Wellbok - well...

[Kissekatt]

Skönt att se socialdemokratisk SOLIDARITET manifestera sig såhär!

[MoonKenny]

svt är som vanligt efterblivna och fattar inte att mcdonalds vinster är bra, om de gör vinst betyder det att konkurrenter kan överväga att ge sig in på marknaden. att företag som anställer ungdomar går med vinst är ju precis det ungdomar behöver.

 

Det beror väl helt på omständigheterna kring jobben? Varför skulle det vara bra att företag skulle få anställa ungdomar utan några som helst skyldigheter till de anställda?

 

Om en del av vinsten som företaget genererar kommer från att ungdomar tvingas jobba vidriga tider, till lägre löner och med sämre/helt utan avtal, och inte som en direkt följd av att företaget har en bra produkt/tjänst så kan jag knappast se det som något positivt för ungdomar.

[sulla]

Kissekatt: Om vi ska bygga debatten vidare kan det ju vara bra om du kommer med åtminstone ett konkret påstående som grundar sig i något verkligt.

 

Det du säger ang låglönejobb är fakta, såklart. Men vad i det faktum att folk får leva på en lön som inte räcker till att betala för hyra och mat kommer göra vårt samhälle gott?

 

Ta bort LAS och lönerna går ner för de jobb som inte har utbildningskrav

 

Då tror ni också att arbetslösheten minskar, det lär den inte göra om man kan tjäna samma slant o ligga på soffan som att arbeta, alltså måste de sociala skyddsnäten skärpas och folk kommer fara illa. Det kommer också resultera i att flera kommer försöka fuska och de som inte gör det kommer behöva bidrag tillsammans med sin heltidslön. Troligen följer också ökad kriminalitet och utanförskapet blir större i utsatta grupper.

[heltok]

Det beror väl helt på omständigheterna kring jobben? Varför skulle det vara bra att företag skulle få anställa ungdomar utan några som helst skyldigheter till de anställda?

 

givetvis. men är marginaleffekterna som är intressanta. om volvo är rädd för att anställa dig för risken att framtida efterfrågan är osäker blir det ett jobb mindre.

 

Om en del av vinsten som företaget genererar kommer från att ungdomar tvingas jobba vidriga tider, till lägre löner och med sämre/helt utan avtal, och inte som en direkt följd av att företaget har en bra produkt/tjänst så kan jag knappast se det som något positivt för ungdomar.

 

om vi förbjuder företag för att anställa ungdomar till "slavlöner" så blir det bara högre arbetslöshet och ännu svårare att få jobb. om vi däremot uppmuntrar beteendet kommer det explodera av arbetstillfällen till den grad att arbetsgivare tvingas vara sjyssta för att någon ska vilja arbeta hos dem.

 

Att exploatera ungdomar som pga brist på jobb tvingas till vidriga förhållanden är i mitt tycke omoraliskt.

 

bättre än att inte erbjuda något alls. iaf sålänge det inte handlar om bedrägeri. givetvis är det bättre att erbjuda ett sjysst jobb, men även skitjobb är bättre än inget jobb. citerar defending the undefendable:

THE MALE CHAUVINIST PIG

T

he women’s liberation movement is an amalgam of different programs and composed of diverse groups with

differing aims. The discriminating intellect may accept

some of the aims, purposes, motivations, and programs of

women’s liberation, and reject others. It would be folly to treat

as equivalent a host of different values and attitudes merely

because they have been packaged together. The views of the

women’s liberation movement can be divided into four major

categories—each of which requires a different approach.

COERCIVE ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST WOMEN

Apart from murder, the most brutal coercive action taken

against women is rape. Yet in this male dominated society rape

is not always illegal. It is not illegal when perpetrated upon a

woman by her husband. And, although rape is illegal when it

occurs outside the “sanctity” of marriage, the way in which it is

treated by the law leaves much to be desired. For one thing, if

there was any previous acquaintanceship between the rapist and

his victim, the court presumes that there was no rape. For

another, in order to prove rape, it was necessary in many states

until recently, that there be a witness to the crime. Furthermore,

13

chap3malepig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:27 PM Page 13if friends of the rapist swore they had sexual intercourse with the

victim, she could be characterized as “immoral,” and it becomes

virtually impossible to obtain a conviction. If the victim is a prostitute, it is equally impossible to obtain a conviction. The reasoning behind the legal inability for a prostitute to be raped is

the ludicrous view that it is impossible to compel a person to do

that which she does willingly at other times.

One of the most attractive aspects of the women’s liberation

movement is its support for greater penalties for rape, plus restitution to the victim. Previously people who occupied a comparable position on the political spectrum as do most of today’s

feminists (e.g., liberals and leftists) urged lighter sentences for

rapists and general mollycoddling of criminals. In their view, all

crime, rape included, was caused mainly by poverty, family

breakdown, lack of recreational facilities, etc. And their “solution” followed directly from this “insight”: more welfare, more

parks and playgrounds for the underprivileged, counseling, therapy, etc. In contrast, the feminists’ insistence on stiffer jail sentences for rapists—and worse—comes like a breath of fresh air.

Although rape is the most striking instance in which the

government acquiesces in coercive actions against women, there

are others. Consider what is implied by the laws against prostitution. These laws prohibit trade between mutually consenting

adults. They are harmful to women in that they prevent them

from earning an honest living. If their anti-woman bias is not

clear enough, consider the fact that although the transaction is

just as illegal for the customer as for the seller, the male (customer) is almost never arrested when the female (seller) is.

Abortion is another case in point. Although inroads have

finally been made, abortion is limited by obstructive rules. Both

outright prohibition of abortion and abortion under present

controls deny the great moral principle of self-ownership. Thus,

they are throwbacks to slavery, a situation essentially defined by

the barriers put up between people and their right of self-ownership. If a woman owns her body then she owns her womb, and

she alone has the complete and sole right to determine whether

to have a child or not.

14 Defending the Undefendable

chap3malepig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:27 PM Page 14The ways in which the government supports or is itself

actively involved in coercing women are manifold. Until very

recently, for example, women did not have the same rights as

men to own property or to engage in contracts. There are still

laws on the books that prevent married women, but not married

men, from selling property or engaging in business without the

permission of their spouses. There are stiffer entrance requirements for women than men at some state universities. The infamous tracking system in our public schools shunts young boys

into “male” activities (sports and carpentry), and young girls

into “female” activities (cooking and sewing).

