If you want to see what free cradle to grave health care achieves come to the UK. You see a failed system, that no matter how much tax payers money is pumped in, it’s never enough. Our elderly are being culled by the denial of treatments and Do not resuscitate notices placed on them, unknown to their families. If your weak and over 60 you are taking your life in your hands entering the hospital and care home systems imho.
4:25. Spot on If society has certain evils (discrimination, prejudice etc), businesses are not going to campaign for change. They will give people what they want, as long as they turn a profit.
and discrimination for discrimination's sake is wasting away your own potential to change society in some way, altruism basically. And self interest will eventually make you stop doing this or the market itself will strike you down.
It's so refreshing to see someone speak at a university and not being closed down, or snowflakes screaming and students outside destroying there place of education. Because they disagree with the speaker while screaming equal rights but only their rights n feelings matter.
What is "equal work"? I've never known any one person to produce the exact same value as any other person. If someone doesn't want to hire me because of my gender, it's that person's loss. I have no difficulty getting work, and my hourly rate is higher than that of many men.
You've NEVER known any person to produce the exact same value as any other person? Really? There are lots of jobs where the outcome is an all or nothing deal, and the time limit is something like "the end of the day". You've NEVER met two people who could complete the job properly? Because if two people can... they get paid an equal amount for equal work. It's that fucking simple.
2 things. 1. cost of hiring 2 people for the same job could be drastically different. 2. let's take the case, where there are two workers. one worker has leadership qualities, and the other is an anti social person. While their "job" is identical, they produce different values on the workplace.
what you won't learn in these short videos and you might if you sit through college (provided you are a decent student), is that many of the arguments he presents are now known to be deeply flawed, but of course, it takes years to explain how and it's much easier to watch a video and pretend you are an expert.
@Mark Burk I believe I said it takes a lot of time to explain properly, but as food for thought, many of his arguments for a self-regulating market assume people will always act for their own benefit when in reality people make decisions that are self-destructive all the time. He also relies on the assumption that people will set long-term plans effectively when in reality this is practically impossible when people cannot satisfy their short term needs. It's just too much to discuss here, to be honest.
@@omargodinez7256 We are not looking for the perfect economic argument that has no counterarguments, no such thing exists. The world is too complicated. We are looking for the explanation and solution that is by and large the most reasonable one and has the most logic and evidence behind it. I was studying economics in a Finnish university and was taught more left-wing economic theory arguments than probably many American universities teach so I do know there is a boatload of cases where Friedman’s arguments might and do go wrong or don’t apply. But I still agree with him on so so many things because I firmly believe the alternatives are simply worse. No solutions are available, just trade-offs. You can’t control the world.
@@lexle6203 I agree with you, however what I am arguing here is that Friedman's body of work is of fundamental value, but hardly applicable to the modern world. You, as an educated individual, can surely see that, but there is a pretty substantial chunk of people, that take this as gospel because it agrees with their political bias.
He would probably say they are "free to choose" whether or not they no-platform disagreement, but that they will ultimately pay the price in the free market of ideas. They are analogous to the sexist boss who will not hire women, and who then suffers because he is limiting himself to hiring only from a certain group of people which might not represent the best value workers, and ultimately is out-competed by a rival business which places no restrictions on who is hired, and is therefore more likely to hire the best workers.
If a man and women have the same job and position. But one of them is more productive and brings in more business to the company. Shouldn't that person make more money since they are more productive? #EqualPayForEqualWork
+Erik Schneider Outcome doesn't matter to these people. Feminism has done it's damnedest to ensure that it's cult followers either ignore or don't understand markets.
Commissioned sales is a perfect example of this. I've worked in commissioned sales where women were out earning men by as much as ten times. Or rather they were out performing men, and they were very handsomely rewarded for it on their paycheck. The top producer was a woman. Same job. Same title. Some are just better than others.
It is really as simple as that. Unfortunately some (mostly women) still claim that there is a pay gap when they aren't creating an equal value for the company they work for and demand their wages increase. If you want to make more, increase productivity and efficiency and acquire more valuable skills
... His brother (being a lawyer himself for one of the older lawyer's most lucrative clients) came in one day for a briefing. The old lawyer started off, but then let the female give the details. Upon some questioning, only the female lawyer could explain the bond issue to the brother. He subsequently and privately invited her to dinner, and offered her a job with him, at double the pay and with a secretary and personal assistant. She accepted. Her old boss was furious. The market works.
@DrCruel [...a young female lawyer as a junior partner.] Great anecdotal story about 'paying a price for discrimination' in the free market. More "do-gooders" should hear stuff like this. Thomas Sowell wrote a book about the detrimental effects of affirmative action around the world. India was particularly detailed and disastrous.
I so wish this man was actually trusted an appointed to be an economic minister. Sadly a LOT of his advice was ignored. What blows my mind is that for the most part his advice and evidence prove him correct... yet politicians still refuse to listen.
I knew a lawyer who employed a young female lawyer as a junior partner. She was a brilliant expert at her job, and the older male lawyer took full advantage of her skills and naivete - not only did she do most of the work, but she also washed the dishes in the conference room and did some other clerical duties ...
This was presented to me in college in an analyzing arguments class, group project: Present a case for or against a law preventing hiring discrimination based on tattoos or piercings. My group of 5 other college kids (I was going to school while working my full time job at 30 years old) did not even question whether or not we were going to be for or against. They IMMEDIATELY started to work on our argument FOR a law that forced a business to hire and/or prevent firing of someone with tattoos or piercings. I was blown away. I was like, wait, you guys would SUPPORT a law that did that? Why? And they proceeded to tell me that discrimination of any sort was wrong. I said, no it's not... and tried to explain this to them: Imagine I have a diner in a retirement community. Very conservative older people. I try to hire nice presentable people for my waitstaff and hosts. An waiter of mine, decides he's going to get a satan tattoo on his face along with piercings in his lips and nose. The customers appear to be extremely uncomfortable with his appearance. Some ask for a different waiter, some perhaps, leave. I notice that business has dropped dramatically. I start losing money. I have two choices: 1. hope that these older people realize that their discrimination is wrong and this is actually a very nice gentleman, or 2. fire this individual. If this law was passed, my only choice is to hope that the octogenarian customers of mine change their views before I lose my business. And likely, that won't happen. I will lose my business, my livelihood, my employees will lose their jobs, and the person with the dragon tattoos still ends up unemployed. What good would come of that?
I just don't see how it's discrimination when you agree to work for that amount. How is it that you're all of a sudden upset because someone of a different gender didn't agree to the same wage as you? lol all of these women agreed to work for a certain wage, there was no force. There are women that get paid more than the average woman and men that get paid less, but it was a choice. Not only was your wage a choice but your employer was your choice. This wage gap isn't a comparison between men and women having the same job with the same employer, this is an average of them all. Also, where do we see this pay parity in other demographics? do all races, ages, cities etc make the same for every job? Help me understand why your pay should be connected to someone else only when gender is the highlighted factor.
Agreeing to be paid less can still be unfair discrimination because a person can agree to a bad deal because of ignorance, intimidation, or a host of other factors - even if their work is worth the same as others. The unfairness is in being paid less than your work is worth, not in being paid less that what you and your employer agreed to (that's just straight breach of contract). The point is, that not everyone's work is worth the same thing; it's not equal. So you can't ask for equal pay when your work isn't equal. If your employer undervalues your work because of unfair discrimination, work for yourself or another employer who does. If your work is more than what people say it is, prove them wrong by getting the value you think its worth. But this doesn't mean that unfair discrimination doesn't exist. Accurately assessing the situation and choosing the best option doesn't mean that you're not getting a raw deal. If you and a pretty girl are both dying of thirst in the desert, and I come around with a caravan and water skins, I have some options. If I'm an absolutely generous, charitable person I'll pick you both up for free; if I'm a fair-minded person I'll get you to reimburse me for my costs taking you on; if I'm a profit-minded person I'll extract whatever money, goods, services and promises I can get out of you both; if I'm a fair-minded person I'll take you on for something between the two previous amounts; and if I don't mind discriminating I might just take her on for free because she's pretty and take you for everything you've got. You're going to agree to my price (or take your chances with exposure and death), but you can't deny that it's a raw deal.
