Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 19 of 29 FirstFirst ... 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 564
  1. #361
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    I think I mentally stumbled onto the main issue which separates the statist position and the free market/capitalist position.

    Cowboy's position is that man is inherently evil and requires the force of regulation and government intervention to coerce him to be good. Government exists to make people behave in ways that are considered good. Squatch's and my own position assumes that man is inherently good. Government exists to protect the good from the small group of individuals who are mentally broken/irrational.

    If you take Cowboy's position, then MW is entirely rational since business people (like all other groups of men) are inherently evil and will always make choices that harm others if allowed complete freedom of choice. If you take Squatch's position, government is only needed as a last resort since there are always some small number of people who will choose to prey on others rather than rely on their own talents, but most people will interact with others peacefully and fairly.

    It is this fundamental difference in world view that is resulting in this schism. Not just in this thread, but in the real world. The issues between Democrats and Republicans stem from this fundamental disagreement even though I do not believe most members of either party would recognize it nor acknowledge it. I am going to guess that Cowboy will take issue with my observation. However, if he truly believes that man is inherently good, then why must his base position be that one group of people is attempting to take advantage of another group by paying them unfairly?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  3. #362
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,454
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    If you take Cowboy's position, then MW is entirely rational since business people (like all other groups of men) are inherently evil and will always make choices that harm others if allowed complete freedom of choice. If you take Squatch's position, government is only needed as a last resort since there are always some small number of people who will choose to prey on others rather than rely on their own talents, but most people will interact with others peacefully and fairly.
    I think I agree to a good extent with your overall point. Though I think I would word it in terms of the gov posses an inherently larger evil then any individual.
    Still, the way I see it Squatch has been arguing a very realist view, IE MW doesn't accomplish what it seeks and in reality works against the ends.

    To me this appears to be logic vs emotion, and that is the gaps that I see between the groups. I mean, if MW really did help society I know I would be for it. Heck, I would vote to make it $50 an hour or $100 an hour.
    But it doesn't work.
    To serve man.

  4. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  5. #363
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well two things. One you misunderstand Say's Law. And two, you misunderstand the term "law."

    2) A law is something that isn't an assumption, it is a relationship demonstrated through physical observation. I'm not so much making an assumption here as I am applying known economic relationships.

    1) Say's law is no that production "creates" demand. Say's law is that production is "necessary" for demand. IE that you must produce first, before you consume.

    That this statement is true is relatively obvious. I can't eat dinner until I produce it. Likewise, I can't have "demand" in the economic sense until I have produced something that I can trade.
    I read it differently...that "states that aggregate production necessarily creates an equal quantity of aggregate demand". (That's just from the wiki if you have a more clear definition than I'd like to see it). As for your example, you can produce all the diner's you want, if you're in the middle of the dessert where there's no people you have no demand.

    ---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well no. I am assuming the "best" place for resources (IE the most efficient place) is where the need for them is highest.
    Which assumes it is with the business owner.

    ---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You didn't answer the question.
    About the majority of states? I thought I did.

    ---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, in civil court he could sue right? The court would arbitrate the dispute based on the terms of the contract right? So why does that mean the government should be able to come in and tell the two golfers that they are forbidden from not counting water shots as fouls?
    In the same way, say your brother takes it to all your cousins for their opinions and you take it to all of his. That's involving interests in the cause of determining justice.

    ---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    And you didn't answer my question: I am only able to pay them more if I take profit I'm getting from something more economically valuable and shift it to pay for these losses correct? So we can physically pay for these losses if we are willing to reduce overall economic development and output (IE lower the standard of living)?
    How is overall economic development and output reduced? Maybe for the factory, but the worker now has more money which he will spend.

    ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think I mentally stumbled onto the main issue which separates the statist position and the free market/capitalist position.

    Cowboy's position is that man is inherently evil and requires the force of regulation and government intervention to coerce him to be good. Government exists to make people behave in ways that are considered good. Squatch's and my own position assumes that man is inherently good. Government exists to protect the good from the small group of individuals who are mentally broken/irrational.

    If you take Cowboy's position, then MW is entirely rational since business people (like all other groups of men) are inherently evil and will always make choices that harm others if allowed complete freedom of choice. If you take Squatch's position, government is only needed as a last resort since there are always some small number of people who will choose to prey on others rather than rely on their own talents, but most people will interact with others peacefully and fairly.

