Minimum wages and why there should not be one....

??? I stated that in my FIRST post to you on this. After all, that is what geoism/georgism is about.

This is pure nonsense.

This is why the method of determining the value of land (or land use, or however you want to term it) is important. The idea that more people will be able to use land depends on how much that land will cost.

Anyone who owns a few hundred acres of Manhattan Island today has strong ideas concerning what it would take for someone to buy them out.

I haven't seen you prove anything false so far. So, maybe you can help me out on that.

Capitalism is how we set prices on EVERYTHING (essentially) - sky scrapers to nail clippers, HVAC to rocket fuel, etc. And, that certainly includes land.

Don't tell me about Socialism. Nobody cares about that.

There is no market outside of capitalism.

?? Marx thought it would help allow capitalism survive a little longer.

But, he thought Capitalism was shortly to be dead!!

?? Nobody is "producing" land. Our whole economic system is free market capitalism, so don't tell me we somehow have something called a "market" that is independent of Capitalism.

 

OK, but in our system of free market Capitalism there is very little regulation of the market. Prices are set by principles of supply and demand. Competition includes competition on price.

So, the value of the land is set by those who have the right to use the land - the price they demand for giving up their right to use that land.

Is that the way of setting value that you intend?

Or do you have some other method in mind?

This is a significant difference from Communism, where the government plays a role in setting prices.

 

Once we agree how the land is valued, my next question is going to be how one would separate the land value from the improvements on the land.

For example, let's say I own the land on Manhattan that Trump Tower is sitting on.

What would cause me to relinquish my rights to that land without being compensated for the improvement that is that hotel? Clearly, the price I would demand would include the entire package.

That is, the market would clearly address the full value of the land + hotel.

The market would NOT address the value of the land alone.

So, I think even after pointing to market forces, there isn't a clear method of measuring the land value as separate as geoists propose to be important.

This may have worked when we were agrarian. An acre could be valued as land only, based on factors like how much sun, how much water, local transportation, type of soil, how sloped, what's on the acre (trees? plowed field, etc.). The new owner could use the land as he sees fit.

 

No, you claimed, falsely, that removing income tax and making up the revenue by increasing property tax rates would be equivalent to Georgism.

No, geoism/Georgism would ELIMINATE taxation of property improvements, not increase it as you falsely claimed.

No. It is fact, which is why you cannot refute it, only deny it. Private ownership of land is never, has never been, and never will be based on anything but forcibly removing people's individual liberty rights and making them into someone else's private property, exactly as chattel slavery is. The only difference is that slavery removes people's liberty rights one person at a time, landowning does it one right at a time.

Land value and land use are two completely different things. Land value is the discounted present value of the expected future subsidy to the landowner -- i.e., how much more he will be legally entitled to take from the community by owning the land than he will ever repay in taxes on it. Land use is what someone does to get the economic benefit of the location's advantages.

Why should it cost anything? It has no cost of production. The only reason it should cost anything is that whoever excludes others from it, violating their rights to liberty, should make just compensation to them for what they are taking from them.

Right, because he is a greedy, evil, thieving parasite who thinks he has a right to pocket location value that government and the community create. And you agree with that false and evil belief. Why should anyone have to "buy him out" to enjoy publicly created benefits that he did not create, hmmmm? Why should he be legally entitled to demand payment for what government, the community and nature provide?

Yes, of course you have. You have seen me prove false your claim that I or geoism/Georgism have not identified a way to determine land value. I have stated several times that the market sets value, and you have just ignored that statement and repeated your false claim that I have not specified how land value is set.

I have tried to help you out repeatedly. You simply ignore the proof that your claim is false, and repeat it. Such behavior can most charitably be described as disingenuous.

No it isn't. Capitalism describes a system of ownership of the means of production. It is not an entity that is capable of setting a price. Market participants -- prospective buyers and sellers -- set prices, not capitalism.

More accurately, you don't care that capitalism is entirely different from a market, let alone a free market.

Obviously, that is just another bald falsehood from you. Any time there is consensual, arm's-length exchange, there is a market. That can occur in a socialist economy, a feudal economy, a traditional economy, a barter economy, and any other kind of economy where people trade things at arm's length, not just a capitalist economy.