Your argument is greatly flawed. First, by your own argument, men can get a raw deal too bc of "ignorance, intimidation, or a host of other factors". So there goes the gender argument. Also, you're missing the point of a free market, the emphasis on free. A person in a free market is FREE to choose. That goes for both employers and employees, men and women. Lastly, in your "pretty girl" (lol) example you described a monopoly, not a free market based economy. In a free market based economy, I and the girl would have ample choices from whom we would get water, e.g. ten caravans with water instead of one. @@xandercorp6175
Absolutely! Keep in mind there are minimum wage laws (regardless of gender) if it's an entry level job, and gender discrimination laws. Also keep in mind you have to pay maternity leave benefits, but if you decide you won't pay maternity leave then your applicants may not want to work for you and choose another company where they do get maternity leave benefits. Because you know, free market. If you will be offering generous maternity leave benefits, health and dental, 401K and you will compensate a fair market salary based on demand, experience, and education, please let me know, my wife would love to apply. @@TheShaniqua1992
You make my point for me. The situation "and when the labor pool is not robust" falls into the category of "creating fantasy versions of social interactions". Actually, if the labor market is not robust, there is a shortage and wage rates rise for everyone. The whole point is that the conditions of which Friedman and I are speaking are demonstrably those that exist in the real world.
i wish we had debates like this in school and college. schools and colleges are teaching kids dumb things today. the teachers union is a cancer on this planet because parents can not choose what they want their children to focus on.
The employer decides who is competent, then should pay the same wage to whomever it is, or not hire/employ them in the first place. Otherwise "irrelevant factors" are determining wages.
ALL positions "require a specific skill set". And conditions play out in exactly the manner in which Friedman describes it. The EEOC does not undermine that analysis in any way shape or form. And the reality is that, far from "plummeting in value", US production has continued to rise steadily for decades. That fact is easily checked. Just google "US industrial output graph" and select the FRED (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis) from the choices available.
@DrCruel What you call extortion is the legal exercise of collective bargaining rights via the Wagner act. Unions are necessary BECAUSE of the incompetence, corruption and greed of corporate management. I already answered your other question.
The women you mention is actually hypothetical. Most woman choose jobs that get paid less (eg: teaching) while theres a few that choose higher paid jobs (eg:engineer). it´s not about discrimination, its about job preference. i recommend you watchin the gender equality paradox episode from Harald Eia's "Brainwashing"
So if women were discriminated(from being hired) because they were women, then they could undercut men in labor costs and work for someone else. That someone else would reap the benefits of cheaper labor. Did i get that right? And in doing so women would be in higher demand for their cheaper labor and drive their labor costs back up. Is that what Milton said? Why don't women just not work for a prejudice employer? That way they wouldn't have to go through a circle just to get payed the same as men. Am i missing something?
He just says in a convuluted way to be sure that equal work for equal pay means that if people are prejudiced they will hire their prefered group first leaving the rest unemployed. On the other hand if you impose quotas then qualifications are also a consideration. Many women don't like manual labor oddly enough. Or math or the sciences for that matter. Many prefer to work part time to see to their children. That drastically reduces the employers choices and makes problems for him. However instead of doing all this you could just let people do their thing, cut government spending and drastically reduce unemployment so much that nobody cared what anybody was as long as they got people to do what they needed....
joy happy You are close but a little confused. Everyone including women should try to make the most money He is saying if company A, B and C are sexist but firm D is not D will out-compete A, B and C . To put numbers on it lets say the sexist firms will pay women 3 dollars per hour less than they are worth in profits, otherwise due to there sexism they would rather not hire them. This means that firm D will hire women for 2.99 cents less than they are worth which is better than there options at firms A, B and C. Firm D is willing to pay women what they are worth but does not have to and therefore wont. Now all else equal firm D will produce 2.99 more than the other firms per hour for each women hired, thereby lowering prices and taking the entire market share, forcing A, B, and C out of the market. All else equal the only firms that can compete with D are those that will have the lower labor costs, so now firm F G and H will enter the market who are not sexist. In turn these firms are willing to pay women what they are worth and therefore will compete up prices until women are paid the same as men. If women went straight to the sexist firms this would not work. If they worked for firm A for 3 dollars an hour less than they are worth instead of for D at 2.99 less than they are worth, the sexist firm A would out compete firm D. But women are smart, they wont work for someone who will pay them less than the guy down the street.
The thing is for private bussiness to actually give less to a woman it would actually be necessary for sexism to really be nationwide. Isolated people could never make it swing. Especially for prolonged periods of time. People really have a sense of justice and we usually forget that the despised employer actually depends on his employes.
***** Why would any woman choose to work for A, B or C? They would have to be really dumb to choose to work for a company that would pay them less and valued them less as people. The first firms have to pay men at cost because of the competitive market so there is no way for them to have lower labor costs than D. and D will continue to expand because each woman they hire will increase profits drastically. You are missing that there is a competitive market for the labor not just for the good the workers produce.
***** No D has much LOWER costs, if the market rate for this job is $10 an hour and A, B and C are unwilling to pay women more than $7 dollars an hour because they are sexist, then D who is not sexist will offer women $7.01 an hour. Every woman will work for D because they will pay them more. A, B and C will have no women employees so there average cost per employee is $10 an hour per employee while D has an average cost of $7.01 per employee per hour. Company D will be able to lower the costs of his goods and take the entire market. I don't know how else to explain it. I can
In “Occupying Chairlifts” a simple rule tweak on inheritance ends up changing the direction and purpose of modern human life! Here’s a fair way to transition forward to where we’re rewarded for cooperating and creating instead of competing and conquering. It's something specific we can demand. If this isnt the best answer, at least we’re thinking about what might be. Are we really just this close to having it work right? Oh yeah, it's a Ski movie! “Occupying Chairlifts” on RUclips!
While it's true that inflation hits in certain areas before others, this is a function not of trade policies but of the nature of additions to the money supply via government expenditure or bank lending. The trade - more correctly "current account" - deficit is an accounting measure completely offset by the captal account surplus. It is impossible for millions of mutually beneficial exchanges to magically be "bad" when aggregated.
Yes. As any competent economist can tell you, the "trade deficit" is offset by the "capital account surplus". It has NO negative economic consequences of any kind and, in reality, is evidence of robust trade activity that benefits the economy and the people. There is a mountain of literature on the subject if you'd like me to direct you. It is simply impossible for mutually beneficial trades to suddenly show evidence that someone was screwed once the data is aggregated.
This also happens in my country but I didn't know that happend in the USA too. So most american universities teach keynesian economics too? What about the most popular ones such as Harvard?
@Plato86 followed, the monetarist school really only was tried in Great Britain. The US reinflated after Volcker. Keynesianism / Corporatism / Special interest, etc. is really the only thing running the large state capitalist countries around the world.
@newguy33X If we lived in a world where supermarkets were government run, people would say "private supermarkets would lead to mass starvation on the streets as they would only feed their rich friends who can pay the most for the food". These scenerios greatly distort the reality of economics and the human spirit.
How does that make his point moot? His point still stands that the government intervention has done nothing to actually prevent discrimination since people can just ignore the law and be less vocal about their prejudices. It's very difficult to prove that somebody has discriminated based on race or gender in the labour market, and by taking away the ability to undercut competitors the government takes away the only viable weapon against discrimination.
I think the lady meant that there is a presumed level of collusion by all the male bosses to go ahead and all hire women, but at lower wages than they would men. Thus getting quality work from the women at below-market rates. But then a renegade employer who paid more to the most talented women would hire the best women away and secure a competitive advantage over the colluders by having all the smartest women on his team. ..
Well, obviously, the labor pool is sufficiently robust that the circumstance in which the emplyor cannot find an alternative to "hiring the female" is so rare as to be not worth mentioning. The state cannot FORCE the offering of an opportunity; the employer always has the option of removing it from the marketplace.
