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 31 of 32 FirstFirst ... 21 27 28 29 30 31 32 LastLast
Results 601 to 620 of 632
  1. #601
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,624
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Almost. But not quite.
    Then it is a flawed analogy since those instituting a poll tax (or literacy test) do make such a declaration.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #602
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,614
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Maybe I have mischaracterized Sharmak's args. For that I apologize.
    No need of course. At this point I've been talking to him for something like 550 posts, that has to bear some insight into his position I would hope. Nor would I expect you to have waded through the last 100 or so to get that insight. I think your interpretation is reasonable because it is the one that is often discussed, and the one that I think progressive policy advocates are more explicit about.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    To be clear, though, I don't want to defend minimum wage.
    :-) Believe me, there is no part of me that thinks you want to defend minimum wage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    What I am saying is that if your value system, the primary goal, is egalitarianism, then a minimum wage makes sense. In particular if you believe that equalitarianism should be applied to those who are employed and don't mind unemployment for certain demographics. This is kind of the argument I hear from progressives except they generally aren't willing to publicly admit (certainly not politicians) that any tradeoffs exist. Still, I think the tradeoffs are secondary to them as they seek to reach a specific outcome.
    You are certainly right here for many, many Progressives imo. It is also common (and this applies to people across the political spectrum to be fair) for them to not include the "missing man syndrome." IE you don't include the effect you don't see. In this case, the wage egalitarianism would back fire as some portion of people's wages go to $0. But, rarely does anyone think of unemployment like that (unless they happen to be laid off) so we don't include them in that measure.

    My initial take is that they are ok with there being increased unemployment in those demographics because either a) it never occurs to them or b) when it does it is ok because there is a presumption of a government program to help them, maybe even an "opportunity" to open up a new program. What is your take? What drives the acceptance of that unemployment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    In terms of the Google example, it is an idea I am playing around with. It is not well formulated yet. It is based on a sense I have of the market and I am looking to either validate it with objective evidence or dismantle it. So, I have read your arguments and I am going to sit on them for a bit.
    Totally fair, and I hope I didn't come off as too much of a rain cloud at a parade in my response [I have a tendency to do that]. I'd be happy to chat through it a bit more with you somewhere seperately. There is certainly something there related (imo) to consolidation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    Let me ask, what values are you seeking with employment?
    Very valid question. My view, unfortunately, suffers from being not particularly good at associating metrics with. Metrics assume a shared goal that I'm not sure is really there. For example, we could interpret the drop off in hours worked by millenials as a result of a bad economy. But that doesn't always seem to be the case. It also seems to be the result of them wanting more flexible working arrangements and valuing time off more than previous generations. So, for them, the lower hours worked metric is better than if it were higher.

    Broadly, I am looking for the maximum number of planners within the labor market (to blatantly plagerize F.A. Hayek). The number of people working or the specific wages worked are interesting metrics and I think we should pay attention to them, but they are definitely secondary (in my personal view) to the chance of individuals to make unrestricted labor choices for themselves. I see this as an extension of the freedom of association and disassociation.

    With that said, it isn't necessarily a bright line distinction. I am open to arguments for interventions (such as retraining opportunities to reduce transitional unemployment), but the above is the working presumption I'm generally starting with.

    Did that answer your question? I think I might have rambled a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I'm asking just for clarification, shouldn't this be those who pay a minimum wage instead of impose.
    Let me see if I can clarify Prof. Boudreaux's point here. Impose is definitely the correct verb rather than pay because Prof. Boudreaux is referring to those advocating for the law (an imposition) not referring to employers.

    What Prof. Boudreaux is saying is that those who advocate for a minimum wage are setting a "minimum value" for those who want to come to a job. Just like those who did the same things, but with coming to a poll. IE that there is no market for those who are offering a value level lower than that mandatory minimum. Just like there was no voting station for those who brought less money to the polling place than the mandatory minimum.

    His point is about those who advocate to abolish that market are relying on the same mechanism used to limit voting through a poll tax. This argument is a riff on a whole class of illustrations about the minimum wage often used by economists. IE you can't say a minimum wage doesn't have the effects described in the OP and argue that cigarette taxes (or sin taxes more broadly) work. Or that a carbon tax would work. Or that cap and trade would work.