    It is this fundamental difference in world view that is resulting in this schism. Not just in this thread, but in the real world. The issues between Democrats and Republicans stem from this fundamental disagreement even though I do not believe most members of either party would recognize it nor acknowledge it. I am going to guess that Cowboy will take issue with my observation. However, if he truly believes that man is inherently good, then why must his base position be that one group of people is attempting to take advantage of another group by paying them unfairly?
    *phew* lots of assumptions, most telling is how those business people with bad intentions will prey on those business people with good intentions, no? Leaving who?

    and I have history on my side...not ancient history either, current history where wealth and power collect in the few.

    ---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think I agree to a good extent with your overall point. Though I think I would word it in terms of the gov posses an inherently larger evil then any individual.
    Still, the way I see it Squatch has been arguing a very realist view, IE MW doesn't accomplish what it seeks and in reality works against the ends.

    To me this appears to be logic vs emotion, and that is the gaps that I see between the groups. I mean, if MW really did help society I know I would be for it. Heck, I would vote to make it $50 an hour or $100 an hour.
    But it doesn't work.
    I agree. Which is the point. It's not supposed to as it doesn't fit the business model. That an increase in the MW removes the types of jobs we don't want is the real point.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  6. #364
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,454
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    That an increase in the MW removes the types of jobs we don't want is the real point.
    What.. jobs we don't want? I don't understand that.. what is a job we don't want. We don't want bagboys to bag groceries? Or buggy pushers? Particularly bagboys, because that job has just about disappeared.
    To serve man.

  7. #365
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What.. jobs we don't want? I don't understand that.. what is a job we don't want. We don't want bagboys to bag groceries? Or buggy pushers? Particularly bagboys, because that job has just about disappeared.
    Back to the meme that those are the jobs paying MW.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #366
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,454
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Back to the meme that those are the jobs paying MW.
    You are not answering my question. Exactly what jobs don't we want to exist? .
    Now you raise another one. What do you mean here? Are you unaware that those jobs pay MW? I mean, I certainly earned MW doing those jobs, and so did all my contemporaries.

    Please explain, I'm not making a point, I'm asking you to clarify your own.
    To serve man.

  9. #367
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are not answering my question. Exactly what jobs don't we want to exist? .
    Now you raise another one. What do you mean here? Are you unaware that those jobs pay MW? I mean, I certainly earned MW doing those jobs, and so did all my contemporaries.

    Please explain, I'm not making a point, I'm asking you to clarify your own.
    I didn't say we didn't want them to exist. Those are the jobs we don't want. Would you switch your current job with that of bagboy? Those are the jobs that we don't want to encourage...which we do, by allowing them to exist and to be subsidized off of government benefits.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #368
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,454
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    I didn't say we didn't want them to exist. Those are the jobs we don't want. Would you switch your current job with that of bagboy? Those are the jobs that we don't want to encourage...which we do, by allowing them to exist and to be subsidized off of government benefits.
    you seem to be contradicting yourself. On one hand you disavow claiming to not want these jobs to exist, then you speak of our allowing them to exist as something we don't want to encourage.

    So, should these jobs be allowed to exist or not? If not, then you are claiming they shouldn't exist, if so then our allowing them to exist is not an issue.

    I just need clarity as to what your position is, and then once that.. your reasoning behind it.


    To answer your direct question.
    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Those are the jobs we don't want. Would you switch your current job with that of bagboy?
    No, I would not switch my current job to be a bagboy again.
    So what? I don't want that job now.. but if I was unemployed my tune may change.

    I do have something to say about your subsidy point, but I will wait for clarification from you before I move on.
    Last edited by MindTrap028; December 6th, 2015 at 10:39 AM.
    To serve man.

  11. #369
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    you seem to be contradicting yourself. On one hand you disavow claiming to not want these jobs to exist, then you speak of our allowing them to exist as something we don't want to encourage.

    So, should these jobs be allowed to exist or not? If not, then you are claiming they shouldn't exist, if so then our allowing them to exist is not an issue.

