Nike doesnt want weath to accumulate which would result in higher wages which would then cost them more money causing them to move somewhere else.

also I dont want to remove the idea behind industrialization. I want to prevent companies from exploting workers and governments. This does not mean they will be excluded from building in whatever asian country they want but it will stop them from using the population as slave labor. We live in 2006, globalization has allowed us to prevent bad things from happening. Why free the Iraqi people from Saddam? They were just going through the same shit every other country has gone through to reach the super uber awesome democracy phase. Who are we to fuck with that?

same can be said for comporations exploiting third world countries. Except instead of my tax money going to blow up arabs, Nike's money will go to creating safe environments for workers and building third world economies.........which will then reduce overall world problems.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 2:29 PM. Reason : !!!]

12/2/2006 2:22:32 PM

Well, I can see you saying they don't want higher wages, but they do want more productive workers. As long as productivity increases accompany the wealth creation, Nike will have no incentive to move elsewhere until it suits them financially.

12/2/2006 2:24:14 PM

i added more.

also how is productivity going to increase if you continue paying the same man the same shitty salary.

are you advocating a system where everyones productivity is increases even tho they get paid nothing.

12/2/2006 2:32:14 PM

Quote :

"New job opportunites = monopsony? You said they got along fine before the corporations showed up, so how is adding 1 more job opportunity suddenly some kind of monopsony?"

You know what monopsonistic market power is, right? A few purchasers buying from many sellers. Thanks to this difference the few entities are able to use their market power to bid prices below market equilibrium. Now we have only a few companies that can set up shop overseas, yet these companies could now hire from anyone in the world. Thanks to this effect, labor across the world can be bid down below the market price.

12/2/2006 2:43:03 PM

Well the most obvious ways productivity increases are a) people getting better that the job becuase they've been there a while and b) increases in capital due to investment in new technology

The second form is going to come because the company is profitable at the low labor rates, but competition is going to force it to invest in order to stay competitive and profitable.

12/2/2006 2:44:16 PM

Quote :

"You know what monopsonistic market power is, right? A few purchasers buying from many sellers. Thanks to this difference the few entities are able to use their market power to bid prices below market equilibrium. Now we have only a few companies that can set up shop overseas, yet these companies could now hire from anyone in the world. Thanks to this effect, labor across the world can be bid down below the market price."

Only a few companies? Are you retarded or what?

The labor market abroad is not monopsonistic. Particular spots might be more monopsonistic than others, but only temporarily. If Nike is set up in some place where they have REALLY cheap labor, Reebok is going to set up in the same place.

The only thing to stop that? Corrupt governments--partially funded by Nike--setting up barriers to entry. If you eliminated the government, there would be no monopsony power at equilibrium.

12/2/2006 2:46:52 PM

Quote :

"Only a few companies?"

Compared to the number of people selling their labor. You have buying entities and selling entities. Every one of those people is an individual entity, and each corporation is an individual entity. Clearly since corporations employ more than one person each, we have more entities selling labor than we have buying it. I thought you were going to have to explain stuff to me?

Quote :

"The labor market abroad is not monopsonistic."

The unskilled labor market is by nature monopsonistic. Employers will always have market power in this market. This is why we have minimum wage and labor laws (although I'm sure you like to imagine that it's solely for humanitarian reasons).

Quote :

"If Nike is set up in some place where they have REALLY cheap labor, Reebok is going to set up in the same place."

But even with both of them, they buy from such a large pool of labor selling entities that they can bid the price down below market equilibrium.

12/2/2006 2:54:15 PM

Quote :

"Compared to the number of people selling their labor. You have buying entities and selling entities. Every one of those people is an individual entity, and each corporation is an individual entity. Clearly since corporations employ more than one person each, we have more entities selling labor than we have buying it. I thought you were going to have to explain stuff to me?"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhashahahashaha

Are you fucking kidding me? So you're telling me that there has to be an equal number of buyers and sellers, or the industry is either monopolistic or monopsonistic.

Jesus fucking Christ Kris, you're out of your fucking mind.