    One of those two positions could be true, but not both at the same time. Likewise, you can't say that a poll tax kept poorer (mostly African Americans) from voting (and it did) and say that the minimum wage won't keep those poorer in skills from working. Its the same mechanism.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. #603
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,624
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let me see if I can clarify Prof. Boudreaux's point here. Impose is definitely the correct verb rather than pay because Prof. Boudreaux is referring to those advocating for the law (an imposition) not referring to employers.
    Right, that was all that I was asking. The imposers intention is not that productivity of said employee rise, just their wage. You could argue, and I believe that you just did, that the employer wants productivity to rise.

    Regardless, with a poll tax there is a clear intent.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  4. #604
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,373
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Right, that was all that I was asking. The imposers intention is not that productivity of said employee rise, just their wage. You could argue, and I believe that you just did, that the employer wants productivity to rise.

    Regardless, with a poll tax there is a clear intent.
    I am responding even though I think Squatch should be the primary respondent. Mostly, I want to make sure my own interpretation is correct. It is always good when we don't assume to know.

    You are right Cowboy, the imposers are not explicitly demanding higher value. What Squatch is quoting is an explanation of how wage mechanisms actually work. He is using the analogy of a poll tax. If you agree that a poll tax reduces voting, then why? The author suggests money is representative of value. If you increase the value required to perform some action, then you should get less of that action. If wages are set to some minimum value, then we are going to increase the value that workers will be expected to bring and, by extension, you'll get fewer workers. This isn't by design or by conspiracy. It is by necessity. If you disagree with this premise, then you have to explain what is the value of money itself. If it is just paper with arbitrary numbers, then why do we accept it all? So, the people insisting on a minimum wage are imposing a minimum value on the market. If an employer doesn't think he can get X value from a worker then it does not make any sense to hire that worker. Well, if you increase the wages from 10 to 15 dollars per hour, then all those workers whose value is in between 10 and 15 dollars will find themselves unemployed. This speaks nothing of the previously unemployed group of those whose value is less than 10 dollars per hour. It isn't an employer imposing this minimum value. It is the employer reacting to the wage demand and reconciling it with his interests to stay in business. That's my understanding of it anyhow and, of course, I could be wrong.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  5. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  6. #605
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,614
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Right, that was all that I was asking. The imposers intention is not that productivity of said employee rise, just their wage. You could argue, and I believe that you just did, that the employer wants productivity to rise.

    Regardless, with a poll tax there is a clear intent.
    Ibelsd's response is correct. Intent isn't relevant because the comparison is about effect, not intent. Both policies have the same effect because they rely on the same mechanism, a barrier to entry.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #606
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,624
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Both policies have the same effect because they rely on the same mechanism, a barrier to entry.
    I'll tentatively agree with that. The barrier however, originates in different places in each example. For the poll tax it originates with the imposer. For the minimum wage it isn't the intender who creates the barrier - they just want people to be paid more and it is the employer that won't (for whatever reason) and causes the hurt in your threads title.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #607
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,373
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ibelsd's response is correct. Intent isn't relevant because the comparison is about effect, not intent. Both policies have the same effect because they rely on the same mechanism, a barrier to entry.
    So, I think what CB SHOULD be arguing and he is too caught up in blame and pointing fingers to see the argument, your analogy is only true if we assume the market is working optimally. If the workers are actually earning less than their value due to, let's say external or even psychological factors, then it may be a valid policy to artificially increase minimum wage. For example, if the economy grew by some random number I'm pulling out of my butt, 10% but worker wages only increased by 2% AND this difference isn't due to production, but human nature explained as follows:
    If I have a workers making $10/hr and the economy grows by 10%, then workers, on average, should see a 10% increase in wages. However, we know people will almost never demand 10% raises and companies won't generally feel required to provide them. So, in a sustained period of economic growth, we could see wages lag far behind expectations. Consider growth rates over 10 years of 1%, 5%, 2%, -.5%, 4%, etc. However, the minimum wage remains at the same value. Previous minimum wage earners have received raises that far under-perform market growth (around 2-3%). This drives little upward pressure on wages above minimum wage. In other words, the market isn't optimal. It is skewed. Not because anyone is mean or cruel. It is just kinda human nature and how wages and raises work. So, maybe it is reasonable to suggest, every so often, we need to prime the wage pump and bump up the minimum wage.

    In the above example, then, we wouldn't expect a value gap and, therefore, wouldn't expect a significant impact on unemployment. In fact, we would probably be adding value to the market by giving people more economic power. Conceivably a win-win.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  9. Thanks CowboyX thanked for this post
  10. #608
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,614
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I'll tentatively agree with that. The barrier however, originates in different places in each example. For the poll tax it originates with the imposer. For the minimum wage it isn't the intender who creates the barrier - they just want people to be paid more and it is the employer that won't (for whatever reason) and causes the hurt in your threads title.
    Well the effect is what is important here. It isn't the motivations that matter much when we are looking at inner-city poverty rates, its the actual cause of those poverty rates.