    I just need clarity as to what your position is, and then once that.. your reasoning behind it.
    "That an increase in the MW removes the types of jobs we don't want is the real point." Post 363

    Never said they shouldn't exist. They shouldn't exist to any great extent - by any definition I've heard from the right "for teenagers" - as opposed to how they are existing as jobs with external subsidization.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #370
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,454
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    "That an increase in the MW removes the types of jobs we don't want is the real point." Post 363

    Never said they shouldn't exist. They shouldn't exist to any great extent - by any definition I've heard from the right "for teenagers" - as opposed to how they are existing as jobs with external subsidization.
    O.K. so your issues isn't with their existence but with the idea that we are subsidizing their existence.
    Should I presume that you think they wouldn't exist if they were not subsidized by the gov?

    So how are we subsidizing their existence?
    To serve man.

  13. #371
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    O.K. so your issues isn't with their existence but with the idea that we are subsidizing their existence.
    Should I presume that you think they wouldn't exist if they were not subsidized by the gov?

    So how are we subsidizing their existence?
    They wouldn't exist to the same extent. See Squatch's support presented previously where only 24% of those at the MW are teenagers...despite the meme.

    They are subsidized in that by holding people to a certain level of income (either through MW or hours or a combination of both) workers become eligible for government benefits, therefore externalizing costs to the employer.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. #372
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,454
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    They wouldn't exist to the same extent. See Squatch's support presented previously where only 24% of those at the MW are teenagers...despite the meme.

    They are subsidized in that by holding people to a certain level of income (either through MW or hours or a combination of both) workers become eligible for government benefits, therefore externalizing costs to the employer.
    I think that that reasoning is kind of starting late to the argument.
    What I mean, is that you are taking a stat (24%) that is heavily effected by the previous and accumulative effects of min wage. For example, 10 years ago there were bagboys at my local grocer(where I worked as one) all were teens, now there is non.

    So the rising min wage destroyed those jobs for teens, and thus have effected the 24% number you are pointing to now.

    ---
    Now, as to the gov subsidizing the existence of those jobs.
    Did those MW jobs exist before gov subsidies? As far as I am aware, bagboys have existed as long as grocers.
    So I think you have the relationship backwards. If you were correct we would see the rise of jobs that earn MW (and less) with the rise of those gov subsidies.

    You may be correct that those gov benefits are allowing older people to take MW jobs, but that is because they are able to out compete teens for those jobs. Not because they are facilitating the existent of the job to begin with.


    MW can only destroy jobs almost by definition, because it makes jobs that pay less illegal. Bagboys for example.
    To serve man.

  15. #373
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think that that reasoning is kind of starting late to the argument.
    What I mean, is that you are taking a stat (24%) that is heavily effected by the previous and accumulative effects of min wage. For example, 10 years ago there were bagboys at my local grocer(where I worked as one) all were teens, now there is non.

    So the rising min wage destroyed those jobs for teens, and thus have effected the 24% number you are pointing to now.
    I'd imagine that would be the case though the percentage jumps to over 50% when they add up yo 24 year olds. So there is some merit to the argument that it is for entry level positions, just not the the extent that is usually portrayed.

    My boyfriend's store took out the automated checkouts last year. How long would you like to play at anecdotes?

    ---------- Post added at 04:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    You may be correct that those gov benefits are allowing older people to take MW jobs, but that is because they are able to out compete teens for those jobs. Not because they are facilitating the existent of the job to begin with.
    Right.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  16. #374
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,454
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    I'd imagine that would be the case though the percentage jumps to over 50% when they add up yo 24 year olds. So there is some merit to the argument that it is for entry level positions, just not the the extent that is usually portrayed.
    So what is a non entry level position that pays MW?


    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    My boyfriend's store took out the automated checkouts last year. How long would you like to play at anecdotes?
    Well, anecdotes are only a problem if you are willing to reject the point they support. In my case, I was making the point that MW has eliminated teen jobs.
    you don't seem to reject that point... so I don't see the problem.
    Or did you want a national report on the decline of Bag boy usage by stores over the last 10-15 years?

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Right.
    Well, if that is right then that is simply a cost we must consider when we implement those welfare programs. I see no reason to say we should create a market where bagboys don't exist, just because we feel bad for single mothers and wish to house them, fee them, provide them with electricity, healthcare, a phone and maybe some pocket money.
    If anything those MW jobs subsidizes our help to them. I mean, if a person is receiving some 40K in gov welfare benefits, I am more than happy to see them go to work and make another 10K.

    I don't see destroying jobs or making low paying jobs illegal as a valid solution. ... nor do I see what it is supposed to solve anyway.
    To serve man.