(It goes without saying that you really mean "ologopsony," so I guess I will have to explain stuff to you. I think we'll just go ahead and use oligopsony and monopsony as synonyms from here out)


I guess I'll go ahead and refute it in case you can't give it up.
You're assuming a factory can operate with 1 unit of labor. That is incorrect. For a factory, 1 unit of labor is an entire shift of people.
Next, you're forgetting all the other productive uses of time the poor people were doing previously. Nike isn't the "only game in town" because the people were doing something BEFORE nike showed up. Nike must compete with those enterprises (even if farming a trash dump is one of them). Nike actually pays a higher wage than those, which is why they attract the workers.
[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 3:04 PM. Reason : .]

12/2/2006 2:56:37 PM

Quote :

"But even with both of them, they buy from such a large pool of labor selling entities that they can bid the price down below market equilibrium. "

Reebok has continual sought after ways of improving the workers condition in its factories by paying higher wages and using less toxic materials.

12/2/2006 3:03:42 PM

^nutsmacker, that's because they're competing for labor and they choose to do it based on lifestyle as well as pay.

That's a good example of what happens when you let competition for labor run free.

12/2/2006 3:05:02 PM

Quote :

"Nike doesnt want weath to accumulate which would result in higher wages which would then cost them more money causing them to move somewhere else."

Dentaldamn, tough titties. Microsoft wishes I didn't have the right to go work for Atmel, but I do. Just because Nike is operating a factory in Bangladesh does not put it in power: only government corruption gives it that power. Once again, your argument is not with the business paying the bribe, it is against the bureaucrat that accepted it.

It bears pointing out, of course, western corporations are not the only corporations in the world. As it turns out, domestic producers tend to be the worst offenders in terms of working conditions and, being local, they have the connections necessary to seek government protection. Often, the first protection they seek is the exclusion of foreign corporations. Specifically, Indian firms feared British manufacturers were bidding up wages and bidding down prices in the Indian markets, so the Indian government threw out all foreign manufacturers back in the 1960s. They did it in the name of socialism and self-sufficiency, but the results were the same: no competition for local labor from foreign firms.

Stopping our companies from doing business in the third world will not end corporatist corruption: they have their own corporations to corrupt their government, they will be just as corrupt regardless of whether our companies are their or not.

And Kris, for the 100th time: a monopoly is ONE (1) seller, a monopsony is ONE (1) buyer. Oligopsony is FEW (<10) buyers. Since the average city has tens of thousands of employers neither monopsony nor oligopsony is a valid description.

12/2/2006 4:12:52 PM

Quote :

"Stopping our companies from doing business in the third world will not end corporatist corruption: they have their own corporations to corrupt their government, they will be just as corrupt regardless of whether our companies are their or not."

so our companies shouldn't be stopped from perpetuation the problem?

Also if these countries have their own factories and companies why does Nike have to move there. The country is already experiencing industrialization without their help. Why doesn't Nike stay in the USA where it can give jobs to American workers.

12/2/2006 6:51:19 PM

Quote :

"So you're telling me that there has to be an equal number of buyers and sellers, or the industry is either monopolistic or monopsonistic."

Yes, more on one side tips the scale one way or the other. Every market has some degree of monopoly or monopsony, there is no real "perfect competition". However markets that function in a near perfect manner have close to equal amounts of buying and selling entitites. You should know this stuff already

Quote :

"(It goes without saying that you really mean "ologopsony," so I guess I will have to explain stuff to you. I think we'll just go ahead and use oligopsony and monopsony as synonyms from here out)"

I never said monopsony or monopoly. I said "some degree of monopoly/monopsony" or "monopolistic/monopsonistic".

Quote :

"You're assuming a factory can operate with 1 unit of labor. That is incorrect. For a factory, 1 unit of labor is an entire shift of people."

That has nothing to do with anything. We're looking at the labor market, not how a factory works. We have buying units and selling units. But yes, if for some reason nike decided to downsize, it could be reduced to just one guy in his garage making shoes.

Quote :

"Nike isn't the "only game in town" because the people were doing something BEFORE nike showed up."