@DrCruel Corruption is a human problem. Corporations have plenty of their own corruption, so does government, churches and all kinds of enterprise. Being imperfect is no reason to dispose of unions. As for your uncle, would it make you feel better if he had been illegally fired from a scab shop? Happens all the time.
philosophic relationship. Science is so much more profoundly beautiful when you can a priori reconcile it with everything else (I wager, within the next two centuries, progress will be made in understanding Gravity and Entropy THROUGH a priori metaphysics; it is a priori metaphysics which can produce such amazing hypotheses; theoretical physics is centuries ahead of our economy). Austrian economics is merely a kindred traveller; all other schools are stillborn philosophers.
@xsumuhdihx I come from former USSR. Middle class family. Well to all those who born in USA let say, and promote socialist ideas, why don't you buy a ticket to north korea and go live there for a year. In USSR where we had central planning economy ( where they tell stores what goods to stock on, and what prices to use ), you could NOT get simple things like : jeans, video players,etc. To buy a car you had to go on a waiting list for years. I guess it's hard for people to see that
@Plato86 Logic isn't axioms; it's the mere process of deduction from them. Axioms such as numbers exist, etc. have no bearing with logic itself. Logic is simply if, thens. Mathematics posits axioms just like the Austrian school and it then deduces theories of human action, namely praxeology. 1 + 1 = 2 because of a priori reasoning, not epistemology. Epistemology is a posteriori reasoning--"in my experience, horses have four legs; fire is hot," etc.. Empiricism is not a
Yes, they are variants just as gold, iron and mercury are variants of metals even though many of their properties differ dramatically - the only issue that matters is the collective exercise of ownership powers (which encompasses all forms of sociaist - including fascist - activity). The issue has never been that it is inappropriate to discuss them separately but that it is equally inappropriate to ignore the definition. To the extent Friedman is heeded, liberty and prosperity follow.
@Lodatzor Your theory about the 12 year old would be awesome, if it didn't seem like most kids these days (probably a factor of every generation for all I know) are quick to assume their parents' biases, which could easily created some very skewed answers. That being said, it'd be easier for everyone to locate the 12 year old of their choosing and have them back up their own beliefs.
I can't say I agree with affirmative action, but I do agree with equal pay for equal work. It's also funny how much a college degree is more valued over in-field experience and competence; you could be the best programmer in the world, but most places won't hire you unless you have that "qualifying" slip of paper.
@Plato86 This is what the Austrian school does. You may not like it, but axiomatic deduction is essential to all the sciences, especially the soft social sciences, o/w you can't even make a conclusion from your data. The AS assumes man pursues his self-interest rationally (and even if this is only 95% of the time, it's still acceptable; one necessarily can't rationally predict irrationality anyways.). If he is allowed to homestead private property and voluntarily exchange, there exists
@DrCruel No one was giving labor unions credit when the auto industry was making record profits. What nearly ruined Detroit was the unbelievable arrogance of management. Management made incredibly stupid business decisions, like making over 30 different kinds of instrument cluster options for one vehicle model. That merely scratches the surface of their insane business ideas. Exhorbitant executive pay (like giving Ross Perot 5 Billion, yes Billion with a B to resign) didn't help any.
The reason for the seeming continuing discrimination is for the most part down to evolution and biology. The fact that women have the disruption of childbirth and take the voluntary step of looking after them. Both of which disrupt careers and channel them into certain lower paid jobs. There is also an argument for the mediocrity of women as an evolutionary necessity. See the Walter Block Lecture on my channel for an better explanation.
@DrCruel Let's say that a state like, say, Texas, succeeded from the Union... Would Texas then be entitled to the rights, protections and privileges that an actual US state gains from being in the Union despite being scabs in this case? Why expect the workplace to be any different?
Philsophy of Science. It is Austrian economics which is staying true to the Scientific spirit, the Scientific end game if you will, where we have established all cause-effect. Again, the end game may ontologically be only asymptotically approachable, but the logic of the path remains. Finally, Austrian economists would make great Physicists for they so clearly understand a priori rigor. My ambition is theoretical Physics wherein one recognizes the beauty of the Metaphysics-Physics
@p1nkAcid I was asking you a specific question about specific jobs. Let say there is a feminine girl that is talented in ballet. Are you to say that we ORDER her to pick a lot and for a designated period work in the mine ?
3:01 i dont understand this step. if the woman works for less, how is the chauvinist employer pay for his prejudice or gets affected in any way? its a win for him
The context of the argument assumes both sexes are equally productive/competent. That being said, the chauvinist employer ends up paying more wages for the male workers, while the employer who hires women pay lower wages but has the same output as the employer who hire only men. The employer who hire women offers cheaper prices to customers than the male only employer and put the male only employer out of business or hurt his bottom line.
Thomas Sowell did some work in this area. Turns out that a large part of it is because women generally have lower productivity, as can be reasoned out by economic theory. The empirical reasons for such an outcome is that women give birth and guys don't. He compared women who were never married and didn't have kids to men with the same jobs, and turned out when you accounted for that the women actually had higher wages.
The USSR is one example. Theoretical communism is utopian based upon the premise that economic decision making can be made at the societal level (which requires a unanimity of agreement that is unachievable for human beings). Given that constraint, actual practice requires some group or individual making such decisions (and enforcing them upon dissenters). Aside from being grossly inefficient (resulting in poverty) such a system is prone to co-opting by totalitarians (as history shows).
but it do make the regular voter more credible and does open them to a wider range of idea's. I can even stimulate to make him go study in economics. The only weapon he has you dont is that he volontary looks for this knowledge making the understanding way more profitable.
Corporatism is a term developed by the latter socialists/early fascists describes that variant of socialism in which worker councils are dominant - formally a joint construction of government, business and labor in which each is theoretically equal and the governmnet's chief role is the protection of the worker. The term is frequently (almost exclusively on borads such as this) misused to describe some (fictional) condition where corporations run the government.
@p1nkAcid How do you know how long it takes ? Maybe to work in the mine ( not entertaining miners ) you need some period let say 3-6 months of some sort of training ? And for crab fishermen, don't you think rotating people and thus having a crew that don't have the know how would be extremely dangerous and inefficient ?
@DrCruel You're missing the point. American auto companies made record profits, even with unions. Unions are not to blame for the auto industries problems. If you make shitty cars that no one wants (which unions have no control over) you will lose money if there is genuine competition. Unions were created because businesses were treating workers like slaves and government failed to intervene (for their own citizens). Unions don't open businesses, they get justice for their membership.
@paragshah2112 If the lowest price is paramount, this implys that the companies are striving for a lower price for a reason. What is that reason? To sell their product to those who can afford it. This cannot be the "slaves" you mention. Nor do corporations mass produce products to appeal to the limited number of "elites". Therefore, there has to be a relatively well off middle class that the corporations are competing to attract. The corporations cannot kill off their bread and butter.
@p1nkAcid Yes but you want to take "a quick buck compensation away" thus in my opinion there would be fewer people who have that calling. ( Dying to become crab fishermen ) The thing is your version of theory was implemented in USSR, when there was a harvest season they would sent doctors,professors etc to go pick crops. It was a disaster as you can imagine. I just came up with most obvious examples.
When you say, "Equal Pay for Equal Work" does "equal work" mean creating equal value or exerting equal effort? My effort doesn't help you and I needn't be paid for it but I should be paid for creating services and things that help you--then you'll pay me.
I tend to use "corporate socialism" in that case. You might look into its original usage by the fascisti in Italy (mostly in the early 1920s). Even Wikipedia does a fair job of making the distinction and showing some of the history, though it does list the concept of "corporate capitalism" which, while not necessarily an oxymoron, is absent any actual capitalism in how it is described. The corporation as a joint-stock company is not offensive to capitalism; special legal privileges are.
Something i dont get (usually im a big fan of Friedman by the way). How does "mr smith" have to "pay" for his prejudice when hes actually hiring someone for less money. It seems to me he's benefitting. I realise it in theory means therell be more women in the work force. But to whose benefit? Employers pay significantly reduced wages while workers suffer?
I understood him to say that the prejudiced employer restricts his hiring pool and therefore is likely to pay more than an unprejudiced employer who accepts offers of labor from a larger pool. An earlier comment said it well, "... the sexist boss who will not hire women, and who then suffers because he is limiting himself to hiring only from a certain group of people which might not represent the best value workers, and ultimately is out-competed by a rival business which places no restrictions on who is hired, and is therefore more likely to hire the best workers."