Right. So his opinion that it would make capitalism more sustainable is not a reason to think it wouldn't.

So your claim that land is a product was just another bald falsehood from you. Try to remember that.

No, I already proved to you that free market capitalism is logically impossible because capitalism requires private ownership of land, which forces everyone to subsidize landowners. A free market cannot include forced subsidies.

Sorry, but I will continue to inform you of the facts, including the fact that there are indisputably markets independent of capitalism.

 

OK, so we can add real estate appraisal to the rapidly growing list of things you don't know anything about.

Maybe being required to make just compensation to the community for what you are taking from the community by excluding others from the land.

Demand all you like. If holding the land guaranteed you would lose money, you would get rid of it at any price. And if you did not keep the taxes current, your title would be vacated, just as it is now if you don't pay your property taxes, and some more productive user would get to use the site.

And if you had to pay the community the market price for excluding others from the land, it wouldn't be worth anything.

Sure it would, which is why every professional real estate appraiser measures land value independently of improvement value every single working day of his life. You just don't know anything about the subject.

That is just more false and absurd garbage from you. Even your property tax assessment probably lists land value separately from improvement value, as any professional real estate appraisal does.

Certainly. Or when we aren't.

Same as now, except that the most important advantages of the location are provided by government and the community, not nature.

 

There is no such thing, never has been, and never can be, as I already proved.

That is laughably, epically false. Almost every market in every advanced capitalist economy is heavily regulated. That you are apparently unaware of that fact speaks volumes.

Both of which are almost always influenced by regulation, often extensive.

Price is what something traded for. Not the same as value, though they are usually close.

No it isn't. They can demand all they like. If no one is willing to meet their extortion demands, they are out of luck. Value is what a thing would trade for, not what the owner hopes he can get for it.

Value is how much the person who wants something most would have to pay to get it from the one who wants it second most.

Yes: how much prospective users are willing to pay, not how much greedy, evil parasites would prefer to steal.

OK, so you just agreed that there can be a market outside capitalism.

 

OK, so under geoism Trump's hotel and its footprint would be valued as the net profit of the business minus the taxes on it? Surely not.

That would be grossly unfair in that the business is a constant revenue stream, NOT to be valued based on one year's profit. In the restaurant biz, the firs few years of ownership can throw off zero profit, as it takes time to develop and serve a clientele. The restaurant is an investment in the future, not to be valued on current profit.

The market value would still need to consider profits into the future, involving the cost of money, etc. Someone trying to buy a profitable hotel would need to convince the current proprietor that a certain offer today would compensate for future loss of income.

I think the market value of the property is still going to come down to the hopes and dreams of the person using that property.

If someone else wants to use that land, they are going to have to find a price at which the current user is willing to give up their hopes and dreams for that location.

If you want to buy my house, the same is going to be true - even though my home is NOT a profit making concern.

 

I've owned a lot of houses. Right now, I only own a couple, one of which is my primary residence. The other is great for vacations with my extended family - lots of room.

How would you evaluate how much I owe these communities, remembering that I make zero profit off either of these properties and often don't even use the one?

How would you go about freeing up my property for someone else to use, as I have NO interest in moving?

I want to know, as I live here, and my home is highly valued by the real estate market of today.

I'm sure many would love the freedom to move me the hell out!

 

Shocker!

The greed of the welfare chiseler for unearned wealth is to the greed of the landowner as the brightness of the moon is to the brightness of the sun.

As you have apparently been stealing from the community for your entire adult life, probably all your assets.

"Your property"? What would make it your property other than government's say-so? So if government says it isn't, it isn't.

Same way I would free up the premises of any tenant who does not pay what they owe for the space they are occupying.

The greed of the welfare chiseler for unearned wealth is to the greed of the landowner as the brightness of the moon is to the brightness of the sun.

Just as slaves would have loved the freedom to exercise the rights to liberty that their owners legally owned.

The funny part is, you actually think your life of legalized stealing has occurred by virtue of a "free market"!

 

No. You simply made that up, like everything else you have said so far on this subject.

Then why did you make it up and falsely claim it was geoism?

OK, so you don't know how businesses are valued, either.

That is how land is valued: the discounted present value of how much the owner can expect to steal from everyone else in the future by owning the land.