But there is still going to be some degree of monopsony because there is a larger number of people trying to sell their labor than there are people buying it.

Quote :

"And Kris, for the 100th time: a monopoly is ONE (1) seller, a monopsony is ONE (1) buyer. Oligopsony is FEW (<10) buyers."

You still have no idea what's being talked about here. I guess Milton Friedman hasn't written a book on market power, the subject probably made him wet his bed back before he was a corpse.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 7:39 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2006 7:39:12 PM

Quote :

"so our companies shouldn't be stopped from perpetuation the problem? "

So, absent our companies these impoverished third world nations would stop being corrupt? I find that hard to believe.

Secondly, if these countries do get their shit together then Nike, which has technology standing by to boost productivity, will be there to breed wealth. Local manufacturers in third world nations are usually expertise poor and would not do a very good job breeding wealth (in fact, they'd most likely go out of business absent government corruption).

That said, since arguing our best interests doesn't sway you at all, statistically speaking, in third world countries foreign owned firms consistently pay more and have better conditions than competing local businesses. The reason for this is obviously not charity from Nike. The reason is that competing local manufacturers are usually selling into a protected local market where quality is not important. Meanwhile, Nike is selling into a competitive global marketplace for shoes where quality is very important, so to keep down turnover and and retain skills foreign owned manufacturers pay higher wages.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/multi/download/wp98.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/employment_analysis/docs/050408_strobl_en.pdf

Kris: Since the labor market is destined to always be monopsonistic in your fantasy world, then why have wages consistently followed productivity? Shouldn't that disparity be a general measure of the degree of employer market power? If so, why was this figure negative as recently as 2001?

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 7:48 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/2/2006 7:43:11 PM

Quote :

"That said, since arguing our best interests doesn't sway you at all, statistically speaking, in third world countries foreign owned firms consistently pay more and have better conditions than competing local businesses."

This is an "ends justify the means" arguement.

12/2/2006 7:49:07 PM

Why not? If absolutely everyone is better off and no morals have been violated then what means are being justified? Corrupt morons are being ignored for the sake of helping those less fortunate. The moral thing to do is leave people alone to make their own choices, my arguments are supposed to demonstrate that "not only is it the moral thing to do, but the ends are good too!"

Kris: Since the labor market is destined to always be monopsonistic in your fantasy world, then why have wages consistently followed productivity? Shouldn't that disparity be a general measure of the degree of employer market power? If so, why was this figure negative as recently as 2001?

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 8:04 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/2/2006 7:52:52 PM

Quote :

"^nutsmacker, that's because they're competing for labor and they choose to do it based on lifestyle as well as pay. That's a good example of what happens when you let competition for labor run free."

how about no, try again.

Reebok has dedicated themselves to providing a humane work environment and that has nothing to do with the free market.

12/2/2006 7:57:30 PM

Quote :

"If absolutely everyone is better off and no morals have been violated then what means are being justified?"

You must have some poor morals.

Quote :

"Since the labor market is destined to always be monopsonistic in your fantasy world, then why have wages consistently followed productivity? Shouldn't that disparity be a general measure of the degree of employer market power? If so, why was this figure negative as recently as 2001?"

You must not understand how a market works under monopoly or monopsony or a degree between.
The productivity level is not the same thing as the market equilibrium. Even in a complete monopsony, wages will still follow productivity as monopsony pricing is done based upon the intersection of marginal revenue and marginal cost. Now a degree of monopsony does not funtion in this way, it falls somewhere between full monopsony and market equilibrium, but the concept is the same, just to a somewhat lesser degree

12/2/2006 8:03:39 PM

Again: why was this figure negative as recently as 2001? In a sense, workers were being paid more than they were producing. Should the capitalists have not just slashed wages back to the intersection? Or is it possible that tens of thousands of employers just in the Raleigh area are incapable of colluding sufficiently to fix prices for labor?

