as an experiment and it was fine... until his family got sick and he had to quit the experiment. not realizing that actually poor people do not have the option of deciding to not be poor anymore when serious difficulty come thus making the experiment basically useless. is that who you mean?

The guy who did the mcdonald's experiment is that who you are talking about?

Alyakia wrote:and what is your proposed solution? there is a reason the living wage is called the living wage. welfare? inhuman super workers with 3 jobs?

The government ought to focus on employment, not wages. After all, it's not exactly utilitarian to attempt to increase the standard of living for those who can find employment at the expense of those who can't.

Large companies like Walmart can afford higher wages, yes. But small businesses cannot. The decline of local business has caused massive unemployment and restricts the ability of middle class individuals to open businesses and improve their lives.

https://dummidumbwit.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/575042_504320486270904_1139964968_n.png?w=640

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/64/76/5a/64765af6fc513155d3815821a183b3c1.jpg

Alyakia wrote:and what is your proposed solution? there is a reason the living wage is called the living wage. welfare? inhuman super workers with 3 jobs?

But there's also a reason minimum-wage jobs pay as low as they do; you're not supposed to make a living off of them. You're supposed to use them as extra income while you go find a better job or get skills to move along.

Wonderful debating there guys but...

Is there anyone for/against my proposed changes?

I am against them all. They are bad. I hate them.

Muh Roads wrote:Wonderful debating there guys but...

Is there anyone for/against my proposed changes?

I'm for them.

Ave Libertatem, devoted to liberty and individual rights and protections from encroachment by the state!

Muh Roads wrote:Changes in bold and underlined

The WAR Act

Section IV

Establish official guidelines for the government of Libertatem, when handling SC proposals and votes

Subsection I

The President shall be given the discretion of voting on SC proposals and votes however they wish, and shall be trusted to vote in a fashion that benefits Libertatem

Subsection II

The citizenry of Libertatem are entitled to vote on SC matters however they wish, except in the event of an SC liberation on a region captured by Libertatem

Section III

In the event of a SC liberation against a region captured by Libertatem, it will be considered treasonous and punishable to the highest degree of Libertatem law to vote "for" unless explicit instructions to vote "for" are given by the incumbent President

...unless, of course, you disagree with the State of Libertatem.

(you do realize that we didn't ban dissenters in TI or NK, right?)

Miencraft wrote:But there's also a reason minimum-wage jobs pay as low as they do; you're not supposed to make a living off of them. You're supposed to use them as extra income while you go find a better job or get skills to move along.

so the plan is to just hope there's a constant stream of kids to do them? because someone needs to do them and not everyone can move up, be that due to their skills or the economy or otherwise.

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:Ave Libertatem, devoted to liberty and individual rights and protections from encroachment by the state!

...unless, of course, you disagree with the State of Libertatem.

(you do realize that we didn't ban dissenters in TI or NK, right?)

You didn't ban dissenters in NK? Hilarious.

Muh Roads wrote:Wonderful debating there guys but...

Is there anyone for/against my proposed changes?

Love it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI6a7WySFsU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5rVD_TXrjo

https://www.youtube.com/user/xaxie1

Pangaean Brigade wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI6a7WySFsU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5rVD_TXrjo

https://www.youtube.com/user/xaxie1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38K9X5PMLRU

Hallo Island wrote:Hey, why is Rothbard Communities not banjected yet?

Because we don't do that here.

Muh Roads wrote:You didn't ban dissenters in NK? Hilarious.

As if typing the letters H I L A R I O U and S somehow makes an argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFCRYgNIV4o

We're nice people, you know. Really just out to help the poor. Seriously, you ought to join us-just lay down your arms, change your region name, add a bit of red and gold to your flag, maybe a hammer and sickle, make a few changes to your legislation and I'm sure our regions could get on fine, living in wonderful harmony.

BTW, saw one of you guys posted "The 'truth' about Karl Marx" by your lord and saviour Stefan Molyneux, just thought I'd put these out there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlpQPR9j7yU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN5OjzEfQmI

Custadian Fallschirmjager Company Ii wrote:We're nice people, you know. Really just out to help the poor. Seriously, you ought to join us-just lay down your arms, change your region name, add a bit of red and gold to your flag, maybe a hammer and sickle, make a few changes to your legislation and I'm sure our regions could get on fine, living in wonderful harmony.

I don't doubt that you're nice people, but does communism really help the poor? I mean, quite a few poor farmers died in the Great Leap Forward.

Kings Island wrote:I don't doubt that you're nice people, but does communism really help the poor? I mean, quite a few poor farmers died in the Great Leap Forward.

Of course it helps the poor. It's just a touch unpleasant for the excessively rich who can afford to lose a little bit.

Kings Island wrote:I don't doubt that you're nice people, but does communism really help the poor?

Quick answer is "yes, obviously"

http://i.imgur.com/sYBPnCR.png

http://i.imgur.com/GPn3dXG.jpg

stats from "Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution" by Robert C. Allen.

http://i.imgur.com/hUoNzy3.png

stats from "North Korea: Markets and Military Rule" by Hazel Smith, p.33

also Cuba has been verified by WHO as having fully prevented HIV and syphilis transmissions from mothers to their children. that's an incredible medical achievement, and was accomplished without a profit motive!

Kings Island wrote:I mean, quite a few poor farmers died in the Great Leap Forward.

From?

Trf Submarine Group I wrote:Quick answer is "yes, obviously"

http://i.imgur.com/sYBPnCR.png

http://i.imgur.com/GPn3dXG.jpg

stats from "Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution" by Robert C. Allen.

http://i.imgur.com/hUoNzy3.png

stats from "North Korea: Markets and Military Rule" by Hazel Smith, p.33

also Cuba has been verified by WHO as having fully prevented HIV and syphilis transmissions from mothers to their children. that's an incredible medical achievement, and was accomplished without a profit motive!

From?

The Chinese government attempted to boost steel production by forcing farmers to build and work in local mills. As a result, crops were left to rot in the fields.

Estimates of the ensuing deaths from famine range from 20 to 46 million, most of whom were poor farmers and laborers. I very much doubt the newly wealthy beurocratic class starved.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.