  17. #375
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So what is a non entry level position that pays MW?
    Although I'd argue that it is higher, most likely anything in the other 50%.

    ---------- Post added at 08:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, anecdotes are only a problem if you are willing to reject the point they support. In my case, I was making the point that MW has eliminated teen jobs.
    you don't seem to reject that point... so I don't see the problem.
    Or did you want a national report on the decline of Bag boy usage by stores over the last 10-15 years?
    That would support your point.

    ---------- Post added at 08:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Well, if that is right then that is simply a cost we must consider when we implement those welfare programs. I see no reason to say we should create a market where bagboys don't exist, just because we feel bad for single mothers and wish to house them, fee them, provide them with electricity, healthcare, a phone and maybe some pocket money.
    If anything those MW jobs subsidizes our help to them. I mean, if a person is receiving some 40K in gov welfare benefits, I am more than happy to see them go to work and make another 10K.

    I don't see destroying jobs or making low paying jobs illegal as a valid solution. ... nor do I see what it is supposed to solve anyway.
    Then just make them full time.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #376
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,454
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    Although I'd argue that it is higher, most likely anything in the other 50%.
    I don't understand that answer. Maybe my question was unclear, appologies.
    I was asking for a specific example of a job that you consider to be non entry level...that also pays MW.
    I ask, because I am not aware of any example.


    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    That would support your point.
    Well... I thought we agreed on the point, so I will skip supporting it further.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Then just make them full time.
    Well, because some jobs are simply not worth some of the arbitrary costs added to what it means to be "full time".
    That of course doesn't mean that the job shouldn't exist at all.
    To serve man.

  19. #377
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't understand that answer. Maybe my question was unclear, appologies.
    I was asking for a specific example of a job that you consider to be non entry level...that also pays MW.
    I ask, because I am not aware of any example.
    Any job where the person taking that job isn't entering the workforce for the first time. Since we are talking about unskilled work (not an unskilled worker) it follows we're not talking about gaining "entry" to a particular company or even sector.

    ---------- Post added at 01:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well... I thought we agreed on the point, so I will skip supporting it further.
    Your point stands as an amusing anecdote. Its your choice to not support your argument.

    ---------- Post added at 01:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Well, because some jobs are simply not worth some of the arbitrary costs added to what it means to be "full time".
    That of course doesn't mean that the job shouldn't exist at all.
    Indeed, why should I give someone more than 30 hours a week when they are doing the job and having their needs met by public assistance. So what if they'd like to work 40 hours, this is much better for my business.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #378
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,467
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Cowboy's position is that man is inherently evil and requires the force of regulation and government intervention to coerce him to be good. Government exists to make people behave in ways that are considered good. Squatch's and my own position assumes that man is inherently good. Government exists to protect the good from the small group of individuals who are mentally broken/irrational.
    I don't necessarily disagree. I've heard similar arguments from commentators about the fundamental nature of Left/Right, though I think the relationships are usually reversed. It does seem likely that the assumption that people will be preyed upon is pretty strong, regardless of the strong evidence to the contrary.

    My argument, hopefully, is more along the lines of "it doesn't matter" because given the nature of the exchange as voluntary, the relative motives of each party are somewhat moot. (And I recognize that there are some assumptions in there about the nature of regulation, etc. which I definitely agree with).

    Regardless, I think this is a very interesting view on this particular discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I read it differently...that "states that aggregate production necessarily creates an equal quantity of aggregate demand". (That's just from the wiki if you have a more clear definition than I'd like to see it). As for your example, you can produce all the diner's you want, if you're in the middle of the dessert where there's no people you have no demand.
    To be fair to you, a lot of people don't understand Say's law. It was written in French quite a while ago so the verbage is somewhat odd.

    I would recommend the Mises Wiki version as a bit more clear of an explanation (emphasis mine):

    Say’s Law or Say’s Law of Markets is a principle attributed to French businessman and economist Jean-Baptiste Say, stating that there can be no demand without supply. He theorized that the activity of production opens a demand for the products produced. Thus the mere creation of one product immediately opens an avenue for other products. To put it another way, Say was making the claim that production is the source of demand. One’s ability to demand goods and services from others derives from the income produced by one’s own acts of production. Wealth is created by production not by consumption. My ability to demand food, clothing, and shelter derives from the productivity of my labor or my nonlabor assets. The higher or lower that productivity is, the higher or lower is my power to demand other goods and services.

    http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Say's_law

    I think the confusion you (and don't worry, Lord Keynes also made this mistake) is that Say is saying that me producing X means that there is a demand for X. That clearly isn't the case, and in context that isn't what Say meant.