Quite the contrary, while you are correct about the implementation of communism (as it is impossible), the concept of collectivism is not "advanced". To the contrary, the maintenance of such a societal ordering (in order for it to function) requires the abandonment of the advance (the monetary system, the division of labor and the free flow of capital) that makes advance possible. Advocating a hybrid system devolves to a debate about the relative utility of the hybrid parts - capitalism wins.
Another way to phrase it...People think they are worth a fixed amount. In reality it is relative to whatever price their skill-set can command and what equal skillets are charging. In an example of an equally talented man and woman working at the same job, The fact that a sexist employer May pay the man more than the woman isn't so much that the woman is being underpaid so much as the man is being overpaid. The employer can get the same output from the woman but chooses to pay a premium just to get an employee with a dick. Friedman is saying that hiring preference will ultimately lead to that businesses' loss.
As long as people will use abstract statistics for defending their biased beliefs, will suffer from this absurd claims. Most woman choose jobs that get paid less (eg: teaching) while theres a few that choose higher paid jobs (eg:engineer). it´s not about discrimination, its about job preference.
Well, gee, if there actually WERE any 30% unemployment or, for that matter, any unemployment that can in any way be attributed to any trade deficit, you might have a point. Since those contentions are ridiculous and, in fact, the one period in US history when we had a sustained trade surplus was in the depths of the Great Depression when we really HAD obscenely high unemployment, your point is (obviously) entirely specious.
That democracy is necessary for the democratic version of socialism undermines my position not in the slightest. I never argued that fascism was a variant of democratic socilialism, but that it met the definition of socialism, particularly since the initial definitions of fascism were corporatist (a socialist variant that does not mean corporate ownership) and in practice private exercise of the powers of ownership were almost entirey fictional. Capitalism has NOTHING to do with fascism.
@shanepaulcoward What you mean is that the UK has bought American debt. That's how it works...debt = money. You're only looking at part of the post. Spending is the driver of U.S. debt. Revenues has been largely flat at around 18%-20%. So, its spending on a ever growing bureaucracy that is driving the U.S. national debt.
You have to understand the backdrop of this, which is that Friedman supported welfare for all (every citizen gets a check every month - no strings attached). So he was for a mixed economy, and had sympathy for people, he just saw how inefficiently we were helping people.
@@antigonemerlinThis is a bit misleading. Friedman supported a “negative income tax” system. Which meant that those who earned below a certain taxable amount (poverty line for example), received a check to make up the difference. Those who earned over that amount paid. You’re right though, that this check was “no strings attached” and they could spend that money however they wish. This not only maintained incentivize for people to work and improve their lot in life, but also provided support for those in need. Also he saw a negative income tax system as a means to an end, the end being abolishing the complex bureaucracy of the then and present welfare system which traps people- reduces incentive to improve one’s standing (as when you do, those benefits are taken away), and gives x amount for food, x amount for housing, x amount for unemployment insurance, x amount for clothing and goods, etc. He believed firmly that people have aspirations, dreams, capabilities, and dignities; not to be turned into dependents and supplicants.
The problem of that conception of Labour is the implicitly and inherent fallacy of the capitalism system: competition is always good. In fact, that makes everyone forgetful of other necessary principles as Justice. Thus, Freedom without responsibility nor Justice means nothing, because using free choice for free could turn easily into Labour exploitation.
This "equal pay for equal work" is one of the most misleading phrases I have ever heard. First, the feminists are often pointing to dissimilar jobs that have the skill requirements, usually at the lower end. So they might say a construction laborer has the same skill level as a janitor or maid, and so they should earn the same. Second, there are many employees in the same position in the same company who make different wages based on experience, education level, length of time in workforce...
The whole concept of something being "random" is necessarily idiotic. This is what I respect about Austrian economics. It doesn't take for granted the interrelationship between each individual element of the system. Statististics is an intermediary tool of the mind, of modest value I might add. One can metaphysically realize that RNG's are not random. You can not program randomness. Even, strictly speaking, cards dealt are not statistically pulled from a void, but, rather, a relationship
@paragshah2112 Please take this as constructive criticism - your failure to capitalize the first letter of every sentence makes it difficult to read your comments. "the objectives of citizens and the objectives of companies are 2 totally contrasting goals." The objective of a company is to meet the objectives of citizens. A company will have a competitive advantage if it acts fairly and in a sociably responsible manner. If not, why Fair trade products? Look up The Ultimatum Game.
@bddc201 Why don't unions open up businesses - co-ops, for example? Might it be because I am correct, in that unions are interested in looting created wealth from someone else rather than co-operating to generate wealth? Or are you telling me that unions don't involve themselves in actual production because of tradition? There are plenty of instances in foreign countries where organised workers and management work together to make the company successful. Sadly, none of these involve the UAW.
@DrCruel Unions aren't in the business of opening up businesses, and that really misses the point. It's just not what they do. A certain airline tried their hand at the car rental business and failed miserably, because that's not their expertise. Unions aren't "looters" or any other sort of criminal enterprise. Unions are about getting economic justice for workers and keeping the balance of power in check so the workers don't get screwed. Unions were instrumental in the civil rights movement.
@Plato86 polycentric law, private security, free money, than this is what the economy will look like. Oh, the law, security, and money are monopolized. Well, then here is your credit crises, wars, and injustice. They are the only school that will give you a plausible explanation for any phenomenon. Most of the other schools (I'd say all of them) are completely baffled by the business cycle.
@bddc201 I've lost a job because I refused to join a union. The union leader said the place I worked at was a "closed" shop, and that I would not be allowed to work there unless I joined up and paid dues to them. And this was meant to protect my "civil rights"? How dare they. How dare you. The Dred Scott decision legitimized the ownership of people by other people, based on race. This did not justify slavery. Nor does the Wagner Act justify these labor-based extortion rackets.
@imabookie3 Actually it has, Rates of productivity and earnings, per capita income have gone down steadily.. Inflated by a multitude of different bubbles the last 4-6 years have been the product of. Teen employment rates are lower than ever, black teen employment rates are deplorable. In other words Milton was as right as was possible, and you, having the evidence in front of your face have got it wrong. Amaaaaaaaaaazing.
No, you're wrong. In fact this has been written about extensively by scholars across even the political spectrum (thouigh I personally prefer Hayek's "the Fatal Conceit" as both comprehensive and reasonably concise. Capitalism wins by facilitating individual liberty (how is that evil?). It has freed up the resources responsible for ALL of the technological innovation we enjoy (without which me, my family and everyone else would still be living at the subsistence level ... if at all).
"we have to look at the actual consequences of policies not the names of them" sooo true. especially relevant in the healthcare debates today.
And if we do, the bullshit this charlatan(Friedman) pulled look more disastrous every day.
If you want to see what free cradle to grave health care achieves come to the UK. You see a failed system, that no matter how much tax payers money is pumped in, it’s never enough. Our elderly are being culled by the denial of treatments and Do not resuscitate notices placed on them, unknown to their families. If your weak and over 60 you are taking your life in your hands entering the hospital and care home systems imho.
Look at eu
Milton Friedman has never been more relevant than he is today.
Amogh Kulkarni
The truth never dies :)
I echo this 4 years later (2024)
I have a massive amount of respect for the civil conversations takin place in this.
I never even considered this concept before. Thank you for raising such interesting ideas, Milton Friedman!
man, he always forces me to re-examine my reasoning!!!! Thats why I love watching his vids!
4:25. Spot on
If society has certain evils (discrimination, prejudice etc), businesses are not going to campaign for change.
They will give people what they want, as long as they turn a profit.
and discrimination for discrimination's sake is wasting away your own potential to change society in some way, altruism basically. And self interest will eventually make you stop doing this or the market itself will strike you down.
It's so refreshing to see someone speak at a university and not being closed down, or snowflakes screaming and students outside destroying there place of education. Because they disagree with the speaker while screaming equal rights but only their rights n feelings matter.
Sad to say this was over 30 years ago
The last 45 seconds of this video are some of the most profound, counter intuitive concepts that I've ever heard. This man pwned universes.
Agreed.
What is "equal work"? I've never known any one person to produce the exact same value as any other person. If someone doesn't want to hire me because of my gender, it's that person's loss. I have no difficulty getting work, and my hourly rate is higher than that of many men.