Fuck, you couldn't even fit all the employers in a single stadium, how do you suggest they have negotiated an "intersection of marginal revenue and marginal cost" and worked up enforcement mechanisms to punish price cheaters (employers that break the negotiated wage to boost their labor supply)? And they did all this without anyone noticing? Surely they must be killing people left and right to keep this collusion a secret among so many people.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 8:12 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/2/2006 8:08:53 PM

Quote :

"Again: why was this figure negative as recently as 2001?"

There are all kinds of reasons. The market fluctuates, it's impossible to give a ceteris paribus answer.

Quote :

"Or is it possible that tens of thousands of employers just in the Raleigh area are incapable of colluding sufficiently to fix prices for labor?"

You still don't seem to understand the concept of market power. It has nothing to do with "collusion".

12/2/2006 8:14:06 PM

I don't see how y'all can claim the idea of free trade helping everyone is difficult to understand. It's as straightfoward as any other utopian vision. Just let the invisible hand manage everything perfectly. What could be simpler?

Quote :

"I mean, if the wage is good compared to their other options, why is that exploitative?"

There is another option, and that's smashing the hell out of capatalism. Rich people have a lot of stuff. With enough guns, the poor people could take it.

12/2/2006 8:19:27 PM

Quote :

"You still don't seem to understand the concept of market power. It has nothing to do with "collusion"."

Oh, but it must. The issue is one of incentives: each employer does not see the costs it inflicts upon other employers, all it sees is its own costs and revenues. If paying a little more gains it another worker, and that worker earns more in revenue than it increases costs, then it will hire them, to the great dismay of all other employers that have both lost a worker and are now potentially facing higher costs.

You are right that the labor market fluctuates, but in diverse cities with more than a few large employers monopsony cannot play a role without a mechanism to suppress the incentives of individual firms.

12/2/2006 8:30:39 PM

Quote :

"Oh, but it must"

No it doesn't.

Quote :

"but in diverse cities with more than a few large employers monopsony cannot play a role without a mechanism to suppress the incentives of individual firms"

No. If there is more sellers than buyers, then some level of monopsony will occur. You seem to think that perfect competition happens everywhere, this isn't the case. Perfect competition does not occur anywhere. The concepts of perfect competition do apply to some degree, depending on the level of monopsony or monopoly.

12/2/2006 8:48:24 PM

Kris, I just don't get how you can be so wrong on this whole "there must be an equal number of buyers and sellers." Even the assumption for perfect competition doesn't require that. It requires a LARGE number of buyers and sellers and in most analysis done 10 seems to be the magic number whereby generally competitive pricing behavior happens.
The fact that you can't let that go is simply sad.

And for the love of Christ would you simply use the term "market power" instead of monopoly/monopsony. There is a difference and I was willing to let you use them interchangeably in conversation with me, but its confusing other people too.

Quote :

"There is another option, and that's smashing the hell out of capatalism. Rich people have a lot of stuff. With enough guns, the poor people could take it. "

Yes, and this works well up until the time it comes to create new wealth. The problem with what you're talking about is that poor people, as compared to the wealthy, don't know how to create wealth. It's going to be all happy and fun until the wealth is either destroyed through consumption or population growth.

Also, please learn to spell "capitalism." It is bad enough that you spout that shit without also making yourself look stupid in the process.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 10:56 PM. Reason : .]

12/2/2006 10:54:23 PM

Kris, you are saying individual employers will set wages to "the intersection of marginal revenue and marginal cost" for all employers as a group, or at least try to, thus being monopsonistic. But in the real market firms do not care about "all employers as a group", all they care about is themselves to the detriment of employers as a group.

Look, here is a graph:

MP = MR - MC
MR = P(Q) + Q * dP * MS

MP = Marginal Profit
P(Q) = price given quantity [P = 20 - Q]
dP = slope of P [-1]
MS = market share per firm (20% or 0.20 given 5 equal sized firms)
MC = Marginal Cost [MC = 6 + 0.5Q]

0 = 20 - Q + Q*-1*MS - 6 - 0.5Q
0 = 14 - Q - Q * MS - 0.5Q
0 = 14 - 1.5Q - Q*MS
1.5Q + Q*MS = 14
1.5 + MS = 14/Q
Q = 14 / (1.5 + MS)

As you can see, given 1 firm production will stop at a quantity of 5.6, given 5 firms production will stop at a quantity around 8.235, and given an infinite number of firms production will stop at 9.3333. Well, with only 100 firms production stops around 9.3327, not very monopolistic if you ask me.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 11:03 PM. Reason : pic]

12/2/2006 11:02:26 PM

Quote :

"The problem with what you're talking about is that poor people, as compared to the wealthy, don't know how to create wealth."