    Say, rather, is saying that production of x allows me, to have some resource to trade in order to demand y. IE let's say you have an apple tree. It is my production of shoes that allows me to have a demand for your apples because I can offer them in trade (you could say no, but that wasn't his point). Without me producing the shoes there is no economic demand, there is simply a request for charity (which again, isn't bad, it just isn't an economic thing).

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Which assumes it is with the business owner.
    Uh, no, not necessarily. Where did I make the assumption that it is always with the business owner? I'm pretty sure I noted that the highest need for prices is indicated by the highest price for their use. That can be the business owner, but it could also be with the employee. It depends on the value created by those different uses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    About the majority of states? I thought I did.
    Unless I missed it, I don't think so.

    I asked: Why would either scenario [a majority of state or a majority of senators] mean we have a ratified amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    In the same way, say your brother takes it to all your cousins for their opinions and you take it to all of his. That's involving interests in the cause of determining justice.
    Ok, but why does that mean that my cousins and his should be involved in telling us how to set up our golf game in the first place rather than just determining the dispute according to our agreement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    How is overall economic development and output reduced? Maybe for the factory, but the worker now has more money which he will spend.
    We've discussed this before, and above. Overall economic output is reduced because you are shifting resources to less productive means. Let's create a quick table to show the difference between our two alternatives. Scenario 1 is where the employer doesn't hire the overly expensive labor, scenario 2 is when he does.

    You'll notice I have assumed the same rate of return on all productive assets (line 2 and the employee's investing). But even with that we end up with overall less value created. IE lower economic development and a lower quality of life for everyone.


    Scenario 1 Total Input: 100
    Year 1 Year 2
    Line 2 Line 2
    Input 100 200
    Output 200 400
    Value Created 100 200
    Total Value Created: 200
    Scenario 2
    Year 1 Year 2
    Employee Line 2 Employee Line 2 Employee Investment
    Input 50 50 50 90 50
    Output 40 100 40 180 100
    Value Created -10 50 -10 90 50
    Value Created: 130


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    That an increase in the MW removes the types of jobs we don't want is the real point.
    I think (reading the conversation between you and MT), that you mean "jobs that you, cowboy, don't really want to do." But that doesn't mean that no one wants to do them right? Or that no one would be better off if those jobs existed, right?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #379
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,454
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Any job where the person taking that job isn't entering the workforce for the first time. Since we are talking about unskilled work (not an unskilled worker) it follows we're not talking about gaining "entry" to a particular company or even sector.
    O.k. so I pushed buggies, at my first job.. but an elderly person just looking to fill his time as he lives off of his savings works at the same job.
    Is pushing buggies an entry level position .. or not? (you would say no it isn't entry level according to your reasoning).

    The way that you are making a distinction from entry level into a particular sector is just because it is "unskilled" is an assumption you will have to support, because it doesn't follow logically.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Your point stands as an amusing anecdote. Its your choice to not support your argument.
    So, lets clarify here.. what is it that I said that you disagree with, that needs supporting?

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Indeed, why should I give someone more than 30 hours a week when they are doing the job and having their needs met by public assistance. So what if they'd like to work 40 hours, this is much better for my business.
    Because someone else will if you wish to keep a good employee. Or they could always go find a second job (like the good old days when people had pride in themselves and shunned taking any gov assistance).

    Some may actually take the reasoning you use.. the problem is, it simply doesn't follow that we should thus outlaw some jobs.




    ------------Hypothetical situation-----
    Tom is a retired veteran who is partially disabled and barely able to make ends meet. Because of his disability he is not capable of doing many jobs.

    Bob is a Jerk and refuses to pay tom more than $3 an hour to shovel dog poop out of his Business parking lot.. He is such a jerk he would rather let the dog poop sit in his own yard till it naturally disappears than to pay anyone more than $3 an hour to dispose of it.
    Further he also is such a deplorable human, he refuses to engage any person to do said job for more than 5 hours a week. Bob knows that because of our welfare system, there are plenty of people in such dire conditions so as to be willing to agree to is outrageous terms.