It is important to realize that these problems all have two

things in common: they are instances of aggressive force used

against women and they are all inextricably bound up with the

apparatus of the state. Although not widely appreciated, this is

no more true of rape and prostitution than of the other actions

and activities described. For what does it mean to say that

women do not have the right to abort, to own property, or to set

up businesses, except that women who engage in these activities

will be stopped by state compulsion, fines, or jail sentences.

Clearly, both the government as well as individuals can discriminate. But only state and not private discrimination violate

the rights of women. When a private individual discriminates,

he (or she) does so with his (or her) own resources, in his (or

her) own name. But when the state discriminates, it does so with

resources taken from its citizenry and in the name of all of its

subjects. This is a crucial difference.

If a private enterprise such as a movie discriminates, it runs

the risk of losing money and possible bankruptcy. People opposing the discrimination may withhold funds or not patronize the

institution. However, when the state discriminates, these people

do not have this option, and there is no risk of bankruptcy. Even

when people oppose discrimination in a state institution from

which they can withhold funds, (students can, for example, at a

state university) the state has other alternatives. It can make up

for the dwindling funds from tax revenues, and these must be

paid under threat of compulsion.

The Male Chauvinist Pig 15

chap3malepig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:27 PM Page 15Even the pinches that women are subject to are inextricably

bound up with the state apparatus. Contrast what happens

when sexual harassment takes place within the confines of a private place (a department store) and when it takes place outside

(on a street one block away from the store). When a woman is

molested within the confines of a private place the whole force

of the profit-and-loss free-enterprise system comes to bear on

the problem. It is in the entrepreneur’s self-interest to apprehend and discourage offensive actions. If he does not, he will

lose customers. There is, in effect, competition between store

owners to provide safe and comfortable environments for customers. The ones who succeed to the greatest degree in their

antipinching drive will tend to reap the greatest profits. The

ones who fail, whether because they ignore the issue or are

unsuccessful in implementing their programs, will tend to incur

the greatest losses. This, of course, is not a guarantee that pinching and other offensive behavior will cease. It will always occur

as long as people remain imperfectly moral. But this system does

encourage, by profits and losses, those who are most able to control the situation.

Contrasted with what occurs in the public domain, however,

the private system begins to look like perfection itself. In the

public domain there is almost no incentive to deal with the

problem. There is no one who automatically loses anything

when a woman is pinched or otherwise harassed. The city police

are supposedly charged with the responsibility, but they function

without benefit of the automatic profit-and-loss incentive system. Their salaries which are paid for by taxation, are not related

to performance and they suffer no financial loss when women

are molested. It is clear then why most of this type of harassment

occurs on the streets and not within shops and stores.

NONCOERCIVE ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST WOMEN

Many actions taken against women are not, strictly speaking,

coercive. For example, whistling, leering, derision, innuendo,

unwelcome flirtation, etc. (Of course, it is often difficult to tell

16 Defending the Undefendable

chap3malepig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:27 PM Page 16beforehand whether a flirtatious remark will be welcome or

not.) Consider the sexual come-ons which continually occur

between men and women. Although to many people, and especially those in the women’s movement, there is no real difference between this type of behavior and coercive acts, the distinction is crucial. Both may be objectionable to many women, but

one is a physically invasive act, the other is not.

There are many other kinds of actions which fall into the

same category. Examples include the use of sexual vulgarisms

(“broad” or “piece of ass”), the advocacy of double-standard

mores, certain rules of etiquette, the encouragement of the mental capacity of boys and not of girls, the societal opprobrium of

women who participate in “male” athletic activities, “sexist”

advertising, and the pedestals that women are placed upon.

There are two important points to be made with regard to

these and other attitudes and behavior which may be offensive

but not coercive. The first is that such noncoercive actions cannot legitimately be outlawed. Any attempt to do so would

involve the mass violation of the rights of other individuals.

Freedom of speech means that people have the right to say whatever they like, even to make possibly reprehensible and boorish

statements.

The second point is more complicated and by no means

obvious. To a considerable extent, these reprehensible but noncoercive actions are themselves fostered and encouraged by coercive statist activities which operate behind-the-scenes. For example, the widespread incidence of government ownership and

management of land, parks, sidewalks, roads, businesses, etc.

These coercive activities, based on illegitimate compulsory taxation, can be legitimately criticized. If they were eliminated, the

unsavory but legal behavior they support would diminish, with

the aid of the free market.

Consider as an example the case in which a (male) boss

harasses a (female) secretary in an objectionable but noncoercive manner. We shall compare the situation when such activity

takes place on public and private property. To analyze this, we

must understand what the labor economist calls “compensating

The Male Chauvinist Pig 17

chap3malepig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:27 PM Page 17differentials.” A compensating differential is the amount of

money just necessary to compensate an employee for the psychic

losses that go with the job. For instance, suppose there are two

job opportunities. One is in an air-conditioned office, with a

good view, pleasant surroundings and pleasant coworkers. The

other is in a damp basement, surrounded by hostile fellow workers. However, there is usually some wage differential large

enough to attract an individual to the less pleasant job. The

exact amount of the differential varies for different people. But

it exists.

Just as a compensating differential must be paid to hire

employees to work in damp basements, so it must be paid to

female workers in offices where they are subject to sexual harassment. This increase in wages comes out of the boss’s pocket if he

is a private businessman. Thus he has a strong monetary incentive to control his behavior and the behavior of those who work

for him.

But the increase in wages is not paid by the boss of a government or government-supported enterprise! It is paid by the

taxpayer’s money, which is not paid upon the deliverance of satisfactory services, but is collected by coercion. Thus the boss

has less reason to exercise control. It is clear that this type of

sexual harassment, in itself offensive but not coercive, is made

possible by the coercive actions of the government in its role as

tax collector. If taxes were paid voluntarily, the boss, even in a

government office, would be subject to meaningful control. He

would stand to lose money if his behavior offended his employees. But because he is supported by money from coercive taxation, his employees are at his mercy.

In like manner, contrast the situation where a group of men

whistle, jeer, and make disparaging and insulting remarks to

and about women passersby. One group does this on a publicly

owned sidewalk or street, the other in a privately owned place

such as a restaurant or shopping mall.

Now, under which condition is this legal but reprehensible

behavior more likely to be ended? In the public sector, it is in no

businessperson’s financial interest to end the harassment. Since

18 Defending the Undefendable

chap3malepig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:27 PM Page 18by assumption this behavior is legal, the public police forces cannot do anything to stop it either.