But you are actually objectively wrong about that, just as you are about everything else you have said so far on this subject.

Nope. Their hopes and dreams are irrelevant. If they can't pay for what they are taking, they don't get to take it. Simple.

It couldn't matter less if your home is a profit making concern, any more than it matters if a tenant's apartment is a profit making concern: if you can't or won't pay for what you are taking, you have to do without. You just think you should be entitled to take without paying because you are accustomed to doing so. It has been your lifelong habit to take from the community without paying the community for what you are taking, so you now think it is rightful. That is exactly the same "reasoning" slave owners used to justify their stealing and persuade themselves that slavery was rightful.

 

You keep calling me a criminal! Seriously - what the heck is up with that?

I'm just asking how you would like to see geoism work. Clearly the devil is in the details on this. One can't talk about it without developing an understanding of how land is evaluated, how a person gets to operate on a property parcel, etc.

The main point I keep asking is how would the value of a parcel of land be determined - as in, the land under my house or under the Trump hotel in Manhattan. For example, whomever is using that land is not going to give it up to someone who promises to make more money - they are going to have to actually pay. And, Trump and I and everyone else aren't going to give up their property for a price that doesn't include the full value of the infrastructure and business that would change hands.

Geoism does seem to claim to make it more easy for shop keepers, hotel owners, restauranteurs, home owners, and the rest to be removed.

 

Yes - I tried to interpret what you said about valuation.

But, I stated it in the form of a QUESTION.

If you don't like my try, then please state what your position is on how valuation would be performed.

And, you can't just say "market" unless you believe that how we set values today, which is through our market, is exactly how it would be done under your view of geoism (recognizing that experts propose different variations on this topic).

 

Another reason to oppose minimum wage laws is the fact that it is a price control, and all price controls lead to shortages.

 

You owning a house and property prevents THEM from using that house and property, therefore you are 'stealing' it from them....

I've done my rounds, and it has always ended the same. Envy and anger don't look good on most people.

 

May I suggest that MW is a price base, NOT a price control? There is plenty of upward mobility from a starting point.

Less than 2.5% of the workforce *only* makes MW. The demographics are under the age of 25, and usually as a part time job.

 

You may, but what you are describing is a specific manner in which price control is being implemented, so it's ultimately still a price control.

IOW, minimum wage is specifically controlling the price of labor ("price control") via requiring that at least $X be paid for a single laborer. This specific price control leads to shortages because it has now removed from the labor market all labor that is worth less than $X.

Right. Yet all labor that is worth less than that "starting point" has been removed from the labor market.

Right. Some jobs are worth more than MW, some are only worth MW, and others are worth less than MW.

 

No, you simply made that up. It is a fabrication. Owning LAND steals it from everyone else, because everyone else would otherwise be at liberty to use it, as our ancestors did to survive for millions of years because unlike ours, their individual rights to liberty had not been forcibly removed and converted into the private property of landowners. A house is a product of labor, and would not otherwise have been available; the land, by contrast, was already there, ready to use -- and being used -- with no help from the owner or any previous owner. People's individual liberty rights were simply removed by force and converted into the landowner's private property. Apologists for landowner greed, privilege and parasitism will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to prevent themselves from knowing that fact.

Those who oppose justice, who think injustice is better than justice, that evil is better than good, ALWAYS have to resort to makin' $#!+ up. That is a natural law of the universe. There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be.

That is exactly the same "argument" slave owners used to dismiss the abolitionists, and that the beneficiaries of institutionalized injustice have always used to denigrate those who championed justice. But few acts that a human being can commit are more evil than accusing those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it. If an argument could be used to justify chattel slavery, as yours could be (and was), then it is already known in advance to be fallacious, disingenuous and evil, with no further argumentation needed.

 

No, actually when a base cost is established, regardless of the wage, it is necessary for the actual production of the item.

It's easy to 'remove' labor that is not worth the cost of production. You don't hire it in the first place, or quite literally remove it by termination of employment.

Stated above

Now stating the obvious? A job worth 'less than MW', provides no production value to those asking for the labor?

While I will be nit picking, there are a number of jobs that can be outsourced to entities that specialize in those less-than valued jobs that need to be done. Just to be explicit, what is a weekly swish of the toilet worth? Taking the garbage out? Licking envelopes? I*can get you in touch with a number of organizations that employ challenged individuals who you can pay less than MW to perform these tasks.