    -------------
    Now, your solution is to make the job illegal and thus nonexistant to Tom because you think the pay is too little and the terms are unfair.
    Have you really helped Tom? Or have you deprived him of what little income he could get, and forced him to sit at home idle on the gov dime?


    You seem to be so sympathetic to Tom, that you are willing to destroy his ability to make any income. Your position demonizes Bob, but fails to actually address his economics (IE, you can not magically make picking up dog poop more valuable than it is so as to justify a $10 an hour 40+ hour position). You seem to hand wave it off, Like "why not just make it full time" or "Bob's a jerk.

    These are wishful thinking sentiments on your part.
    To serve man.

  22. #380
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    O.k. so I pushed buggies, at my first job.. but an elderly person just looking to fill his time as he lives off of his savings works at the same job.
    Is pushing buggies an entry level position .. or not? (you would say no it isn't entry level according to your reasoning).

    The way that you are making a distinction from entry level into a particular sector is just because it is "unskilled" is an assumption you will have to support, because it doesn't follow logically.
    Right, he isn't entering the workforce - "just looking to fill his time". The definition of unskilled work has been given previously and agreed to by squatch...something like a job all of whose skills could be learned in 30 days I think it was - as opposed to say, someone with an advanced degree like a lawyer taking their first job. Both are entering the workforce, yes, but both are not doing it the same way.

    ---------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post


    So, lets clarify here.. what is it that I said that you disagree with, that needs supporting?
    I'm not sure if I can disagree with it, you said you saw less bagboys. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it either as a matter of country wide trends.

    ---------- Post added at 03:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Because someone else will if you wish to keep a good employee. Or they could always go find a second job (like the good old days when people had pride in themselves and shunned taking any gov assistance).

    Some may actually take the reasoning you use.. the problem is, it simply doesn't follow that we should thus outlaw some jobs.
    We shouldn't also encourage them.

    ---------- Post added at 03:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    -------------
    Now, your solution is to make the job illegal and thus nonexistant to Tom because you think the pay is too little and the terms are unfair.
    Have you really helped Tom? Or have you deprived him of what little income he could get, and forced him to sit at home idle on the gov dime?


    You seem to be so sympathetic to Tom, that you are willing to destroy his ability to make any income. Your position demonizes Bob, but fails to actually address his economics (IE, you can not magically make picking up dog poop more valuable than it is so as to justify a $10 an hour 40+ hour position). You seem to hand wave it off, Like "why not just make it full time" or "Bob's a jerk.

    These are wishful thinking sentiments on your part.
    Perhaps. But again, we don't have to encourage that type of behavior. When Bob shows up at his local councilmembers office looking for a tax break or the zoning office looking for an easement we make sure our elected officials know we don't want those types of business practices in our communities.

    ---------- Post added at 03:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Unless I missed it, I don't think so.

    I asked: Why would either scenario [a majority of state or a majority of senators] mean we have a ratified amendment?
    Yes, a majority of states.

    ---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Ok, but why does that mean that my cousins and his should be involved in telling us how to set up our golf game in the first place rather than just determining the dispute according to our agreement?
    Because you haven't. You're saying one thing and he's saying another.

    ---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Overall economic output is reduced because you are shifting resources to less productive means.
    I don't understand this, nor your tables which are confusing. Could you explain it simpler?

    If business owner Bob has $50, invests it and gets a 5% return, how is that different from paying worker Joe the $50, Joe then invests it gaining 5%. They're equal. Unless you assume Joe is too stupid to invest wisely.

    ---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    I think (reading the conversation between you and MT), that you mean "jobs that you, cowboy, don't really want to do." But that doesn't mean that no one wants to do them right? Or that no one would be better off if those jobs existed, right?
    True, I don't want to work for $1 a day collecting shopping carts out in an electrical storm in an at-will situation where when I say no I'm fired. Are you saying a community cannot have a say in what work can and cannot entail?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 19 of 29 FirstFirst ... 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Minimum wage is better than nothing
    By Wolf Myth in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 28th, 2010, 10:50 AM
  2. Welfare vs. Minimum Wage
    By KevinBrowning in forum Politics
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2007, 01:59 AM
  3. Minimum Wage Hike?
    By market state in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: December 7th, 2006, 08:02 PM
  4. Minimum Wage
    By Dr. Gonzo in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 14th, 2006, 06:27 PM
  5. Minimum Wage
    By emtee10 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2004, 07:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •