WTF Did I Just See?

[rantal]

So, you say yet provide no evidence and reasoning to support your claim

all the best, rantal

[bobevenson]

So, you say yet provide no evidence and reasoning to support your claim

all the best, rantal

I gave you a concrete example, but I'm afraid I forgot to bash it over your head.

[rantal]

So, you say yet provide no evidence and reasoning to support your claim

all the best, rantal

I gave you a concrete example, but I'm afraid I forgot to bash it over your head.

No, you have given nothing that is concrete

all the best, rantal

[bobevenson]

I gave you a concrete example, but you apparently have a problem assimilating concrete, so I'll repeat it: "Employers always make decisions in their best interests. If they don't, they go bankrupt. Unfortunately, the government can make bad decisions all day long and never go bankrupt. If employers are forced by the government to pay minimum wages, the employer can shift work to more productive employees, buy equipment that doesn't require as much labor, or lose more business to places like China."

[rantal]

What do you understand by the term 'concrete example?'

all the best, rantal

[bobevenson]

What do you understand by the term 'concrete example?'

First of all, do you have to use italics and colors in every post??? Can't you just write something like this post??? As far as a concrete example, what the hell do you want??? I believe I made my position perfectly clear, but if you want more, please spell it out!!!

[rantal]

Yes

What you site as a concrete example, just isn't what people normally mean by that term, being merely a description of theory not a particular. That is why I queried your use of the term.

Now, I did use a concrete example citing the case of a local establishment known to me personally, which demonstrated

1. That paying higher wages can sometimes result in improved service and a cost saving
2. That employers do not always act in their own best interest

QED

all the best, rantal

[bobevenson]

1. That paying higher wages can sometimes result in improved service and a cost saving. 2. That employers do not always act in their own best interest.

That may be true, but employers have to make those decisions, and if they make the wrong decision, they lose money, and if they make the wrong decision too many times, they go out of business. The government, of course, never goes out of business no matter how many wrong decisions they make (unless, of course, the people rise up against it, unless, of course, their guns have been confiscated).

[rantal]

Good, I am gladdened that you admit that owners of buisnesses do not always make descisions in their best interest

Now, what do you understand by concrete example?

all the best, rantal

[bobevenson]

Good, I am gladdened that you admit that owners of buisnesses do not always make descisions in their best interest

Now, what do you understand by concrete example?

all the best, rantal

What's your point, businesses make bad decisions all the time, and they pay for their mistakes. Why should they also pay for the mistakes of government, which gets off scot-free every time?

[rantal]

I repeat, what do you understand by the term

concrete example?

all the best, rantal

[bobevenson]

I repeat, what do you understand by the term concrete example?

How about this: 3. relating to a particular instance or object; specific as opposed to general: a concrete example. Again, what's your point, if you've actually got one.

[Gee]

Well, I don't know much about economics either, but I understand people. People are selfish, whether they are rich or poor or middle class.

The reality is that unions came about because businesses were too greedy. Children worked in factories and mines, women worked unbelievable hours for almost nothing, men worked and then were fired for being maimed in unsafe conditions. It was actually common for a husband/father to be hurt on the job and have his children go to work because they could be paid less because they were children. Unions stopped that shit. Eventually laws were enacted that protected workers from the worst of it.

Then unions became too powerful and greedy. I remember one Committee man, who explained to me that although he was in charge of about 500 people, only about 50 would vote. So he only had to keep 26 people happy in order to insure his position. Any one want to guess who those 26 people would be? They were the screw-ups, the alcoholics, the druggies, and the people who had problems keeping their jobs--but they ALWAYS voted in the union elections--so he took good care of them. Was that good for the business? No. Did it make for good workers? No.

I believe that it was Clinton, who decided to try to balance the budget causing the Labor Board, the worker's Safety Board (OSHA), and the EPA, all to lose funding. Then Bush walked in and decided that the time was ripe to break unions. Prior to that NAFTA and technology opened up business to international operations. So workers have taken more than a few hits lately, so have retirees.

So my conclusion is that business will run with it and take all that it can; workers will run with it and take all that they can. Until the entire world has some basic forms of worker's rights, business will go where ever it can to make a better profit. People are selfish, so some government intervention is required.

Gee

[rantal]

I repeat, what do you understand by the term concrete example?

How about this: 3. relating to a particular instance or object; specific as opposed to general: a concrete example. Again, what's your point, if you've actually got one.

So, it you do then understand correctly what a concrete example is, why did you pretend that the naive theory you spouted was a concrete example?

all the best, rantal

[bobevenson]

The reality is that unions came about because businesses were too greedy.

This is where I stopped reading, my friend. Greed is taking an unfair share of something. Trying to make as much money as you can is not greed.