Um, dgg9, the pure capitalism you seem to be conveying to me is what led to the abuses of the meat packing plants in the late 19th century, and would still be abused if allowed to.

Key about 'supply and demand' in the workplace. Supply - relatively infinite (there will ALWAYS be unemployed workers who want work, skilled or unskilled; this may change for specific fields, but in general). Demand - finite (limited jobs).

This seemingly infinite supply leads to abuses of the supply. Without minimum wage (which affects pure capitalism), I can guarantee you unemployment would be higher, and foreign immigration, whether legal or illegal, would be hgher.

Why should we care? The US at maximum efficiency (an unattainable goal, but one to be reached for) has 100% employment at the average wage, paying the same % taxes (this is, of course, if one believes in taxes for a federal government).

All fallacies, long since exploded.

Hogwash. Min wage CAUSES unemployment.

Falling thanks to the fact that people do nto want to pay a wage in which a person could survive on...... I know for a fact that if I worked within a non-union store i would be screwed where as within the store i work I have the company paying my benefits and a higher wage..... do you think that it is more profitable to the average worker to work for less and pay for thier benefits???? should I give up my union job to enter a workplace where I am under no gaurantee that if the Store Director has a personal agenda against me he can fire me at will??? Where I will have to take a pay cut??? where I do nto get a cost-of-living-wage increase of the size I have gotten in a union atmosphere???

I really think you are confused as to the benefits of a union... I work under one and see its benefits..... do you or have you ever worked under a union???

It sounds to me like you do not understand the basic worker rights that a union makes sure you get from your employer..... without unions you get workplaces like Wal-Mart which can offer a large demand low cost product at the expense of a low wage worker and keep all the profits at the top end of management..... and fight tooth and nail against any sort of talk about unionization... so far as to fire people at will who threaten to unionize.... why??? because it would damage thier profit potential at the top end....

Wal-Mart is the #1 Grocery Chain in the United States because of the profits it generates.... Yet Kroger who i work for is #2 and still manages to pay its workers a larger wage than wal mart...... it is #2 because it does take care of its workers and in that respect has far more dedicated help.... a good percentage of thier help is union.... all of thier meat Cutters are in a Butchers Union... every STORE EVERY ONE who is a Butcher is in that union.... so yes indeed my store is average.... though the Union I belong to only covers 3 in my district my district covers the Salt Lake Valley area of Salt Lake City.... within the other districts are other union stores......

My only wonder is what you have against unions??? Do you work in a position which has given you a loathing of them??? If they niether benefit you nor grant you any sort of ill will why the loathing of them???

It is fact that they help the employees.....

Please cite any referances... as I must exclaim that this is unsupported rubbish.... the cost of an employee must stay in pace with inflation.... elsewise homelessness, poverty, starvation, and over all inhumane conditions begin to arise.... right now minimum wage does not match the over all inflation.... could you survive on???? $5.45 an hour... that equals a 40 hour week payed at 218.00 before taxes---- unless minimum has raised in the last few years((( I do not think it has))) that is 872.00 a month.... considering the average monthly rent of a one bedroom apartment is 600$$ a month this means after taxes an individual would have to choose between bills and food or get another job.....

So please describe to me how the minimum wage law creates unemployment... I would be glad to hear you cite a non-biased article or essay......

The conceptual breakthrough comes when you realize wages are not set by what people "want."

No confusion here. I know what's involved. I also know -- unlike you-- there there's no such thing as a free lunch. Artificially high pay/benefits that are not commensurate with worker output simply means you become unsustainable in the long run.

More than anything else, the premier source of economic fallacies is looking at benefits and failing to count costs, and secondary effects.

Sounds to me like you're simply spouting 1920's-era rhetoric.

Voluntary unions? No problem -- they are economically invisible. But when the government interferes to give unions extra privileges, the economy, and ultimately workers, is harmed.

SOME employees of SOME firms -- at the expense, always, of others. Forced union membership (i.e., no right to work) simply excludes other workers from a the guild.

Wow... and yet my Union has been around for 20+ years and there are people still working for the company that have been there for 30+ years..... yet you would be hard put to find anyone except in upper management in a non-union store who have been around for more than 5-10 years.... if that is unsustainable I fear to know what your idea of sustainable is....