But in the realm of private enterprise, every entrepreneur

who hopes to employ or sell to women (or to men who object to

this maltreatment of women) has a strong pecuniary incentive

to end it. This is why it is no accident that such harassment

The Male Chauvinist Pig 19

“This is mission control—Houston advises that Astronaut

Mary Ellen Wilson is 26 hours into her menstrual cycle with

only occasional bursts of anger directed toward Lt. Commander Joe Farley and Captain Ed Veidt interspersed with

moderate sobbing.”

chap3malepig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:27 PM Page 19almost always takes place on public sidewalks or streets, and virtually never in department stores, restaurants, shopping malls,

or other establishments which seek profits and care about their

bottom line.

THE MALE CHAUVINIST PIG AS HERO

Consideration in some detail should be given to two grievous

errors committed by the adherents of women’s liberation. It is

for his good sense in opposing these programs that the male

chauvinist pig can be considered a hero.

Laws compelling “equal wages for equal work.” The question

is, of course, how to define “equal work.” If “equal work” is

taken literally, it embraces all aspects of the employee’s productivity in the short run as well as in the long run, including psychic differentials, the discrimination of customers and other

workers, and the ability of the employee to mesh with the likes,

dislikes, and idiosyncrasies of the entrepreneur. In short, all

these components must be weighted, if equal work is exactly the

same as equal profitability for the entrepreneur. Only then, in

the free market, workers with such equal abilities will tend to

earn equal wages. If, for instance, women were paid less than

men even though they were equally good workers in this sense,

forces would be set up which, when carried to their conclusion,

would insure equal pay. How? The employer would be able to

make more money by replacing male workers with female workers. The demand for male workers would decrease, thus lowering male wages, and the demand for female workers would

increase, raising female wages. Every employer who substituted

a woman for a man would have a competitive advantage over

the one who refused to do so. The profit maximizing employers

would continually earn greater profits than would the discriminatory employers. The profit maximizers would be able to

undersell the discriminators, and, other things being equal,

eventually drive them into bankruptcy.

In actual point of fact, however, the proponents of equal

wages for equal work do not have this strict type of equality in

20 Defending the Undefendable

chap3malepig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:27 PM Page 20mind. Their definition of “equality” is equal years of schooling,

equivalent skills, equivalent college degrees, and perhaps similar scores in qualification tests. However, individuals who are

virtually identical with respect to such criteria can have vastly

different abilities to earn profits for employers. For example,

consider two workers, one male, one female, identical as far as

test scores and college degrees are concerned. It is an indisputable fact that in the event of a pregnancy, it is far more likely

for the woman to stay home and raise the child. Consideration

of whether this custom is fair or not is not relevant. What is pertinent is whether it is factual or not. If the woman stays at home,

interrupting a career or employment, she will be worth less to

the employer. In this case, although the male and female candidates for the job might be identically qualified, in the long run,

the man will be more productive than the woman and, therefore, more valuable to the employer.

Paradoxically, many pieces of evidence which indicate that

men and women are not equally productive come from the

women’s liberation movement itself. There are several studies in

which women and men were first tested as groups, in isolation

from one another, and then together, in competition with one

another. In some cases, when the groups were tested in isolation,

the women showed clearly that they had higher innate abilities

than the men. Yet, when the two groups were tested in competition, the men invariably scored better than the women. Again, it

should be emphasized that the concern here is not with the fairness of such occurrences, but with the effects. The point is that in

the world of work, women will often find themselves in competition with men. If they constantly defer to men, and cannot do

their best in competition with men, they are, in fact, of less help

in procuring profits for the entrepreneur. If women are equal to

men in test scores and are inferior to them when it comes to

profit maximizing, then the equal pay for equal work law will

prove disastrous for women.

It will be calamitous because the profit maximizing incentives will be turned around. Instead of the market exerting a

strong steady push toward firing men and hiring women,

The Male Chauvinist Pig 21

chap3malepig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:27 PM Page 21employers will be motivated to fire women and hire men in their

place. If he is forced to pay men and women the same wages,

even though they are not equally productive, profits will be

increased to the degree that male workers replace females.

Employers who are inclined to take the feminist view, and insist

on keeping woman workers, will have decreased profits, and lose

their share of the market. The employers who prosper will be

those who do not hire women.

It should be stressed that the tendency for women who are

truly equal to men in productivity to receive equal wages exists

only in the profìt-and-loss free market. Only in free enterprise

are there financial incentives to hire highly productive underpriced women, to “take advantage” of their plight, and thus to

raise their wages.

In the government and nonprofit sectors, these profit incentives are, by definition, absent. It is hardly an accident, then, that

virtually all real abuses of women in this respect take place in

government and nonprofit areas such as schools, universities,

libraries, foundations, social work, and public services. There

are few allegations of underpayment to women in private enterprise fields such as computers, advertising, or the media.

LAWS COMPELLING NONDISCRIMINATION

McSorley’s is a bar in New York City that catered exclusively to

men, until it was “liberated.” Under the banner of the new

antidiscrimination law in New York State, women were served

for the first time in the history of the establishment. This was

hailed as a great progressive step forward by liberal, progressive,

and women’s liberation factions. The basic philosophy behind

the law and the attendant liberation of McSorley’s seems to be

that it is illegitimate to discriminate between potential customers on the basis of sex.

If the problems with this philosophy are not readily apparent, they can be made so by considering several reductiones ad

absurdum. If the philosophy were strictly adhered to, for example, would not separate bathrooms for men at “public” places be

22 Defending the Undefendable

chap3malepig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:27 PM Page 22considered “discriminatory”? And separate residence halls for

men? What about male homosexuals? They could be accused of

“discrimination” against women. And aren’t the women who

marry men discriminating against other women?

These examples, of course, are ridiculous. But they are consistent with the philosophy of antidiscrimination. If they are

ridiculous, it is because that philosophy is ridiculous.

It is important to realize that all human actions imply discrimination in the only sensible definition of that much abused

term: picking and choosing from available alternatives, the one

which best serves his or her interests. There is no action taken

by human beings which fails to accord with this dictum. We discriminate when we choose a toothpaste, decide upon a means of

transportation, whom to marry. The discrimination practiced by

the gourmet or wine taster is and can only be the discrimination

practiced by all human beings. Any attack upon discrimination,

therefore, is an attempt to restrict the options open to all individuals.

But what of the women’s option to drink at McSorley’s? Was

their right to choose being violated? No. What they experienced

was what a man experiences when a woman rejects his sexual

advances. The woman who refuses to date a man is not guilty of

violating his rights—for his rights do not include a relationship

with her. That exists as a possibility, but not a right, unless she is

his slave. In the same way, a man who wishes to drink in the

company of other men is not guilty of violating women’s rights.

For women’s rights do not include drinking with people who do

not wish to drink with them. It is only in a slave society that this

is not so. It is only in a slave society that the master can compel

the slave to do his bidding. If the antidiscriminatory forces succeed in forcing their philosophy on the general public they will

also succeed in forcing on the public the cloven hoof of slavery.

To the extent that the male chauvinist pig succeeds in resisting

these trends, he must be looked upon as a hero.

 

ok kanske inte så precist, men tycker liknelsen dålig arbetsgivare är viktig. en bättre:

THE FAT CAPITALIST-PIG EMPLOYER

“If not for the minimum wage law and other progressive

legislation, the employers, the fat-capitalist-pig exploiting

employers, to be precise, would lower wages to whatever

level they wanted. At best, we would be pushed back to

the days of the sweatshop; at worst, to the days of the

industrial revolution and before, when mankind waged

an often losing battle with starvation.”

S

o goes the conventional wisdom on the merits of minimum wage legislation. It will be shown, however, that this

conventional wisdom is wrong, tragically wrong. It

assumes a villain where none exists. What does the law actually

accomplish and what are its consequences?

The minimum wage law is, on the face of it, not an employment law but an unemployment law. It does not force an

employer to hire an employee at the minimum wage level, or at

any other level. It compels the employer not to hire the employee

at certain wage levels, namely, those below the minimum set by

law. It coerces the worker, no matter how anxious he may be to

accept a job at a wage level below the minimum, not to accept

the job. It obligates the worker who is faced with a choice

223

chap29cappig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:30 PM Page 223between a low-wage job and unemployment to choose unemployment. Nor does the law even push any wage up; it only lops

off jobs which do not meet the standard.

How would wages be determined in the absence of minimum wage legislation? If the labor market consists of many suppliers of labor (employees) and many demanders of labor

(employers), then the wage rate will tend to be set in accordance

with what the economist calls the “marginal productivity of

labor.” The marginal productivity of labor is the extra amount of

receipts an employer would have if he employs a given worker.

In other words, if by adding a given worker to the payroll, the

employer’s total receipts rise by $60 per week, then the marginal

productivity of that worker is $60 per week. The wage rate paid

to the worker tends to equal the worker’s marginal productivity.

Why is this so, in view of the fact that the employer would prefer to pay the worker virtually nothing, no matter what his productivity? The answer is, competition between employers.

For example, assume the worker’s marginal productivity is

equal to $1.00 per hour. If he were hired at 5¢ per hour, the

employer would make 95¢ per hour profit. Other employers

would bid for that worker. Even if they paid him 6¢, 7¢, or 10¢

an hour, their profit would still make the bidding worthwhile.

The bidding would end at the wage level of $1.00 per hour. For

only when the wages paid equal the worker’s marginal productivity will the incentive to bid for the worker stop.

But suppose the employers mutually agree not to hire workers at more than 5¢ per hour? This occurred in the Middle Ages

when cartels of employers got together, with the aid of the state,

to pass laws which prohibited wage levels above a certain maximum. Such agreements can only succeed with state aid and

there are good reasons why this is so.

In the noncartel situation, the employer hires a certain number of workers—the number which he believes will yield the

maximum profit. If an employer hires only ten workers, it is

because he thinks the productivity of the tenth will be greater

than the wage he must pay and that the productivity of an

eleventh would be less than this amount.

224 Defending the Undefendable

chap29cappig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:30 PM Page 224If, then, a cartel succeeds in lowering the wage of workers

with a marginal productivity of $1.00 to 5¢ per hour, each

employer will want to hire many more workers. This is known

as the “law of downward sloping demand” (the lower the price,

the more buyers will want to purchase). The worker whose productivity was, in the eyes of the employer, just below $1.00, and

therefore not worth hiring at $1.00 per hour, will be eagerly

sought at 5¢ per hour.

This leads to the first flaw in the cartel: each employer who

is a party to the cartel has a great financial incentive to cheat.

Each employer will try to bid workers away from the others. The

only way he can do this is by offering higher wages. How much

higher? All the way up to $1.00, as we have seen before, and for

the same reason.

The second flaw is that nonmembers of the cartel arrangement would want to hire these workers at 5¢ per hour, even

assuming no “cheating” by members. This also tends to drive up

the wage from 5¢ to $1.00 per hour. Others, such as would-be

employers in noncartel geographical areas, self-employed artisans who could not before afford employees, and employers who

had previously hired only part-time workers, would all contribute to an upward trend in the wage level.

Even if the workers themselves are ignorant of wage levels

paid elsewhere, or are located in isolated areas where there is no

alternative employment, these forces will apply. It is not necessary that both parties to a trade have knowledge of all relevant

conditions. It has been said that unless both parties are equally

well-informed, “imperfect competition” results, and economic

laws somehow do not apply. But this is mistaken. Workers usually have little overall knowledge of the labor market, but

employers are supposedly much better informed. And this is all

that is necessary. While the worker may not be well-informed

about alternative job opportunities, he knows well enough to

take the highest paying job. All that is necessary is that the

employer present himself to the employee who is earning less

than his marginal productivity, and offer him a higher wage.

The Fat Capitalist-Pig Employer 225

chap29cappig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:30 PM Page 225And this is exactly what naturally happens. The self-interest of employers leads them “as if by an invisible hand” to ferret out low-wage workers, offer them higher wages, and spirit

them away. The whole process tends to raise wages to the level

of marginal productivity. This applies not only to urban workers,

but to workers in isolated areas who are ignorant of alternative

job opportunities and would not have the money to get there

even if aware of them. It is true that the differential between the

wage level and the productivity of the unsophisticated worker

226 Defending the Undefendable

“You must stop this insane diet, J.T.—so what if the union

does call you a ‘FAT CAPITLISTIC PIG’!”

chap29cappig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:30 PM Page 226will have to be great enough to compensate the employer for the

costs of coming to the worker, informing him of job alternatives,

and paying the costs of sending him there. But this is almost

always the case, and employers have long been cognizant of it.

The Mexican “wetbacks” are a case in point. Few groups

have less knowledge of the labor market in the United States,

and less money for traveling to more lucrative jobs. Not only do

employers from southern California travel hundreds of miles to

find them, but they also furnish trucks or travel money to transport them northward. In fact, employers from as far away as

Wisconsin travel to Mexico for “cheap labor” (workers receiving

less than their marginal product). This is eloquent testimony to

the workings of an obscure economic law they have never heard

of. (There are complaints about the poor working conditions of

these migrant workers. But these complaints are mainly from

either well-intentioned people who are unaware of the economic realities, or from those not in sympathy with these hapless workers receiving full value for their labors. The Mexican

workers themselves view the package of wages and working conditions as favorable compared to alternatives at home. This is

seen in their willingness, year after year, to come to the United

States during the harvesting season.)

It is not the minimum wage law, therefore, that stands

between Western civilization and a return to the stone age.

There are market forces and profit maximizing behavior on the

part of entrepreneurs, which ensure that wages do not fall below

the level of productivity. And the level of productivity is itself

determined by technology, education, and the amount of capital

equipment in a society, not by the amount of “socially progressive” legislation enacted. Minimum wage legislation does not do

what its press claims. What does it do? What are its actual

effects?

What will be the reaction of the typical worker to a legislated

increase in wages from $1.00 to $2.00? If he is already fully

employed, he may want to work more hours. If he is partially

employed or unemployed, it is virtually certain that he will want

to work more.

The Fat Capitalist-Pig Employer 227

chap29cappig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:30 PM Page 227The typical employer, on the other hand, will react in the

opposite way. He will want to fire virtually all of the workers he

is forced to give raises to. (Otherwise he would have granted

raises before he was compelled to.) Now, he has to keep production up, so he might not be able to adjust this situation immediately. But as time passes he will replace his unexpectedly expensive unskilled workers with fewer but more skilled workers and

with more sophisticated machinery, so that his total productivity

remains constant.

Students of an introductory economics course learn that

when a price level above equilibrium is set, the result is a surplus. In the example, when a minimum wage level above $1.00

per hour is set, the result is a surplus of labor—otherwise called

unemployment. Iconoclastic as it may sound, it is, therefore, true

that the minimum wage law causes unemployment. At the

higher wage level it creates more people willing to work and

fewer jobs available.

The only debatable question is: how much unemployment

does the minimum wage law create? This depends on how

quickly the unskilled workers are replaced by equivalently productive skilled workers in conjunction with machines. In our

own recent history, for example, when the minimum wage law

increased from 40¢ to 75¢ per hour, elevator operators began to

be replaced. It has taken some time, but most elevators are now

automatic. The same thing happened to unskilled dishwashers.

They have been and are still being replaced by automatic dishwashing machinery, operated and repaired by semi-skilled and

skilled workers. The process continues. As the minimum wage

law is applied to greater and greater segments of the unskilled

population, and as its level rises, more and more unskilled people will become unemployed.

Finally, it is important to note that a minimum wage law

only directly affects those earning less than the minimum wage

level. A law requiring that everyone be paid at least $2.00 per

hour has no effect on an individual earning $10.00 per hour. But

before assuming that the minimum wage law simply results in

pay raises for low-wage earners, consider what would happen if

228 Defending the Undefendable

chap29cappig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:30 PM Page 228a $100.00 per hour minimum wage law went into effect. How

many of us have such great productivity that an employer would

be willing to pay $100.00 for an hour of our services? Only those

thought to be worth that much money would retain their jobs.

The rest would be unemployed. The example is extreme, of

course, but the principle which would operate if such a law were

passed does operate now. When wages are raised by law, the

workers with low productivity are discharged.

Who is hurt by the minimum wage law? The unskilled,

whose productivity level is below the wage level legislated. The

unemployment rate of black male teenagers is usually (under-)

estimated at 50 percent, three times the unemployment level of

the 1933 depression. And this percentage does not even begin to

take into account the great numbers who have given up searching for a job in the face of this unemployment rate.

The lost income that this represents is only the tip of the iceberg. More important is the on-the-job-training these young

men could be receiving. Were they working at $1.00 per hour (or

even less) instead of being unemployed at $2.00 per hour, they

would be learning skills that would enable them to raise their

productivity and wage rates above $2.00 in the future. Instead

they are condemned to street corners, idleness, learning only

those skills which will earn them jail sentences at some early

future time.

One of the greatest hurdles facing a black teenager is looking for his first job. Every employer demands work experience,

but how can the young black get it if no one will hire him? This

is not because of some “employer conspiracy” to denigrate

minority teenagers. It is because of the minimum wage law. If an

employer is forced to pay for an experienced-level worker, is it

any wonder that he demands this kind of labor?

A paradox is that many black teenagers are worth more than

the minimum wage but are unemployed because of it. In order to

be employed with a $2.00 an hour minimum wage law, it is not

enough just to be worth $2.00. You have to be thought to be worth

$2.00 per hour by an employer who stands to lose money if he

guesses wrong and may go broke if he guesses wrong too often.

The Fat Capitalist-Pig Employer 229

chap29cappig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:30 PM Page 229With a minimum wage law, an employer cannot afford to take a

chance. And, unfortunately, black teenagers are frequently

viewed as “risky,” as a class. When confronted with a reluctant

employer, a Horatio Alger hero could stride over manfully and

offer to work for a token salary, or even for nothing, for a term of

two weeks. During this time our hero would prove to the

employer that his productivity deserved a higher wage rate.

More important, he would bear with the employer part of the

risk of hiring an untried worker. The employer would go along

with this arrangement because he would be risking little.

But the Horatio Alger hero did not have to do battle with a

minimum wage law which made such an arrangement illegal.

The law thus insures that there is less chance for the black

teenager to prove his worth in an honest way.

The minimum wage law hurts not only the black teenager,

but the black ghetto merchant and industrialist as well. Without

this law, he would have access, in a way which his white counterpart would not, to a cheap labor pool of black teenager labor.

The young black worker would be more accessible to him since

he tends to live in the ghetto and would have easier access to the

job site. He would undoubtedly have less resentment toward,

and a smoother work relationship with, a black entrepreneur.

Since this is one of the most important determinants of productivity for jobs of this type, the black employer could pay his

workers more than the white one could—and still make a profit.

Unfortunate as the effects on young black workers are, a

greater tragedy of the minimum wage law concerns the handicapped worker (the lame, the blind, the deaf, the amputee, the

paralyzed, and the mentally handicapped). The minimum wage

law effectively makes it illegal for a profit-seeking employer to

hire a handicapped person. All hopes of even a modicum of selfreliance are dashed. The choice the handicapped person faces is

between idleness and governmentally supported make-work

schemes which consist of trivial activities and are as demoralizing as idleness. That such schemes are supported by a government which makes honest employment impossible in the first

place, is an irony few handicapped people would find amusing.