Rich folks don't know to create wealth. The invisible hand does that for them.

Quote :

"Also, please learn to spell "capitalism." It is bad enough that you spout that shit without also making yourself look stupid in the process."

This all I need to know how spell, grammer ninja:

12/3/2006 12:08:36 AM

Yes, well good luck with that.

Quote :

"Rich folks don't know to create wealth. The invisible hand does that for them. "

Yes, their selfishness leads them to create wealth. However, it still takes a certain kind of person to have the skills and ambition to allow the invisible hand to drive them to those productive means.

Others are content just living a hum-drum life without bettering themselves. Those are the ones that would "smash capatalism" and take over. Give them 1 or 2 generations and then watch them return to preindustrial squalor.

12/3/2006 12:38:57 AM

Quote :

"However, it still takes a certain kind of person to have the skills and ambition to allow the invisible hand to drive them to those productive means."

So the lower classes aren't involved in this production? Or are you saying they can create wealth, but only when the rich folks are in charge?

12/3/2006 1:33:54 AM

12/3/2006 4:54:50 AM

Quote :

"Or are you saying they can create wealth, but only when the rich folks are in charge? "

First, I'm talking averages here. Any given poor person that exhibits wealth-creating characteristics can (and most likely will) create wealth. But, on the average, yes unskilled labor can generally only create wealth when a wealth-creator is in charge.

Think about a factory that lost all its management. In 99% of those cases, the workforce would deteriorate into nothingness. Now, it is possible for someone who is a wealth-creator to be poor and it is quite likely for those people to spend some time in poverty due to natural progression, but eventually they will come out on top.

Do you really think if you gave a significant amount of resources to the unskilled and uneducated you would end up creating wealth? More likely you'll end up with an enormous amount of consumption and little investment.

12/3/2006 12:35:46 PM

Quote :

"I just don't get how you can be so wrong on this whole "there must be an equal number of buyers and sellers." Even the assumption for perfect competition doesn't require that."

Sure it does, it's the ratio of buyers to sellers, that's how we get the concentration ration.

Quote :

"It requires a LARGE number of buyers and sellers and in most analysis done 10 seems to be the magic number whereby generally competitive pricing behavior happens."

10 certainly isn't the magic number. That would imply that you could have 9 firms with 1% of the market share each, and one firm with 91% of the market share, and still expect competitive pricing.

Quote :

"And for the love of Christ would you simply use the term "market power" instead of monopoly/monopsony. There is a difference and I was willing to let you use them interchangeably in conversation with me, but its confusing other people too."

I've yet to use any terms incorrectly. I said this in the last response. I've said monopolistic/monopsonistic and a "degree of monopoly/monopsony", but these are just to indicate which side of the scale has market power, and they are properly used. I've been using my terminology correctly, so stop whining about it.

Quote :

"Kris, you are saying individual employers will set wages to "the intersection of marginal revenue and marginal cost" for all employers as a group, or at least try to, thus being monopsonistic. But in the real market firms do not care about "all employers as a group", all they care about is themselves to the detriment of employers as a group."

OOH! You're starting to get it. As a firm faces more and more buyers (or sellers) they begin to see MR and MC for themselves. Thus as they get closer they keep pegging their price away from equilibrium.

Quote :

"As you can see, given 1 firm production will stop at a quantity of 5.6, given 5 firms production will stop at a quantity around 8.235, and given an infinite number of firms production will stop at 9.3333. Well, with only 100 firms production stops around 9.3327, not very monopolistic if you ask me."