Totally agree. No one man/woman is equal to another. Each brings his own set of skills.
You've NEVER known any person to produce the exact same value as any other person? Really? There are lots of jobs where the outcome is an all or nothing deal, and the time limit is something like "the end of the day". You've NEVER met two people who could complete the job properly? Because if two people can... they get paid an equal amount for equal work. It's that fucking simple.
2 things.
1. cost of hiring 2 people for the same job could be drastically different.
2. let's take the case, where there are two workers. one worker has leadership qualities, and the other is an anti social person. While their "job" is identical, they produce different values on the workplace.
Equality doesn't mean equal outcomes.
@@TheShaniqua1992 in your case, the one with leadership quality will obviously produce work of a higher quality
You learn more watching these short videos than sitting through 4 years of college.
what you won't learn in these short videos and you might if you sit through college (provided you are a decent student), is that many of the arguments he presents are now known to be deeply flawed, but of course, it takes years to explain how and it's much easier to watch a video and pretend you are an expert.
Im agree
@Mark Burk I believe I said it takes a lot of time to explain properly, but as food for thought, many of his arguments for a self-regulating market assume people will always act for their own benefit when in reality people make decisions that are self-destructive all the time. He also relies on the assumption that people will set long-term plans effectively when in reality this is practically impossible when people cannot satisfy their short term needs. It's just too much to discuss here, to be honest.
@@omargodinez7256 We are not looking for the perfect economic argument that has no counterarguments, no such thing exists. The world is too complicated. We are looking for the explanation and solution that is by and large the most reasonable one and has the most logic and evidence behind it. I was studying economics in a Finnish university and was taught more left-wing economic theory arguments than probably many American universities teach so I do know there is a boatload of cases where Friedman’s arguments might and do go wrong or don’t apply. But I still agree with him on so so many things because I firmly believe the alternatives are simply worse. No solutions are available, just trade-offs. You can’t control the world.
@@lexle6203 I agree with you, however what I am arguing here is that Friedman's body of work is of fundamental value, but hardly applicable to the modern world. You, as an educated individual, can surely see that, but there is a pretty substantial chunk of people, that take this as gospel because it agrees with their political bias.
They started "no platforming" disagreement because they couldn't stop profs like Friedman annihilating them in their echo chambers.
He would probably say they are "free to choose" whether or not they no-platform disagreement, but that they will ultimately pay the price in the free market of ideas. They are analogous to the sexist boss who will not hire women, and who then suffers because he is limiting himself to hiring only from a certain group of people which might not represent the best value workers, and ultimately is out-competed by a rival business which places no restrictions on who is hired, and is therefore more likely to hire the best workers.
Milton Friedman is one of the the greatest people, who ever existed.
not even today feminist would understand what he is talking about.
These lectures are just brilliant! Its too bad Rothbard and Mises didn't have recorded lectures like this. They were great genuises!
If a man and women have the same job and position. But one of them is more productive and brings in more business to the company. Shouldn't that person make more money since they are more productive? #EqualPayForEqualWork
+Erik Schneider Outcome doesn't matter to these people. Feminism has done it's damnedest to ensure that it's cult followers either ignore or don't understand markets.
Commissioned sales is a perfect example of this. I've worked in commissioned sales where women were out earning men by as much as ten times. Or rather they were out performing men, and they were very handsomely rewarded for it on their paycheck. The top producer was a woman. Same job. Same title. Some are just better than others.
It is really as simple as that. Unfortunately some (mostly women) still claim that there is a pay gap when they aren't creating an equal value for the company they work for and demand their wages increase. If you want to make more, increase productivity and efficiency and acquire more valuable skills
... His brother (being a lawyer himself for one of the older lawyer's most lucrative clients) came in one day for a briefing. The old lawyer started off, but then let the female give the details. Upon some questioning, only the female lawyer could explain the bond issue to the brother. He subsequently and privately invited her to dinner, and offered her a job with him, at double the pay and with a secretary and personal assistant. She accepted. Her old boss was furious.
The market works.
@DrCruel [...a young female lawyer as a junior partner.]
Great anecdotal story about 'paying a price for discrimination' in the free market. More "do-gooders" should hear stuff like this. Thomas Sowell wrote a book about the detrimental effects of affirmative action around the world. India was particularly detailed and disastrous.
I so wish this man was actually trusted an appointed to be an economic minister.
Sadly a LOT of his advice was ignored.
What blows my mind is that for the most part his advice and evidence prove him correct... yet politicians still refuse to listen.
They refuse to listen to his advice because they can't personally and directly profit from what he preaches.
that was some sweet verbal jujutsu
I knew a lawyer who employed a young female lawyer as a junior partner. She was a brilliant expert at her job, and the older male lawyer took full advantage of her skills and naivete - not only did she do most of the work, but she also washed the dishes in the conference room and did some other clerical duties ...
This was presented to me in college in an analyzing arguments class, group project: Present a case for or against a law preventing hiring discrimination based on tattoos or piercings. My group of 5 other college kids (I was going to school while working my full time job at 30 years old) did not even question whether or not we were going to be for or against. They IMMEDIATELY started to work on our argument FOR a law that forced a business to hire and/or prevent firing of someone with tattoos or piercings. I was blown away. I was like, wait, you guys would SUPPORT a law that did that? Why? And they proceeded to tell me that discrimination of any sort was wrong. I said, no it's not... and tried to explain this to them:
Imagine I have a diner in a retirement community. Very conservative older people. I try to hire nice presentable people for my waitstaff and hosts. An waiter of mine, decides he's going to get a satan tattoo on his face along with piercings in his lips and nose. The customers appear to be extremely uncomfortable with his appearance. Some ask for a different waiter, some perhaps, leave. I notice that business has dropped dramatically. I start losing money. I have two choices: 1. hope that these older people realize that their discrimination is wrong and this is actually a very nice gentleman, or 2. fire this individual. If this law was passed, my only choice is to hope that the octogenarian customers of mine change their views before I lose my business. And likely, that won't happen. I will lose my business, my livelihood, my employees will lose their jobs, and the person with the dragon tattoos still ends up unemployed. What good would come of that?
I just don't see how it's discrimination when you agree to work for that amount. How is it that you're all of a sudden upset because someone of a different gender didn't agree to the same wage as you? lol all of these women agreed to work for a certain wage, there was no force. There are women that get paid more than the average woman and men that get paid less, but it was a choice. Not only was your wage a choice but your employer was your choice. This wage gap isn't a comparison between men and women having the same job with the same employer, this is an average of them all. Also, where do we see this pay parity in other demographics? do all races, ages, cities etc make the same for every job? Help me understand why your pay should be connected to someone else only when gender is the highlighted factor.
Agreeing to be paid less can still be unfair discrimination because a person can agree to a bad deal because of ignorance, intimidation, or a host of other factors - even if their work is worth the same as others. The unfairness is in being paid less than your work is worth, not in being paid less that what you and your employer agreed to (that's just straight breach of contract).
The point is, that not everyone's work is worth the same thing; it's not equal. So you can't ask for equal pay when your work isn't equal. If your employer undervalues your work because of unfair discrimination, work for yourself or another employer who does. If your work is more than what people say it is, prove them wrong by getting the value you think its worth. But this doesn't mean that unfair discrimination doesn't exist. Accurately assessing the situation and choosing the best option doesn't mean that you're not getting a raw deal.
If you and a pretty girl are both dying of thirst in the desert, and I come around with a caravan and water skins, I have some options. If I'm an absolutely generous, charitable person I'll pick you both up for free; if I'm a fair-minded person I'll get you to reimburse me for my costs taking you on; if I'm a profit-minded person I'll extract whatever money, goods, services and promises I can get out of you both; if I'm a fair-minded person I'll take you on for something between the two previous amounts; and if I don't mind discriminating I might just take her on for free because she's pretty and take you for everything you've got. You're going to agree to my price (or take your chances with exposure and death), but you can't deny that it's a raw deal.
so i can start a company with all women, and undercut all my competitors and run them out of business ?
+shaniqua williams If you could actually do the job passably well, sure.