230 Defending the Undefendable

chap29cappig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:30 PM Page 230Recently, certain classes of handicapped people (the slightly

handicapped) have become exempt from the minimum wage

law. It is, therefore, in the interest of employers to hire the

“slightly handicapped,” and they now have jobs. But if it has

been realized that the minimum wage law hurts the employment chances of “slightly handicaped” people, surely it

should be realized that it hurts the chances of others. Why are

seriously handicapped people not exempt?

If the minimum wage law does not protect the individual it

seems designed to protect, whose interests does it serve? Why

was such legislation passed?

Among the most vociferous proponents of minimum wage

legislation is organized labor—and this must give us pause for

thought. For the average union member earns much more than

the minimum wage level of $2.00 per hour. If he is already earning $10.00 per hour, as we have seen, his wage level is in accordance with the law, and is not, therefore, affected by it. What

then accounts for his passionate commitment to it?

His concern is hardly with the downtrodden worker—his

black, Puerto Rican, Mexican-American and American-Indian

brethren. For his union is typically 99.44 percent white, and he

strenuously resists the attempts by members of minority groups

to enter his union. What then stands behind organized labor’s

interest in minimum wage legislation?

When the minimum wage law forced up the wages of

unskilled labor, the law of downward sloping demand caused

employers to substitute skilled labor for unskilled labor. In the

same way, when a labor union, composed mainly of skilled

laborers, obtains a wage increase, the law of downward sloping

demand causes employers to substitute unskilled laborers for

skilled laborers! In other words, because skilled and unskilled

laborers are, within certain bounds, substitutable for each other,

they are actually in competition with one another. It might well

be that it is 10 or 20 unskilled workers who are in competition

with, and hence substitutable for two or three skilled workers,

plus a more sophisticated machine. But of the substitutability

itself, especially in the long run, there can be no doubt.

The Fat Capitalist-Pig Employer 231

chap29cappig.qxd 2/21/2008 12:30 PM Page 231What better way to get rid of your competition than to force

it to price itself out of the market? What better way for a union

to insure that the next wage hike will not tempt employers to

hire unskilled, nonunion scabs (especially minority group members)? The tactic is to get a law passed that makes the wage of

the unskilled so high that they cannot be hired, no matter how

outrageous the wage demands of the union are. (If minority

groups could get a law passed requiring all union wages to rise

ten times their present amount, they could virtually destroy the

unions. Union membership would decline precipitously.

Employers would fire all unionists, and in cases where they

could not, or did not, they would go bankrupt.)

Do the unions purposefully and knowingly advocate such a

harmful law? It is not motives that concern us here. It is only

acts and their effects. The effects of the minimum wage law are

disastrous. It adversely affects the poor, the unskilled, and

minority group members, the very people it was supposedly

designed to help.

 

läs mer här:

http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf

 

 

Har själv jobbat på ett jobb där snittansällningen var dryga månaden, jag klarade inte ens en enda dag. Saker som för lång arbetstid, för dålig lön, skadlig arbetsmiljö mm som ungdomar inte vågar ifrågasätta gör att sviniga arbetsgivare kan tjäna stora pengar.

vilket beror på den av staten genom våld skapade arbetslösheten som gör det möjligt. hade ungdomar haft mer alternativ hade de inte accepterat dåliga arbetsplatser alternativt krävt mer pengar för att ändå vara kvar där.

 

Du har säkert på fötterna för ditt uttalande tok, men jag är av uppfattningen att det finns riktigt många svin till arbetsgivare som utnyttjar faktumet att folk vill ha jobb maximalt till den gräns där det blir absurt.

japp, men det är frivilligt att arbeta hos dem.

 

1. Macdonalds kan göra fin vinst och ändå hålla sig till de avtal och ramar parterna gemensamt satt upp.

skitbra!

 

2. Är lätt att räkna siffror som nyföretagande ger men hur räknar du kostnader i ett samhälle där en bra mycket större del kommer bli helt utslagna. Antingen genom att de går in i väggen fysiskt eller mentalt.

givetvis helt åt skogen att folk tvingas skatta 50-90% av sin inkomst så att de tvingas arbeta halvt ihjäl sig för att försörja den offantliga sektorn. hade folk sluppit skatta hade de kunnat ta trevligare jobb med lägre löner alternativt arbetat mindre.

[Kissekatt]

det lär den inte göra om man kan tjäna samma slant o ligga på soffan som att arbeta

 

Alltid något att du iaf lyckas få in varför kommunism/socialism är i grunden oförenligt med människan, även om det sannolikt inte var ändamålet med ditt inlägg.

[heltok]

ett intressant feltänk jag tror många sossar gör:

1. höjd arbetgivaravgift -> mindre jobb

2. sänkt arbetsgivaravgift -> rikare ägare

 

2an är givetvis negativa 1an och får alltså när jämvikt infallit negativa konsekvensen.

 

also

 

 

http://www.hbo.com/video/video.html/?autoplay=true&vid=1162375&filter=game-of-thrones&view=null

 

ser bra ut

[lolzor]

http://svtplay.se/v/2329491/dokument_inifran/generation_utanfor?cb,a1364145,1,f,-1/pb,a1364142,1,f,-1/pl,v,,2329491/sb,p103467,1,f,-1

 

Säljsekten är ännu bättre, mhmmm, kapitalism at it's finest.

[Burning]

ca 45 sek in i klippet: "A fantasy kingdom called "Västerås"" WTF

[heltok]

angående zeitgeist:

 

Säljsekten är ännu bättre, mhmmm, kapitalism at it's finest.

 

verkligen. är inte så mycket för marknadsföring och handlar helst elektronik på nätet så geab lockar inte direkt, men hårt arbetande uppskattas givetvis!

 

jag blev helt mer positivt inställd till lidl av reportaget. om deras arbetare sliter så hårt för så lite betyder det kanske att man får mycket för pengarna där. trist de har så dåligt sortiment bara, så värderar man sin tid högt går man till andra ställen. men helt klart förhöjer lidl livskvaliten för många familjer.

 

samma med mcd, förvisso att jag mår dåligt av cheeseburgare, men rejält bra pr för dem var det iaf. klart man får bra valuta för pengarna där så hårt som de sliter och så billig personal de har. kan helt klart se varför så många väljer att gå till mcd, ofta vill man ju bara ha en bit mat utan krångel till en billig slant. det gör mcd väldigt bra.

[MoonKenny]

 

 

verkligen. är inte så mycket för marknadsföring och handlar helst elektronik på nätet så geab lockar inte direkt, men hårt arbetande uppskattas givetvis!