That was a very cute little math problem, but in economics, we actually have a specific equation we use to determine market power and competition, your's was painfully meaningless.
If you want to do a little math problem like that, next time use something meaningful, like a Normalized Herfindahl-Hirschman Index.

12/3/2006 1:17:03 PM

Quote :

"10 certainly isn't the magic number. That would imply that you could have 9 firms with 1% of the market share each, and one firm with 91% of the market share, and still expect competitive pricing."

To be fair, you're right. I did mean "equally sized firms" and should have said it.

But you are still using the terms incorrectly. The problem is that you're saying something like "John has been dating a girl for 2 years. Jake has been dating someone for 3 year. Therefore, John is more single than Jake"

Its incoherent, especially considering that they've invented terms like "market power" and "oligo-x" to deal with these situations.

12/3/2006 1:34:54 PM

Market power does not specify a difference between buyer power and seller power, thus why I use the term monopolistic market power and monopsonistic market power.

12/3/2006 1:48:10 PM

Or...you could use the term invented specifically for it.

12/3/2006 1:53:13 PM

Quote :

"Do you really think if you gave a significant amount of resources to the unskilled and uneducated you would end up creating wealth?"

By economic theory, yes, as long as they let the invisible hand do its work. Of course, if they took and controlled this wealth by force, that would be rather different.

Quote :

"More likely you'll end up with an enormous amount of consumption and little investment."

Well, someone would have to be selling if they're buying.

[Edited on December 3, 2006 at 1:53 PM. Reason : d]

12/3/2006 1:53:36 PM

Quote :

"Or...you could use the term invented specifically for it."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22monopolistic+market+power%22&btnG=Search

Then could you recommend me a good lawyer for a copyright suit? I mean I'll have to use you as the only witness.

12/3/2006 2:07:36 PM

Ok Kris, so you're contention is that there is 1 major player in the market for unskilled labor?

I thought you'd be smart enough to know there are a few major players in most places.

12/3/2006 2:10:05 PM

That's a strawman. I never said that.

12/3/2006 2:13:17 PM

If you insist that you're using monopoly power correctly, then yes you did say that:

Quote :

"Market power When one buyer or seller in a market has the ability to exert significant influence over the quantity of goods and SERVICES traded or the PRICE at which they are sold. Market power does not exist when there is PERFECT COMPETITION, but it does when there is a MONOPOLY, MONOPSONY or OLIGOPOLY. "

http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?term=monopolisticcompetition

Monopolistic Market Power is a specific example of market power when there is 1 firm dominating the market.
Oligopolistic Market Power is a specific example of market power when there are a few firms dominating the market.

12/3/2006 2:21:14 PM

I agree with what the dictionary has therem but the little part you added in on the end sounds like you made it up.

12/3/2006 2:23:22 PM

Fine, Kris, the Normalized Herfindahl-Hirschman Index for the city of Raleigh is just above 0.0004. I did my "cute little math problem" because you seemed incapable of handling the big stuff, as you must be if you intend to call a diversified market with over 10,000 buyers uncompetitive (the city of Raleigh is the largest employer with over 2% of the work force). As far as the math goes, the labor market is the most competitive market we have. Most towns in North Carolina have more competitive labor markets than the Raleigh automobile market, computed through HH.

[Edited on December 3, 2006 at 3:23 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/3/2006 3:18:41 PM

Quote :

"if you intend to call a diversified market with over 10,000 buyers uncompetitive"

Nice strawman. I mean, not only does it completely make up an arguement I never made, but it completely disregards the actual arguement we were talking about, kudos!

12/3/2006 4:09:34 PM

hey yo get off of my cloud

oh and im done worrying about shit like this. Im moving to nyc and pickin up a drug habit.

12/3/2006 4:16:58 PM

^^ So you at no time said we needed a minimum wage to counteract the market power of employers? Odd, I thought you said that in this very thread. But since you now realize that the labor market is clearly too large and diverse to be intollerably disrupted by employer market power, all I can say is have a nice day.