Your argument is greatly flawed. First, by your own argument, men can get a raw deal too bc of "ignorance, intimidation, or a host of other factors". So there goes the gender argument. Also, you're missing the point of a free market, the emphasis on free. A person in a free market is FREE to choose. That goes for both employers and employees, men and women. Lastly, in your "pretty girl" (lol) example you described a monopoly, not a free market based economy. In a free market based economy, I and the girl would have ample choices from whom we would get water, e.g. ten caravans with water instead of one. @@xandercorp6175
Absolutely! Keep in mind there are minimum wage laws (regardless of gender) if it's an entry level job, and gender discrimination laws. Also keep in mind you have to pay maternity leave benefits, but if you decide you won't pay maternity leave then your applicants may not want to work for you and choose another company where they do get maternity leave benefits. Because you know, free market. If you will be offering generous maternity leave benefits, health and dental, 401K and you will compensate a fair market salary based on demand, experience, and education, please let me know, my wife would love to apply. @@TheShaniqua1992
You make my point for me. The situation "and when the labor pool is not robust" falls into the category of "creating fantasy versions of social interactions". Actually, if the labor market is not robust, there is a shortage and wage rates rise for everyone. The whole point is that the conditions of which Friedman and I are speaking are demonstrably those that exist in the real world.
i wish we had debates like this in school and college.
schools and colleges are teaching kids dumb things today. the teachers union is a cancer on this planet because parents can not choose what they want their children to focus on.
The employer decides who is competent, then should pay the same wage to whomever it is, or not hire/employ them in the first place. Otherwise "irrelevant factors" are determining wages.
That's because they teach Keynesian economics in almost all universities. Friedman's style isn't popular, but he's often times RIGHT.
ALL positions "require a specific skill set". And conditions play out in exactly the manner in which Friedman describes it. The EEOC does not undermine that analysis in any way shape or form.
And the reality is that, far from "plummeting in value", US production has continued to rise steadily for decades. That fact is easily checked. Just google "US industrial output graph" and select the FRED (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis) from the choices available.
@DrCruel What you call extortion is the legal exercise of collective bargaining rights via the Wagner act. Unions are necessary BECAUSE of the incompetence, corruption and greed of corporate management. I already answered your other question.
Amen! Better than going in debt.
The women you mention is actually hypothetical. Most woman choose jobs that get paid less (eg: teaching) while theres a few that choose higher paid jobs (eg:engineer). it´s not about discrimination, its about job preference. i recommend you watchin the gender equality paradox episode from Harald Eia's "Brainwashing"
@EsdaileApe
probably referring to the example milton was using: the male chauvinist pig employer. the description box seems to side with Dr. Friedman
So if women were discriminated(from being hired) because they were women, then they could undercut men in labor costs and work for someone else. That someone else would reap the benefits of cheaper labor. Did i get that right?
And in doing so women would be in higher demand for their cheaper labor and drive their labor costs back up. Is that what Milton said? Why don't women just not work for a prejudice employer? That way they wouldn't have to go through a circle just to get payed the same as men. Am i missing something?
He just says in a convuluted way to be sure that equal work for equal pay means that if people are prejudiced they will hire their prefered group first leaving the rest unemployed. On the other hand if you impose quotas then qualifications are also a consideration. Many women don't like manual labor oddly enough. Or math or the sciences for that matter. Many prefer to work part time to see to their children. That drastically reduces the employers choices and makes problems for him. However instead of doing all this you could just let people do their thing, cut government spending and drastically reduce unemployment so much that nobody cared what anybody was as long as they got people to do what they needed....
joy happy You are close but a little confused. Everyone including women should try to make the most money
He is saying if company A, B and C are sexist but firm D is not D will out-compete A, B and C . To put numbers on it lets say the sexist firms will pay women 3 dollars per hour less than they are worth in profits, otherwise due to there sexism they would rather not hire them. This means that firm D will hire women for 2.99 cents less than they are worth which is better than there options at firms A, B and C. Firm D is willing to pay women what they are worth but does not have to and therefore wont. Now all else equal firm D will produce 2.99 more than the other firms per hour for each women hired, thereby lowering prices and taking the entire market share, forcing A, B, and C out of the market. All else equal the only firms that can compete with D are those that will have the lower labor costs, so now firm F G and H will enter the market who are not sexist. In turn these firms are willing to pay women what they are worth and therefore will compete up prices until women are paid the same as men.
If women went straight to the sexist firms this would not work. If they worked for firm A for 3 dollars an hour less than they are worth instead of for D at 2.99 less than they are worth, the sexist firm A would out compete firm D. But women are smart, they wont work for someone who will pay them less than the guy down the street.
The thing is for private bussiness to actually give less to a woman it would actually be necessary for sexism to really be nationwide. Isolated people could never make it swing. Especially for prolonged periods of time. People really have a sense of justice and we usually forget that the despised employer actually depends on his employes.
***** Why would any woman choose to work for A, B or C? They would have to be really dumb to choose to work for a company that would pay them less and valued them less as people. The first firms have to pay men at cost because of the competitive market so there is no way for them to have lower labor costs than D.
and D will continue to expand because each woman they hire will increase profits drastically.
You are missing that there is a competitive market for the labor not just for the good the workers produce.
***** No D has much LOWER costs, if the market rate for this job is $10 an hour and A, B and C are unwilling to pay women more than $7 dollars an hour because they are sexist, then D who is not sexist will offer women $7.01 an hour. Every woman will work for D because they will pay them more. A, B and C will have no women employees so there average cost per employee is $10 an hour per employee while D has an average cost of $7.01 per employee per hour. Company D will be able to lower the costs of his goods and take the entire market. I don't know how else to explain it. I can
In “Occupying Chairlifts” a simple rule tweak on inheritance ends up changing the direction and purpose of modern human life! Here’s a fair way to transition forward to where we’re rewarded for cooperating and creating instead of competing and conquering.
It's something specific we can demand. If this isnt the best answer, at least we’re thinking about what might be. Are we really just this close to having it work right?
Oh yeah, it's a Ski movie! “Occupying Chairlifts” on RUclips!
Choose wisely:
1) Equal pay = woman does not get hired = woman doesn't get paid
2) Free market = woman can get hired = woman gets paid
@DrCruel A lack of respect for the basic human rights of workers is why Unions are necessary. How do you "JUSTIFY" a wage?
Never thought about it, the free market solves racism
While it's true that inflation hits in certain areas before others, this is a function not of trade policies but of the nature of additions to the money supply via government expenditure or bank lending. The trade - more correctly "current account" - deficit is an accounting measure completely offset by the captal account surplus. It is impossible for millions of mutually beneficial exchanges to magically be "bad" when aggregated.
Yes. As any competent economist can tell you, the "trade deficit" is offset by the "capital account surplus". It has NO negative economic consequences of any kind and, in reality, is evidence of robust trade activity that benefits the economy and the people. There is a mountain of literature on the subject if you'd like me to direct you. It is simply impossible for mutually beneficial trades to suddenly show evidence that someone was screwed once the data is aggregated.
This also happens in my country but I didn't know that happend in the USA too. So most american universities teach keynesian economics too? What about the most popular ones such as Harvard?
very interesting, he's got a point...
Does anyone know that South African author he mentioned? I can’t find anything but I might be spelling it wrong
@Plato86
followed, the monetarist school really only was tried in Great Britain. The US reinflated after Volcker. Keynesianism / Corporatism / Special interest, etc. is really the only thing running the large state capitalist countries around the world.
@newguy33X If we lived in a world where supermarkets were government run, people would say "private supermarkets would lead to mass starvation on the streets as they would only feed their rich friends who can pay the most for the food". These scenerios greatly distort the reality of economics and the human spirit.
How does that make his point moot? His point still stands that the government intervention has done nothing to actually prevent discrimination since people can just ignore the law and be less vocal about their prejudices. It's very difficult to prove that somebody has discriminated based on race or gender in the labour market, and by taking away the ability to undercut competitors the government takes away the only viable weapon against discrimination.
I think the lady meant that there is a presumed level of collusion by all the male bosses to go ahead and all hire women, but at lower wages than they would men. Thus getting quality work from the women at below-market rates. But then a renegade employer who paid more to the most talented women would hire the best women away and secure a competitive advantage over the colluders by having all the smartest women on his team. ..
Well, obviously, the labor pool is sufficiently robust that the circumstance in which the emplyor cannot find an alternative to "hiring the female" is so rare as to be not worth mentioning. The state cannot FORCE the offering of an opportunity; the employer always has the option of removing it from the marketplace.
Such a wise man!
@DrCruel Corruption is a human problem. Corporations have plenty of their own corruption, so does government, churches and all kinds of enterprise. Being imperfect is no reason to dispose of unions. As for your uncle, would it make you feel better if he had been illegally fired from a scab shop? Happens all the time.
philosophic relationship. Science is so much more profoundly beautiful when you can a priori reconcile it with everything else (I wager, within the next two centuries, progress will be made in understanding Gravity and Entropy THROUGH a priori metaphysics; it is a priori metaphysics which can produce such amazing hypotheses; theoretical physics is centuries ahead of our economy). Austrian economics is merely a kindred traveller; all other schools are stillborn philosophers.
@xsumuhdihx I come from former USSR. Middle class family. Well to all those
who born in USA let say, and promote socialist ideas, why don't you buy a ticket
to north korea and go live there for a year. In USSR where we had central planning
economy ( where they tell stores what goods to stock on, and what prices to use ), you could NOT
get simple things like : jeans, video players,etc. To buy a car you had to go on a waiting list for years.
I guess it's hard for people to see that
@Plato86
Logic isn't axioms; it's the mere process of deduction from them. Axioms such as numbers exist, etc. have no bearing with logic itself. Logic is simply if, thens. Mathematics posits axioms just like the Austrian school and it then deduces theories of human action, namely praxeology.
1 + 1 = 2 because of a priori reasoning, not epistemology. Epistemology is a posteriori reasoning--"in my experience, horses have four legs; fire is hot," etc..
Empiricism is not a
Yes, they are variants just as gold, iron and mercury are variants of metals even though many of their properties differ dramatically - the only issue that matters is the collective exercise of ownership powers (which encompasses all forms of sociaist - including fascist - activity). The issue has never been that it is inappropriate to discuss them separately but that it is equally inappropriate to ignore the definition.
To the extent Friedman is heeded, liberty and prosperity follow.
MYTH: Equal pay for equal work helps disadvantaged groups.
@Lodatzor Your theory about the 12 year old would be awesome, if it didn't seem like most kids these days (probably a factor of every generation for all I know) are quick to assume their parents' biases, which could easily created some very skewed answers. That being said, it'd be easier for everyone to locate the 12 year old of their choosing and have them back up their own beliefs.
I can't say I agree with affirmative action, but I do agree with equal pay for equal work. It's also funny how much a college degree is more valued over in-field experience and competence; you could be the best programmer in the world, but most places won't hire you unless you have that "qualifying" slip of paper.
@Plato86
This is what the Austrian school does. You may not like it, but axiomatic deduction is essential to all the sciences, especially the soft social sciences, o/w you can't even make a conclusion from your data. The AS assumes man pursues his self-interest rationally (and even if this is only 95% of the time, it's still acceptable; one necessarily can't rationally predict irrationality anyways.). If he is allowed to homestead private property and voluntarily exchange, there exists
@DrCruel No one was giving labor unions credit when the auto industry was making record profits. What nearly ruined Detroit was the unbelievable arrogance of management. Management made incredibly stupid business decisions, like making over 30 different kinds of instrument cluster options for one vehicle model. That merely scratches the surface of their insane business ideas. Exhorbitant executive pay (like giving Ross Perot 5 Billion, yes Billion with a B to resign) didn't help any.
@EsdaileApe Obviously he's not. The title is just telling us what the subject of the speech is about. It can be misleading though...
The reason for the seeming continuing discrimination is for the most part down to evolution and biology. The fact that women have the disruption of childbirth and take the voluntary step of looking after them. Both of which disrupt careers and channel them into certain lower paid jobs. There is also an argument for the mediocrity of women as an evolutionary necessity. See the Walter Block Lecture on my channel for an better explanation.
@DrCruel Let's say that a state like, say, Texas, succeeded from the Union... Would Texas then be entitled to the rights, protections and privileges that an actual US state gains from being in the Union despite being scabs in this case?
Why expect the workplace to be any different?
Philsophy of Science. It is Austrian economics which is staying true to the Scientific spirit, the Scientific end game if you will, where we have established all cause-effect. Again, the end game may ontologically be only asymptotically approachable, but the logic of the path remains. Finally, Austrian economists would make great Physicists for they so clearly understand a priori rigor. My ambition is theoretical Physics wherein one recognizes the beauty of the Metaphysics-Physics
@p1nkAcid I was asking you a specific question about specific jobs. Let say there is a feminine girl that is talented in ballet. Are you to say that we ORDER her to pick a lot and for a designated period work in the mine ?
3:01 i dont understand this step. if the woman works for less, how is the chauvinist employer pay for his prejudice or gets affected in any way? its a win for him
The context of the argument assumes both sexes are equally productive/competent. That being said, the chauvinist employer ends up paying more wages for the male workers, while the employer who hires women pay lower wages but has the same output as the employer who hire only men. The employer who hire women offers cheaper prices to customers than the male only employer and put the male only employer out of business or hurt his bottom line.
Thomas Sowell did some work in this area. Turns out that a large part of it is because women generally have lower productivity, as can be reasoned out by economic theory. The empirical reasons for such an outcome is that women give birth and guys don't. He compared women who were never married and didn't have kids to men with the same jobs, and turned out when you accounted for that the women actually had higher wages.
The USSR is one example. Theoretical communism is utopian based upon the premise that economic decision making can be made at the societal level (which requires a unanimity of agreement that is unachievable for human beings). Given that constraint, actual practice requires some group or individual making such decisions (and enforcing them upon dissenters). Aside from being grossly inefficient (resulting in poverty) such a system is prone to co-opting by totalitarians (as history shows).
but it do make the regular voter more credible and does open them to a wider range of idea's. I can even stimulate to make him go study in economics. The only weapon he has you dont is that he volontary looks for this knowledge making the understanding way more profitable.
Corporatism is a term developed by the latter socialists/early fascists describes that variant of socialism in which worker councils are dominant - formally a joint construction of government, business and labor in which each is theoretically equal and the governmnet's chief role is the protection of the worker. The term is frequently (almost exclusively on borads such as this) misused to describe some (fictional) condition where corporations run the government.
What a LEGEND
@p1nkAcid How do you know how long it takes ? Maybe to work in the mine ( not entertaining miners ) you need some period let say 3-6 months of some sort of training ?
And for crab fishermen, don't you think rotating people and thus having a crew that don't have the know how would be extremely dangerous and inefficient ?
The population of this country is better educated now than during any preceding period.
I'm not trying to disagree with you or anything but I'm slightly confused about what your reply has to do with my statement.
@DrCruel You're missing the point. American auto companies made record profits, even with unions. Unions are not to blame for the auto industries problems. If you make shitty cars that no one wants (which unions have no control over) you will lose money if there is genuine competition. Unions were created because businesses were treating workers like slaves and government failed to intervene (for their own citizens). Unions don't open businesses, they get justice for their membership.
@paragshah2112 If the lowest price is paramount, this implys that the companies are striving for a lower price for a reason. What is that reason? To sell their product to those who can afford it. This cannot be the "slaves" you mention. Nor do corporations mass produce products to appeal to the limited number of "elites". Therefore, there has to be a relatively well off middle class that the corporations are competing to attract. The corporations cannot kill off their bread and butter.
@p1nkAcid Yes but you want to take "a quick buck compensation away" thus in my opinion there would be fewer people who have that calling. ( Dying to become crab fishermen ) The thing is your version of theory was implemented in USSR, when there was a harvest season they would sent doctors,professors etc to go pick crops. It was a disaster as you can imagine. I just came up with most obvious examples.
When you say, "Equal Pay for Equal Work" does "equal work" mean creating equal value or exerting equal effort? My effort doesn't help you and I needn't be paid for it but I should be paid for creating services and things that help you--then you'll pay me.
3:15 is such a great shot with this topic.
lol
I tend to use "corporate socialism" in that case.
You might look into its original usage by the fascisti in Italy (mostly in the early 1920s). Even Wikipedia does a fair job of making the distinction and showing some of the history, though it does list the concept of "corporate capitalism" which, while not necessarily an oxymoron, is absent any actual capitalism in how it is described.
The corporation as a joint-stock company is not offensive to capitalism; special legal privileges are.
Something i dont get (usually im a big fan of Friedman by the way).
How does "mr smith" have to "pay" for his prejudice when hes actually hiring someone for less money. It seems to me he's benefitting. I realise it in theory means therell be more women in the work force. But to whose benefit? Employers pay significantly reduced wages while workers suffer?
I understood him to say that the prejudiced employer restricts his hiring pool and therefore is likely to pay more than an unprejudiced employer who accepts offers of labor from a larger pool. An earlier comment said it well, "... the sexist boss who will not hire women, and who then suffers because he is limiting himself to hiring only from a certain group of people which might not represent the best value workers, and ultimately is out-competed by a rival business which places no restrictions on who is hired, and is therefore more likely to hire the best workers."
Quite the contrary, while you are correct about the implementation of communism (as it is impossible), the concept of collectivism is not "advanced". To the contrary, the maintenance of such a societal ordering (in order for it to function) requires the abandonment of the advance (the monetary system, the division of labor and the free flow of capital) that makes advance possible. Advocating a hybrid system devolves to a debate about the relative utility of the hybrid parts - capitalism wins.
Another way to phrase it...People think they are worth a fixed amount. In reality it is relative to whatever price their skill-set can command and what equal skillets are charging. In an example of an equally talented man and woman working at the same job, The fact that a sexist employer May pay the man more than the woman isn't so much that the woman is being underpaid so much as the man is being overpaid. The employer can get the same output from the woman but chooses to pay a premium just to get an employee with a dick. Friedman is saying that hiring preference will ultimately lead to that businesses' loss.
Friedman: here's the step by step of the logic behind the explanation
Feminist: reeee, women aren't less competent!
As long as people will use abstract statistics for defending their biased beliefs, will suffer from this absurd claims. Most woman choose jobs that get paid less (eg: teaching) while theres a few that choose higher paid jobs (eg:engineer). it´s not about discrimination, its about job preference.
Well, gee, if there actually WERE any 30% unemployment or, for that matter, any unemployment that can in any way be attributed to any trade deficit, you might have a point. Since those contentions are ridiculous and, in fact, the one period in US history when we had a sustained trade surplus was in the depths of the Great Depression when we really HAD obscenely high unemployment, your point is (obviously) entirely specious.
That democracy is necessary for the democratic version of socialism undermines my position not in the slightest. I never argued that fascism was a variant of democratic socilialism, but that it met the definition of socialism, particularly since the initial definitions of fascism were corporatist (a socialist variant that does not mean corporate ownership) and in practice private exercise of the powers of ownership were almost entirey fictional. Capitalism has NOTHING to do with fascism.
@shanepaulcoward What you mean is that the UK has bought American debt. That's how it works...debt = money. You're only looking at part of the post. Spending is the driver of U.S. debt. Revenues has been largely flat at around 18%-20%. So, its spending on a ever growing bureaucracy that is driving the U.S. national debt.
You have to understand the backdrop of this, which is that Friedman supported welfare for all (every citizen gets a check every month - no strings attached).
So he was for a mixed economy, and had sympathy for people, he just saw how inefficiently we were helping people.
So, Universal Basic Income (UBI) before it was cool?
@@antigonemerlin You're absolutely correct. Andrew Yang should've been president. A champion of the people.
@@antigonemerlinThis is a bit misleading. Friedman supported a “negative income tax” system. Which meant that those who earned below a certain taxable amount (poverty line for example), received a check to make up the difference. Those who earned over that amount paid. You’re right though, that this check was “no strings attached” and they could spend that money however they wish. This not only maintained incentivize for people to work and improve their lot in life, but also provided support for those in need.
Also he saw a negative income tax system as a means to an end, the end being abolishing the complex bureaucracy of the then and present welfare system which traps people- reduces incentive to improve one’s standing (as when you do, those benefits are taken away), and gives x amount for food, x amount for housing, x amount for unemployment insurance, x amount for clothing and goods, etc. He believed firmly that people have aspirations, dreams, capabilities, and dignities; not to be turned into dependents and supplicants.
The problem of that conception of Labour is the implicitly and inherent fallacy of the capitalism system: competition is always good. In fact, that makes everyone forgetful of other necessary principles as Justice. Thus, Freedom without responsibility nor Justice means nothing, because using free choice for free could turn easily into Labour exploitation.
How do you exploit a laborer who is not legally required to work for you?
This "equal pay for equal work" is one of the most misleading phrases I have ever heard. First, the feminists are often pointing to dissimilar jobs that have the skill requirements, usually at the lower end. So they might say a construction laborer has the same skill level as a janitor or maid, and so they should earn the same. Second, there are many employees in the same position in the same company who make different wages based on experience, education level, length of time in workforce...
@truevoice08
There are a number of Rothbard lectures you can look up here on RUclips.
The whole concept of something being "random" is necessarily idiotic. This is what I respect about Austrian economics. It doesn't take for granted the interrelationship between each individual element of the system. Statististics is an intermediary tool of the mind, of modest value I might add. One can metaphysically realize that RNG's are not random. You can not program randomness. Even, strictly speaking, cards dealt are not statistically pulled from a void, but, rather, a relationship
@paragshah2112 Please take this as constructive criticism - your failure to capitalize the first letter of every sentence makes it difficult to read your comments.
"the objectives of citizens and the objectives of companies are 2 totally contrasting goals."
The objective of a company is to meet the objectives of citizens. A company will have a competitive advantage if it acts fairly and in a sociably responsible manner. If not, why Fair trade products? Look up The Ultimatum Game.
These concepts are not that new either. Though he gave a fine example. Anyone interested, look up Austrian school of economy.
Every time I listen to Friedman I realize how much I’ve been using my ass to reasoning instead of my brain.
@bddc201 Why don't unions open up businesses - co-ops, for example? Might it be because I am correct, in that unions are interested in looting created wealth from someone else rather than co-operating to generate wealth? Or are you telling me that unions don't involve themselves in actual production because of tradition?
There are plenty of instances in foreign countries where organised workers and management work together to make the company successful. Sadly, none of these involve the UAW.
@DrCruel Unions aren't in the business of opening up businesses, and that really misses the point. It's just not what they do. A certain airline tried their hand at the car rental business and failed miserably, because that's not their expertise. Unions aren't "looters" or any other sort of criminal enterprise. Unions are about getting economic justice for workers and keeping the balance of power in check so the workers don't get screwed. Unions were instrumental in the civil rights movement.
@Plato86
polycentric law, private security, free money, than this is what the economy will look like. Oh, the law, security, and money are monopolized. Well, then here is your credit crises, wars, and injustice. They are the only school that will give you a plausible explanation for any phenomenon. Most of the other schools (I'd say all of them) are completely baffled by the business cycle.
@bddc201 I've lost a job because I refused to join a union. The union leader said the place I worked at was a "closed" shop, and that I would not be allowed to work there unless I joined up and paid dues to them.
And this was meant to protect my "civil rights"? How dare they. How dare you.
The Dred Scott decision legitimized the ownership of people by other people, based on race. This did not justify slavery. Nor does the Wagner Act justify these labor-based extortion rackets.
@CarlosMarti123
Ok so when both soviet russia AND capitalist USA, via governments, started a space programme both got into space?
@imabookie3 Actually it has, Rates of productivity and earnings, per capita income have gone down steadily.. Inflated by a multitude of different bubbles the last 4-6 years have been the product of. Teen employment rates are lower than ever, black teen employment rates are deplorable. In other words Milton was as right as was possible, and you, having the evidence in front of your face have got it wrong. Amaaaaaaaaaazing.
No, you're wrong. In fact this has been written about extensively by scholars across even the political spectrum (thouigh I personally prefer Hayek's "the Fatal Conceit" as both comprehensive and reasonably concise. Capitalism wins by facilitating individual liberty (how is that evil?). It has freed up the resources responsible for ALL of the technological innovation we enjoy (without which me, my family and everyone else would still be living at the subsistence level ... if at all).