 

jag blev helt mer positivt inställd till lidl av reportaget. om deras arbetare sliter så hårt för så lite betyder det kanske att man får mycket för pengarna där. trist de har så dåligt sortiment bara, så värderar man sin tid högt går man till andra ställen. men helt klart förhöjer lidl livskvaliten för många familjer.

 

samma med mcd, förvisso att jag mår dåligt av cheeseburgare, men rejält bra pr för dem var det iaf. klart man får bra valuta för pengarna där så hårt som de sliter och så billig personal de har. kan helt klart se varför så många väljer att gå till mcd, ofta vill man ju bara ha en bit mat utan krångel till en billig slant. det gör mcd väldigt bra.

 

Skönt när man ser tydliga tecken på den totala avsaknaden av humant tänkande och den fullständiga fokuseringen på profit, oavsett vilken typ av lidande det leder till för arbetare, som liberaler har.

[heltok]

Skönt när man ser tydliga tecken på den totala avsaknaden av humant tänkande och den fullständiga fokuseringen på profit, oavsett vilken typ av lidande det leder till för arbetare, som liberaler har.

 

beskriv ditt egna humana tänkande? bojkottar du dem pga att det arbetar hårt? tror du att de får det bättre då? hur många kineser arbetade under bra mycket sämre förhållanden än dem för bra mycket lägre lön bland de som var inblandade i tillverkningen av datorn du skriver på?

 

givetvis tråkigt med historierna om sadister till chefer, men det är väl undantagsfall och förekommer säkert i alla branscher mer eller mindre. att sådana skrämmer bort duktig personal är ju inte bra för företaget så företaget har ju intresse av att sådant inte förekommer.

 

fokusering på profit finns alltid inom företag, utan den blir det nordkorea/sovjet/venezuela. var inte så inhuman och promota politik som lett till miljoners människors död.

[greywolf]

Säljsekten är ännu bättre, mhmmm, kapitalism at it's finest.

socialism at its finest?

[greywolf]

Skönt när man ser tydliga tecken på den totala avsaknaden av humant tänkande och den fullständiga fokuseringen på profit, oavsett vilken typ av lidande det leder till för arbetare, som liberaler har.

 

tror du har missuppfattat liberalers ståndpunkt.

nyckelordet i den fria marknaden är "fria".

löst tyckande eller statligt tvång leder inte till att oönskade delar av verkligheten plötsligt försvinner.

 

jag tror inte många liberaler skulle ha något problem med att du väljer att köpa enbart fairtrade eller jobba för arbetarägda företag.

[MoonKenny]

beskriv ditt egna humana tänkande? bojkottar du dem pga att det arbetar hårt? tror du att de får det bättre då? hur många kineser arbetade under bra mycket sämre förhållanden än dem för bra mycket lägre lön bland de som var inblandade i tillverkningen av datorn du skriver på?

 

givetvis tråkigt med historierna om sadister till chefer, men det är väl undantagsfall och förekommer säkert i alla branscher mer eller mindre. att sådana skrämmer bort duktig personal är ju inte bra för företaget så företaget har ju intresse av att sådant inte förekommer.

 

fokusering på profit finns alltid inom företag, utan den blir det nordkorea/sovjet/venezuela. var inte så inhuman och promota politik som lett till miljoners människors död.

 

Mitt eget humana tänkande? Jag vill ha ett system som fungerar humant, ett system som inte låter folk komma i klämm. Inte ett där folk som hamnar snett aldrig någonsin får en chans att ta sig tillbaka till ett värdigt liv tack vare att det inte finns något som helst skyddsnät.

 

Jag har ju aldrig sagt att det inte ska finnas fokusering på profit inom företag, det handlar bara om hur många lik som skövlas längs vägen för att nå den yttersta profiten, samt hur jag ogillar system som låter det hända. Att enskilda individer låter det hända är självklart, det kommer inget kunna ändra på.

 

På tal om att promota politik som leder till miljontals människors död; det måste vara skönt att ingen kan (och förhoppningsvis inte kommer kunna) se förödandet och den totala misär för de fattigaste som ert "drömsamhälle" skulle leda till. Eftersom det bara är en föreställning ni har så slipper vi ju se både det och hur många fler miljoner som snabbt hade fått sätta livet till. Tack och lov det.

[MoonKenny]

tror du har missuppfattat liberalers ståndpunkt.

nyckelordet i den fria marknaden är "fria".

löst tyckande eller statligt tvång leder inte till att oönskade delar av verkligheten plötsligt försvinner.

 

jag tror inte många liberaler skulle ha något problem med att du väljer att köpa enbart fairtrade eller jobba för arbetarägda företag.

 

Kul att en liberal börjar prata om verklighet, det är ju inte varje dag om man säger så.

 

Ett aktuellt filmtips såhär i både Oscarstider och kapitalistsnack kanske kan vara dokumentären "Inside Job".

(Ja, jag vet redan att ni tycker USA är sönderreglerat)

[Kissekatt]

Jo, det är ju verkligen kapitalismen i sig som är problemet när det kommer till snedvridna incitament som är grundade i statlig uppbackning. Det är ett riktigt bra argument mot liberalism och anti-reglering. Där fick du dom allt.

[heltok]

Mitt eget humana tänkande? Jag vill ha ett system som fungerar humant, ett system som inte låter folk komma i klämm. Inte ett där folk som hamnar snett aldrig någonsin får en chans att ta sig tillbaka till ett värdigt liv tack vare att det inte finns något som helst skyddsnät.

 

det vill väl vi alla.

 

ser inte hur du tänker, du bara hur du vill.

 

imo lyckas kapitalismen bäst med detta, jämför fattigdom i nordkorea med fattigdom i hongkong.

 

Jag har ju aldrig sagt att det inte ska finnas fokusering på profit inom företag, det handlar bara om hur många lik som skövlas längs vägen för att nå den yttersta profiten, samt hur jag ogillar system som låter det hända.

fler har tänkt som du:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

 

anledningen att ungdomar tvingas göra skitjobb idag är för att de inte har ett bättre alternativ. förbjuda dem från att göra skitjobb kommer inte ge dem bättre alternativ, bara sänka totala välståndet. genom att någon gör skitjobben kan andra lägga mer tid där de har högre produktivitet, resurser frigöras som sedan investeras i att skapa mer välstånd där arbetstillfällen uppstår.