    And I'm not sure your second section is correct. If Ibelsd and I live in Seattle and I ask him to do a 1 hour task for me for $5.25 and he agrees; it isn't either of us that has created the barrier, its the imposer of the minimum wage (the city in this case).



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If the workers are actually earning less than their value due to, let's say external or even psychological factors, then it may be a valid policy to artificially increase minimum wage.
    That's a good point and I agree. What those factors are is an interesting discussion. The only real major one I've discussed is Monopsony power and I think the mechanisms in your example are generally of either the monopsonistic or institutional inertia (which sometimes gets lumped into monopsony as well) categories.

    IE, if the economy grew by 10% it would take a while for the wages of workers to catch up because of what Keynes called 'wage stickiness;' you have a contract for some period of time at the current wage rate so it probably won't adjust as the economy grows, but in more structured bursts as you renegotiate or find a new job.

    Monopsony power largely doesn't exist in the US, however those kind of lags in wage translation are very real. And (getting to what I mentioned with Sharmak) what is more concerning to me, is that those gains are often translated into non-wage costs such as benefit cost increases and compliance cost increases. So if 8% of the 10% of growth is caught up in filing the 50 new annual forms the County, City, State, and Federal Government demand you fill out, the worker won't see that in their wage, but it is still a cost associated with labor.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #609
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,624
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well the effect is what is important here. It isn't the motivations that matter much when we are looking at inner-city poverty rates, its the actual cause of those poverty rates.

    And I'm not sure your second section is correct. If Ibelsd and I live in Seattle and I ask him to do a 1 hour task for me for $5.25 and he agrees; it isn't either of us that has created the barrier, its the imposer of the minimum wage (the city in this case).
    You're saying he would refuse to do the same job for $15? Or wouldn't go next door to where he could get $15 for his same hour?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #610
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,373
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That's a good point and I agree. What those factors are is an interesting discussion. The only real major one I've discussed is Monopsony power and I think the mechanisms in your example are generally of either the monopsonistic or institutional inertia (which sometimes gets lumped into monopsony as well) categories.

    IE, if the economy grew by 10% it would take a while for the wages of workers to catch up because of what Keynes called 'wage stickiness;' you have a contract for some period of time at the current wage rate so it probably won't adjust as the economy grows, but in more structured bursts as you renegotiate or find a new job.

    Monopsony power largely doesn't exist in the US, however those kind of lags in wage translation are very real. And (getting to what I mentioned with Sharmak) what is more concerning to me, is that those gains are often translated into non-wage costs such as benefit cost increases and compliance cost increases. So if 8% of the 10% of growth is caught up in filing the 50 new annual forms the County, City, State, and Federal Government demand you fill out, the worker won't see that in their wage, but it is still a cost associated with labor.
    I agree with most of this. Certainly, if state/federal regualtions eat into the production of employees by causing employers to spend more time per employee on things like reporting, then that would be a counter to any positive effects of min wage.

    Still, and it sounds like you agree, we may need a min wage, or, at the least, it is reasonable to believe that, in some circumstances a min wage is a positive regulation on the economy. If you agree in principle, then it becomes a matter of what the wage should be. In addition, it is reasonable to have policies that increment the min wage over time.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  13. #611
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,614
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You're saying he would refuse to do the same job for $15? Or wouldn't go next door to where he could get $15 for his same hour?
    I'm not sure where you got that idea. I'm saying that Ibelsd and I have an agreement for him to do a certain job for a rate we both agree on. The only reason that deal isn't made is that someone else has come in to create a barrier. His willingness to take more (and my willingness to pay less) are completely irrelevant to why the actual deal we both agreed upon didn't happen.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I agree with most of this. Certainly, if state/federal regualtions eat into the production of employees by causing employers to spend more time per employee on things like reporting, then that would be a counter to any positive effects of min wage.

    Still, and it sounds like you agree, we may need a min wage, or, at the least, it is reasonable to believe that, in some circumstances a min wage is a positive regulation on the economy. If you agree in principle, then it becomes a matter of what the wage should be. In addition, it is reasonable to have policies that increment the min wage over time.
    The evidence seems to support the first part of this very well. That compliance costs have risen to somewhere in the area of 40% of the total cost of employment argues to me that there is a far easier remedy if we are interested in increasing wages.

