Continuing the discussion about how governments can play a specific role.
A synopsis of the discussion so far ... for those who missed the original discussion:
https://steemit.com/news/@dwarrilow2002/-dwarrilow2002-re-limnerlocin-re-dwarrilow2002-re-limnerlocin-re-dwarrilow2002-re-limnerlocin-re-dwarrilow2002-re-limnerlocin-re-dwarrilow2002-re-limnerlocin-re-joshsigurdson-ontario-minimum-wage-hike-is-costing-us-money-freedom-minute-20180304t183917367z
While the initial post was with regard to my support of minimum wage; showing an example in Canada where not only did people not lose their jobs but the business hired 25% more staff; how the "Seattle study" often touted and describing minimum wage increases failed there - but was a flawed study and failed to note that the minimum wage jobs lost were substituted with higher paying jobs.
Source
Eventually the discussion swung around to how supply management protects consumers because the livestock industry has a divergent cobweb model of economics:
occasioned by massive bankruptcies in the farming communities. In Canada we introduced supply management to the dairy and chicken industries which fairly covers farmers costs and providing a reasonable profit but more importantly insures a constant supply. I didn't mention it at the time but in the USA they tend to stockpile these commodities and pay farmers not to produce. No the moon isn't made of cheese ... it is just the USA stockpile of it (95.2 million pounds of surplus cheese in 2016).
I also talked a little about Provenance which might disrupt certain aspects of the Commodity exchange by creating commodity based coin. I have written previously how having Egg_Coins, Milk_Coins can be used in Supply Management systems. Having reached a point where one needs to really drill down to follow the discussion with @limnerlocin I felt it might be of sufficient interest for others to vote or comment on the the discussion. I thank @limnerlocin because whether something is right or wrong, we need to discuss things in order to move toward truth. Please visit his blog and support him.
Ironically his last post is does mention he has some reservations about STEEM.
I have my reservations about Steem. I was waiting for you to call me on that. Your 'bigger is better' (economies of scale) model of capitalism is not necessarily always successful (as you have demonstrated), and is therefore not always followed. It is also totally wrong to assume that a large sum of money will necessarily be squandered, or that a steady check will be saved responsibly.
The recession in the late 70's was a result of Nixon's instating wage and price controls (the mechanisms that you think save the day), his taking us off the gold standard, and the mounting effects of LBJ's 'great society'—not because of market failures. Also, if my boss expected me to work twice as much for half the pay—I take my labor elsewhere. The market naturally finds the optimal price. Central planning not only doesn't work—it causes massive damage to the economy.
What you have studied and what you have lived through is irrelevant to the facts. Also, I could ask you the same thing about Steem. If you love the government so much, why are you here?
Let me deconstruct your last paragraph a little and I will discuss them point by point:
Your 'bigger is better' (economies of scale) model of capitalism is not necessarily always successful (as you have demonstrated), and is therefore not always followed.
For people reading this who do not know the definition of Economies of Scale I can give a simple example. Many years ago, there were several dry good stores, wool shops, clothing stores. Each was relatively successful and hired hundreds of workers collectively. Then one day Walmart came to town leaving only a few specialty stores remaining and hiring far fewer employees.
Economies of scale give rise to lower per-unit costs for several reasons. First, specialization of labor and more integrated technology boost production volumes. Second, lower per-unit costs can come from bulk orders from suppliers, larger advertising buys or lower cost of capital. Third, spreading internal function costs across more units produced and sold helps to reduce costs.
Read more: Economies Of Scale
The paradox with having larger and larger but fewer and fewer is that it also puts businesses in the position of too big to fail. When they do fail, they close hundreds of stores and layoff thousands of employees. Here is a list of businesses which once were considered to big to fail but are closing many stores or have become bankrupt:
Abercrombie & Fitch
Aerosoles
American Apparel
BCBG
Bebe
Bon-Ton Stores Inc.
The Children’s Place
CVS
Foot Locker
Guess
Gymboree
Hhgregg
J. Crew
J.C. Penney
The Limited
Macy’s
Michael Kors
Payless
RadioShack
Rue21
Sears/Kmart
Toys R Us
Wet Seal
The recession in the late 70's was a result of Nixon's instating wage and price controls (the mechanisms that you think save the day), his taking us off the gold standard, and the mounting effects of LBJ's 'great society'—not because of market failures.
While going off the gold standard and previous economic policies are important the reason that inflation exploded in the 70s was because of full employment. When everyone is working, businesses need to compete against each other to steal employees to work for them. The first level understanding of economics describe inflation when too much money chases too few goods. Even in the 70s industrialization was at the point of having an almost infinite amount of goods. The oil cartel was also important because they inflated the price of fuel by causing a fuel shortage and the automotive sector in the USA was resistant to producing fuel efficient models.
Also, if my boss expected me to work twice as much for half the pay—I take my labor elsewhere.
In 2015 the median income in the USA was $56,516. In 2017 the median income was $44,564. That is what people did but didn't get better jobs in recent years. His point was my reference to the how supply management forces food processors to pay a fair amount to farmers (dairy producers for example). In Canada there are only about a dozen dairy processors. There are roughly 11,683 dairy producers. While they are given assistance by the government each province has its own milk marketing board (managed by dairy producers). By having a unified voice, producers can not only benefit from a stable income, but also the following
It keeps prices stable
Prices of milk and dairy products have risen less than the Consumer Price Index in Canada over the past 30 years. The price consumers pay for a litre of milk in Canada is roughly similar to that in China, New Zealand, the EU and many parts of the U.S. And a few years ago, prices around the world increased significantly and quickly when the last world food crisis hit. In contrast, farm and retail prices for dairy in Canada have remained stable.
Creates a unified standard of care
Dairy Farmers of Ontario maintains a zero tolerance approach to animal abuse. To that end, dairy farmers and the National Farm Animal Care Council have collaborated with scientists and government experts and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies to update and strengthen the Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Dairy Cattle. The Code meets or exceeds the majority of the standards of humane livestock treatment expected by the food industry and society.
More information about the Dairy Farmers of Ontario can be found here: https://www.milk.org/Corporate/Content.aspx?id=1641
Also, I could ask you the same thing about Steem. If you love the government so much, why are you here?
Government is like a 9/16 wrench. There are certain nuts it is ideal for putting a twist to. Hopefully those nuts belong to those people who do not treat the rest of society fairly. Government like a 9/16 wrench are also not suitable for all situations. Using it as a lever or a hammer damages it so it can no longer be reliable for what it was created for.
To borrow a phrase "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" - and make him pull the cart. While governments run by a few people are in control (not the majority) make them work properly for the people. Despite your disagreement @limnerlocin minimum wage does help the average person ... as does universal healthcare and universal basic income.
As far as my belief that STEEM works, I have personally witnessed people from around the world become engaged in this platform and have started on the road to success. My company is working on a process which will not only help stabilize the prices on an upward trend (continually add new capital into the system) but will increase the rewards of all the participants within the system.
Thanks for making a separate post.
You wrote: "The paradox with having larger and larger but fewer and fewer is that it also puts businesses in the position of too big to fail. When they do fail..." You are showing that the flaws of bloated business are naturally sorted by the markets. You continued: "When everyone is working, businesses need to compete against each other to steal employees to work for them."
Labor cannot be "stolen" and such a statement is absurd. If companies compete for labor, the laborer wins! How is that a problem, exactly? (Unless of course the government is restricting business to the point new business being prohibitively expensive)
Furthermore, price is not meant to be stable! It is meant to be flexible, dependent upon the conditions and costs that were required to produce it!
I'm a bit mystified by this metaphor:
"Government is like a 9/16 wrench. There are certain nuts it is ideal for putting a twist to. Hopefully those nuts belong to those people who do not treat the rest of society fairly. Government like a 9/16 wrench are also not suitable for all situations. Using it as a lever or a hammer damages it so it can no longer be reliable for what it was created for."
I cannot think of a single situation in which government is actually necessary. Voluntary association and action can work in all situations.
Also, How the FUCK could the government possible be said to be working for me, when their existence depends on their threatenimg my liberty with their law, taxing my income and every sale without my consent, taxing the estate I will leave my children, my capital gains, threatening me with the police on every corner, spying on me and invading my privacy, and making me hated abroad with their destructive military?
I really don't see where you are coming from, at all.
I come from Canada...big country north of you... maybe you cannot see it because of the snow.
The most people I ever employed at one time was around 20. Hiring an employee means taking the skills that they have and making use of those skills in your organization the best way possible. Generally people do not have all the skills necessary to do the jobs so need additional training to meet those requirements. Personally I needed to take spend between $1,000 to $10,000 per year to maintain my qualifications and my employees almost as much. Since the employee didn't pay the cost if I sent them on a week long course, nor accommodation nor paid his own salary, it meant a considerable investment in that person. So when other businesses would hire the employee that meant a significant loss of investment. In that sense businesses "steal" other businesses employees.
When you go to work, do you walk on a dirt path or do you ride a vehicle on paved roads. When you ride a vehicle or take medicine or eat food do you have to worry that it could be injurious to do so? Governments are very good at enacting rules which help the majority of people. The reason that children are not in the workforce is due to rules that governments have imposed to prevent their exploitation.
Those are examples of where governments a like a tool suited for their work. Most of the examples that you gave are when a government tries to do things it isn't suited for.
You wrote: "Personally I needed to take spend between $1,000 to $10,000 per year to maintain my qualifications and my employees almost as much. Since the employee didn't pay the cost if I sent them on a week long course, nor accommodation nor paid his own salary, it meant a considerable investment in that person. So when other businesses would hire the employee that meant a significant loss of investment. In that sense businesses "steal" other businesses employees."
So you aren't providing your employees with experience because they will do a better job—you are doing it to make them obligated to you? I'm sorry but no amount of experience makes anyone yours, and no other business can steal another autonomous individual from you. Do you want to own people? That is how you sound right now.
Government rules don't help anyone. Markets functioning optimally fixes those problems naturally. The government only slows the process (for instance, there were federal laws against letting people free their own slaves prior to the civil war).
It is not necessary for a centralized gang to steal from each person and imprison 1 in 20, just for a god damn road to be built, and for people to realize that kids are shit labor. It is completely absurd to think it would.
I am not saying that people belong to a business but reflecting upon how in an environment where there is a limited supply of labour (eg full employment) businesses will compete against each other in order access this labour. This competition is what causes wages to increase. This is good for the workers but what happens if you are not in full employment or the skill level of the job is easily replaced with technology if the workers ask for more money. They still have street sweepers in Ukraine but in Canada they have sidewalk sweeping machines replacing a dozens of workers for a single one who is more skilled (can drive the equipment). Minimum wage creates an artificial price level which either causes businesses to fairly pay their employees or to innovate and hire more skilled labour.
I used Ukraine as an example because they are a highly educated population roughly the same size as Canada but their average wage is 1/10 the rate in Canada. The average income in Ukraine expressed in CAD is $321.99 vs $3,166.71. The mortgage interest rate in Ukraine is 21.03% while in Canada it is 2.99%.
Because labour is so cheap, employers have little regard for their employees. However consider a product such as a bottle of Coke. In Ukraine it costs $0.56 CAD while in Canada it costs $2.03 CAD. They could double the minimum wage in Ukraine and while it might cause the price of commodities to rise, (what is Coke a few pennies worth of sugar and flavouring) it would not rise to Canada's price which has wages 10 times.
Source
Canada has admittedly more "government" than the US. When I was a child I first visited the US. What struck me was the poverty of the country. This was because I looked at the state of your roads. The line about the streets in US are paved in gold is sadly mistaken. I think they are paved in potholes. How can any person start the day with resolution and optimism it they open their door and step into poverty. When I visited Costa Rica (a really laissez faire government), its central highway was in poorer condition than our rural roads.
As far as people realizing that children are an inefficient labour force ... 4.7 million or 12.6% of children aged 5 to 14 in the work force in Bangladesh.
I admit your government needs to be changed. Your incarceration rate is just wrong. However that is actually a symptom of how "capitalism" has become to extreme in your country. You have corporations take over the management of prisons. You have corporations which create fear in people so they feel they have to buy guns. A reason society would adopt measures which would prevent the problems before they happen... Why do people steal? They steal because there is a disparity in the society which puts insuperable barriers for the lowest to rise honestly.
It isn't that "governments" are inherently bad. It is the people who are attracted to power and influence the running of government to cause it to become corrupted.
Take Belarus which is a country a country exactly opposite to what you would like. The difference is that its president (could be called a dictator) Alexander Lukashenko has been in power since 1994.
You would need around 1,808.78$ in Minsk to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 5,200.00$ in Chicago, IL (assuming you rent in both cities).