 

På tal om att promota politik som leder till miljontals människors död; det måste vara skönt att ingen kan (och förhoppningsvis inte kommer kunna) se förödandet och den totala misär för de fattigaste som ert "drömsamhälle" skulle leda till.

seasteading lär visa det. drömsamhällen lär vi aldrig få se, men jag ser iaf en tydlig trend, ju mer likt mitt drömsamhälle ju bättre utveckling, ju mer olikt mitt drömsamhälle desto sämre utveckling.

 

1. håller du med om att ju högre skattetryck och desto mindre ekonomisk frihet, desto sämre går det rent empiriskt?

2. vad får dig att tro att extrempunkterna skulle skilja sig om sambandet är så starkt från 5-95% skattetryck, att det skulle vara annorlunda vid 0% respektive 100%?

[Slasktratt]

svt är som vanligt efterblivna och fattar inte att mcdonalds vinster är bra, om de gör vinst betyder det att konkurrenter kan överväga att ge sig in på marknaden. att företag som anställer ungdomar går med vinst är ju precis det ungdomar behöver.

 

Fast efterblivna svt bevisade ju sin tes att subventionerna inte skapade några nya jobb hos Mc D. Iaf inte i den utsträckningen att det var effektivt i proportion till kostnaderna för subventioneringen. Det påstods aldrig att Mc D's vinster var det negativa sammanhanget. Problemet är inte att McD inte har råd att anställa. Problemet är att dom pressar profiten in absurdum.

 

Om du på allvar tror att Mc D behöver subventioner för att fortsätta göra gigantiska vinster så ska du nog akta dig för att kalla svt för efterblivna.

 

Dessutom betyder inte stora vinster automatiskt att konkurrenspotentialen är stor. Det är tydligt, inte minst inom hamburgerbranschen.

[heltok]

Fast efterblivna svt bevisade ju sin tes att subventionerna inte skapade några nya jobb hos Mc D. Iaf inte i den utsträckningen att det var effektivt i proportion till kostnaderna för subventioneringen. Det påstods aldrig att Mc D's vinster var det negativa sammanhanget. Problemet är inte att McD inte har råd att anställa. Problemet är att dom pressar profiten in absurdum.

 

Om du på allvar tror att Mc D behöver subventioner för att fortsätta göra gigantiska vinster så ska du nog akta dig för att kalla svt för efterblivna.

 

Dessutom betyder inte stora vinster automatiskt att konkurrenspotentialen är stor. Det är tydligt, inte minst inom hamburgerbranschen.

 

först tycker jag personligen att det är fel att kalla en skattelättnad för en subvention. om italienska maffian bara tar halva skyddspengen av kyrkor jämfört med restauranger subventionerar de inte kyrkor, de bara tar mindre pengar. subventionera är när man ger skattepengar till t ex jordbruk. men visst dold subvention används ofta som benämning av skattelättnader, men det beror på att skatte är så default i vårt samhälle vilket jag inte anser det behöver vara.

http://www.dagen.se/dagen/article.aspx?id=122179

 

sedan kan man fundera på om mcdonalds hade gått med förlust utan subventioneringen, hade isåfall antalet anställda varit oförändrat? och även om de hade gått med vinst, om vinsten hade varit mindre hade antalet anställda varit detsamma.

 

jag tycker iaf det är uppenbart att när mcd tidigare tagit beslut om att öppna nya restauranger har de bedömt lönsamheten i att göra det. anledningen att vi idag har så många är för att de har gjort bra med pengar. hade politiker förr minskat mängden pengar de skulle göra genom att t ex höja skatterna på att anställa hade vi idag haft färre mcd och därmed färre anställda på mcd.

 

förstår inte hur man inte kan se sambandet för mcd. mindre vinster -> mindre anställda. mer vinster mer anställda. kanske inte syns första året pga massa andra faktorer men syns definitivt på lång sikt.

 

och även om antalet på mcdonalds var oförändrat pga skattelättnaden är det säkert andra företag som tack vare skattelättnanden slapp tacka nej till att anställa en ungdom som de hade behövt göra vid normal skatt.

 

gah svt, fördummat så många

[greywolf]

Fast efterblivna svt bevisade ju sin tes att subventionerna inte skapade några nya jobb hos Mc D. Iaf inte i den utsträckningen att det var effektivt i proportion till kostnaderna för subventioneringen. Det påstods aldrig att Mc D's vinster var det negativa sammanhanget. Problemet är inte att McD inte har råd att anställa. Problemet är att dom pressar profiten in absurdum.

 

Om du på allvar tror att Mc D behöver subventioner för att fortsätta göra gigantiska vinster så ska du nog akta dig för att kalla svt för efterblivna.

 

Dessutom betyder inte stora vinster automatiskt att konkurrenspotentialen är stor. Det är tydligt, inte minst inom hamburgerbranschen.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_signal

och kanske: http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Alternative+cost

 

det finns ju uppenbarligen inga oövervinneliga problem som gör att man inte kan starta nya snabbmatsställen. inte i vårt samhälle och ännu mindre i ett friare samhälle. att folk inte vill starta nya restauranger har inget å göra med om de kan de eller inte.

[jackbalsam]

Ett aktuellt filmtips såhär i både Oscarstider och kapitalistsnack kanske kan vara dokumentären "Inside Job".

(Ja, jag vet redan att ni tycker USA är sönderreglerat)

 

Du tipsar alltså om en film som visar hur fel det blir om staten går in och reglerar. Tror ingen kommer säga emot dig i den här dagboken.

[Slasktratt]

det finns ju uppenbarligen inga oövervinneliga problem som gör att man inte kan starta nya snabbmatsställen. inte i vårt samhälle och ännu mindre i ett friare samhälle. att folk inte vill starta nya restauranger har inget å göra med om de kan de eller inte.

 

Vem har sagt något om oövervinnerliga problem? Självklart går det att konkurrera. Det betyder inte automatiskt att konkurrenspotentialen är större i en bransch där det finns mkt pengar.

[greywolf]

konkurrens är bra, stater leder till mindre konkurrens oftare än inte.

[andersnystrom]

Heltok har du läst Tyler Cowens e-bok "The Great Stagnation"? Vad tycker du i så fall om hans tes att USA sedan 1970-talet har upplevt en ekonomisk stagnation som till stor del beror på att den teknologiska utvecklingen har avstannat. För en sammanfattning läs hans krönika här http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/business/30view.html (kräver registrering).

[affe2000]

Slasktratt, du får gärna svara på mitt svar på ditt tidigare inlägg, som jag inte höll med om.

 

Någon annan får gärna också svara då jag inte är alls främmande för att jag har fel.