This is such elementary economics that you reveal everything I need to know about your level of knowledge in economic matters (basically, you're operating that the Fallacy 101 level).

This is the law of supply and demand, which is ironclad and inescapable. All jobs are sustainable at certain wage rates. If a job is worth $4/hr, then forcing the employer to pay $5/hr legislates the job out of existence. There are exactly two possible results:

1 - min wage is set higher than market will bear; those workers are prohibited from working; they are now unemployable.

2 - min wage is set lower than market will bear; the law does nothing.

Min wage mostly hurts the young, who live at home and can afford the wages, but need entry level jobs to gain experience so they can move up the ladder. What low productivity workers get from low wage jobs is SKILLS, not just money. People in those jobs are constantly transitioning up; these jobs are fleeting.

To the extent that artificially high minimums raise the cost of hiring low-productivity workers, fewer of those workers will be employed. Thus min wage is a cruel hoax: it sets up an entry barrier to employment so that people can't work up the ladder: they have to jump in at a higher rung, but with no experience.

Here are two facts:

- the average family affected by the minimum wage has an annual income of $38,000 because seven out of 10 minimum-wage workers live with a working spouse or relatives.

- the average income of minimum-wage workers increases by 30% within one year of employment on the basis of learned skills.

This time YOU can dredge up the cites. One of many primers:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa106.html

One only need look at the dwindling union membership across the US as a whole to see reality.

No need to call me stupid.....

They live with thier spouse or relative because they cannot afford to live elsewhere.....

if you have a job worth 4$ an hour and they have to hire at 5$ an hour the employer better start looking at thier profit versus payout and make some sacrifices and or some cuts.... simple business practices..... buy from a cheaper supplier..... buy your equipment rather than lease or vice versa if cheaper.. etc etc.... most economics is common sense.....

I have been in Management for well over 15 years...... in a few different businesses..... so I am not a retard when it comes to understanding this.....

yes the reality of lower wage workers and immigrants who take those lower wage jobs..... ousting the potential for experienced and dedicated workers to make what they are worth......

Actually, you're right -- there IS no need.

Really? And how do YOU know that? And what kind of stupidity is this: you live with your SPOUSE because you can't afford to live elsewhere? So if someone gets a raise, he can move to a separate apartment than his wife?

Do you even read the stuff you write?

Which clearly you lack. You equate jumping to facile, erroneous conclusions as "common sense." That's ok -- most people do the same. That's why economics is still the dismal science.

In any competitive low-margin business, all short cuts are ALREADY taken.

And capital overheads like those are completely different than employee productivity. If the worker's productivity is only $4/hr, then that's what he brings to the company coffers. All your other cost cutting (which are always already done) amount to cutting costs ELSEWHERE to subsidize employing this person at a loss. But he's still working at a loss to you.

You are way more ignorant about basic economics than ANYONE in management can afford to be. This does not bode well for your company.

And you think the US has more immigrants now than before?

But even so, that contradicts your theory -- it is precisely those low wage people who would more likely unionize. White collar, private sector workers don't need to unionize.

Hmmm.... nice misdirection there.... i was talking about Minimum wage with that last statement... you twisted it to sound like I was speaking of unions..... when I was not... nor is that statement applicable to unionization.....

You are shitting me right????

My company spends more money on more moronic idiocy than I have ever seen.... They signed a contract with Sylvania Light to come into the store once a month and replace any burnt out flourescents at the tune of $30 for a walk--- 15 minutes at the most... and over $100 an hour if anything needs to be replaced..... according to the contract we cannot deny them service.... so they get thier $30 dollars(((until the contract comes up for review))) regardless..... yet we do not allow them to make thier walk.... so they leave.... and we have a Courtesy Clerk(((Bagger))) replace those selfsame lights at 5.45 an hour.... MY IDEA!!!! Wow.. I saved my company a whopping amount over the next year and recieved a nice bonus for doing so...... I could relate hundreds of other stupid things our company does on a corporate level but I understand that you are out of touch with the average workplace.....

I am going to ask you once more very nicely to leave off with the insults..... I am really trying to have a decent debate with you... yet your elevation tactics and subtle insults really are tempting me to mirror your actions.... we call it baiting here......

Whoops my bad.... meant to leave out the spouse bit.... it makes more sense that way

And I do read it my friend... I do.. as well as all of yours.... nice of you to catch that by the way