12/3/2006 7:32:25 PM

Quote :

"So you at no time said we needed a minimum wage to counteract the market power of employers? Odd, I thought you said that in this very thread. But since you now realize that the labor market is clearly too large and diverse to be intollerably disrupted by employer market power, all I can say is have a nice day."

That's like saying "Overall income for businesses is up right now, so clearly each individual business is making money". You can take an overall average and apply it to each specific industry.

12/3/2006 9:47:26 PM

You never say anything, I have to extrapolate what the fuck you are thinking. If I extrapolated properly, you are thinking walmart employees are in an intollerably uncompetitive labor market because there are only five walmarts in Raleigh, right?

Did it not occur to you that a large fraction of Raleigh's employers participate in most labor markets simultaneously?

But, very well, since it is your assertion should not the burden of proof fall on you? You are trying to justify labor regulations such as a minimum wage, so calculate the HHI for low skilled workers and compare it to the test results. If it is greater than 0.18 then we possibly need the regulations. I find that rediculously unlikely, especially when you take into account people's ability to relocate and take advantage of a larger labor market whenever they choose. But, go ahead, post the best information you can find.

12/4/2006 12:41:42 AM

Quote :

"You never say anything, I have to extrapolate what the fuck you are thinking. If I extrapolated properly, you are thinking walmart employees are in an intollerably uncompetitive labor market because there are only five walmarts in Raleigh, right?"

Wrong agian. I've said market power exists, you try to deny it because you don't like it.

Quote :

"Did it not occur to you that a large fraction of Raleigh's employers participate in most labor markets simultaneously?"

Really? How many rocket scientists do you think Wal-mart employs?

Quote :

"But, very well, since it is your assertion should not the burden of proof fall on you?"

The burden of proof falls on me because you made up a strawman for me?

Quote :

"You are trying to justify labor regulations such as a minimum wage, so calculate the HHI for low skilled workers and compare it to the test results."

I hate to break it to you, but minimium wage is already here, sorry.

12/4/2006 1:42:29 AM

Quote :

"Wrong agian. I've said market power exists, you try to deny it because you don't like it."

Oh, is that all, well, yes it exists but the dislocation is insignificant. I have found no data showing it, no studies revealing it, nothing. And since I cannot prove a negative in this case (that intollerably uncompetitive labor market do not exist anywhere at any time) it should be easy for you to prove the positive, that an intollerably uncompetitive labor market exists somewhere right now. But you are right, I really don't like people accepting assertions as indisputable fact when they have not and, since you have not, evidently cannot be demonstrated.

And "Most" does not mean "Every single last one with no exceptions no matter how obscure"

Quote :

"I hate to break it to you, but minimium wage is already here, sorry."

I fail to see the relevance. I guess I must extrapolate once again, is it your assertion that not once has a useless law ever been implimented by government?

12/4/2006 9:34:03 AM

Quote :

"Oh, is that all, well, yes it exists but the dislocation is insignificant. I have found no data showing it, no studies revealing it, nothing. And since I cannot prove a negative in this case (that intollerably uncompetitive labor market do not exist anywhere at any time) it should be easy for you to prove the positive, that an intollerably uncompetitive labor market exists somewhere right now."

I've explained to you before why studying history is not a substitute for studying economic models, but since you can't understand that, I'll show it to you in a different way. Prove to me, by the same measures, that supply meets demand in a competitive market. This is the most basic concept of economics, surely it should be easy for you to prove with 100% certainty that this model is accurate.

Quote :

"I fail to see the relevance. I guess I must extrapolate once again, is it your assertion that not once has a useless law ever been implimented by government?"

You implied that I was purposing new legislation, therefore I should support it with evidence. I was explaining to you that minimium wage is not new legislation. It's been here for a while, therefore in order to say that it is a useless law, the burden of proof falls on you.

12/4/2006 11:10:18 AM

But Kris, looking at it either Mathematically or Historically leads to the same conclusion: labor markets in the United States are not intollerably uncompetitive. Since you are arguing against both mathematical, logical, and historical evidence the burden of proof is on you.

And I am asking you to defend old legislation. Or, defeat new legislation repealing the old legislation.

12/4/2006 11:51:24 AM