The creation of MW was to prevent employers from pushing down the value of labor, to the extent of abuse. Yes, it is the responsibility of the individual to improve themselves for increases in wage, but creating a floor is not 'controlling' wages.

 

I don't care to go more rounds with you, since you are stuck on the idea that regardless of paying real estate taxes that supports local infrastructure, no one should be able to control a parcel of land for their own use, and that you and everybody else is entitled to the product of someone's labor and use of said land.

Not buying it. Attempted insults don't make your lame argument any more attractive.

You have yourself a lovely day.

 

I've stated it several times. You just ignore it and claim I haven't stated it.

The method would be a little different because the market would be for secure, exclusive tenure rather than legal entitlement to pocket the subsidy. But it would still be based on comparables, just like current market valuations.

 

Right, because you are aware that I will just prove you wrong again, as I have in every case so far. It's always the same.

The unimproved value of land is equal to how much more the owner can expect to take from the community by owning the land than he will ever repay in taxes on it.

No, you simply made that up. It is a fabrication. My idea is that when someone wishes to exclude others from a parcel of land, forcibly abrogating their rights to liberty and depriving them of access to opportunity they would otherwise have, they should make just compensation to their victims rather than gaining a legal entitlement to extort and steal from them.

No, you made that up, too. Land is not a product of anyone's labor, nor is any other natural resource. You are simply makin' $#!+ up because you are aware that when you are trying to justify injustice, you have no other choice. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies.

Everyone is indisputably naturally at liberty to use all land, as our ancestors did to survive for millions of years until greedy, evil, thieving parasites figured out that if they could just get legal ownership of the natural opportunities people need access to to survive, they would be legally entitled to take everything from everyone else. And that is exactly what they have been doing ever since.

"Insults"? I'm just stating the facts. That you find the truth insulting shows you are aware your views are not only indefensible but immoral.

 

May I suggest kaopectate?

 

No, the point is that you are not a criminal: your thieving is perfectly legal, like chattel slavery was hundreds of years ago. You may have noticed -- I have pointed it out to you -- that your attempts to justify your thieving are exactly the same "arguments" slave owners used to justify theirs. That should be a hint.

Oh, that part's actually pretty simple: those who wanted secure, exclusive land tenure would pay the unimproved market rent of the location to the community that secures the tenure for them and makes the location desirable, rather than giving it to a greedy, privileged, parasitic private landowner in return for doing and contributing exactly nothing.

By reference to the actual market transactions involving comparable parcels, just as professional private real estate appraisers do now. The only difference is that they would be measuring rental value rather than exchange value.

That's also rather simple: it's the person who excludes everyone else from the land who has to actually pay, by making just compensation to the community of those whom they exclude.

Of course you and Trump would have the option of paying the community the free market price for what you are taking from everyone else. But if you decline to pay for what you are taking from them, you don't get to take it, just like if you don't pay the baker for a loaf of bread, you don't get to take it home with you. The market value of the property would simply reflect both the value of any fixed improvements and the ongoing obligation to repay the community for what it is providing -- i.e., you would pay the community for what it is providing, rather than paying the previous landowner for what the community is providing. I'm not sure what part of that you are having so much trouble understanding.

Right: by removing the forced subsidy to the landowner, geoism makes efficient free market allocation of land possible. The free market would give the shop keepers, hotel owners, restaurateurs, home owners, etc. who were not using their location as productively as someone else would an incentive to yield their locations to someone better able to utilize its advantages. That is one of the major reasons geoism is far more conducive to economic growth and prosperity than capitalism: allocation is more efficient.

 

May I suggest finding a willingness to know the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove your beliefs are false and evil?

 

It is the employer's job to figure out how to minimize payroll - just like it is their job to figure out how to minimize the cost of other stuff they need.

That price has nothing to do with whether the business could afford to pay more for labor or could afford to pay more for steel, or whatever.

Once people thought that cleaners, and others were working jobs that could only sustain wages of the previous minimum wage - $6.

Now, at least in many cities, they get paid $15/hr.

And, hotels didn't close down due to paying cleaners more.

What we learned is that the job was worth WAY more than the previous minimum wage!