    And I would definitely agree that in economies with monopsonistic power that a minimum wage has the possibility of overall improving take home pay without the kind of ramifications discussed in this thread. I'm just pretty sure we don't actually live in an economy with those kinds of monopsonistic powers.

    Merging these paragraphs there are things we could do to help reduce wage stickiness, and I think a lot of those actions are similar to ones done to decrease the cost of employment from a regulatory perspective. By reducing the barrier to hire (and to fire) we make it easier for employees to switch jobs and incur lower switching costs when doing so. That makes the labor market more competitive and decreases the period of wage contracts, allowing them to adjust to growth much faster.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #612
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,624
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not sure where you got that idea. I'm saying that Ibelsd and I have an agreement for him to do a certain job for a rate we both agree on. The only reason that deal isn't made is that someone else has come in to create a barrier. His willingness to take more (and my willingness to pay less) are completely irrelevant to why the actual deal we both agreed upon didn't happen.
    Only you have chosen not to participate.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #613
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,075
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Only you have chosen not to participate.
    The point is:

    the Gov't stopped this business transaction by virtue of a minimum wage, not either of the involved parties "choosing to not participate".



    (Squatch is supposing he is a business/employer not some one looking to get their lawn mowed by a neighbor kid.)

  16. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  17. #614
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,624
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    The point is:

    the Gov't stopped this business transaction by virtue of a minimum wage, not either of the involved parties "choosing to not participate".

    (Squatch is supposing he is a business/employer not some one looking to get their lawn mowed by a neighbor kid.)
    Operating a business is a privilege, not a right, Squatch also could choose to not follow the laws and be an outlaw employer. His employee might also. Let's say...work under the table for cash.

    I suppose they'd be complaining that they're being "forced" to break the law.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #615
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,373
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The evidence seems to support the first part of this very well. That compliance costs have risen to somewhere in the area of 40% of the total cost of employment argues to me that there is a far easier remedy if we are interested in increasing wages.

    And I would definitely agree that in economies with monopsonistic power that a minimum wage has the possibility of overall improving take home pay without the kind of ramifications discussed in this thread. I'm just pretty sure we don't actually live in an economy with those kinds of monopsonistic powers.

    Merging these paragraphs there are things we could do to help reduce wage stickiness, and I think a lot of those actions are similar to ones done to decrease the cost of employment from a regulatory perspective. By reducing the barrier to hire (and to fire) we make it easier for employees to switch jobs and incur lower switching costs when doing so. That makes the labor market more competitive and decreases the period of wage contracts, allowing them to adjust to growth much faster.
    In Idaho there is a very real possibility that all of their state regulations will go poof today. Maybe it was a couple of days ago. So, if your claim is true, then we should expect a sudden massive rise in wages for workers in the state of Idaho. So, let's think about this, even if ALL the regulations don't suddenly sunset. The governor could choose to send many or all back to the legislator to renew. Is it reasonable to think workers will suddenly see 40% raises? 30%? 20%? 10? Maybe, over a long period of time worker wages will increase. An extra .5% per year, and finally 20 years later account for the removal of regulations. But, there is a huge gap until we approach that point. And to be sure, as more regulations are added, companies will likely become shy about offering higher wages very quickly. Even the belief regulations will return will force most businesses to hold back. But even if Idaho were to just come out and say, no new regs. We are going 100% reg free, we wouldn't see anything close to an immediate impact for workers. Like a pointed out earlier, companies are never going to suddenly feel obliged to hand 10 or 15% raises. Workers are never going to feel entitled to demand 10-15% wages. There is psychology at play here, as well as, other factors. I don't disagree that regulations can impact wages. What I am saying is that there are other factors we could try to account for. There is a gap between things we can quantify and justify a wage and things that are more phycological or procedural which prevent wages from equaling true value. Maybe this doesn't justify a $15 hr min wage, but it justifies a min wage and it may be higher or lower than $15/hr.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  19. #616
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,614
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Only you have chosen not to participate.
    This doesn't seem to represent the analogy. I have agreed to participate. I have agreed to pay Ibelsd X dollars. He has agreed to perform services. The only non-agreement on this deal is the government, right?

    You seem to be arguing that because I did not agree to some hypothetical third deal proposed by you that that means I'm not agreeing to all deals? Thats obviously fallacious. Ibelsd wouldn't agree to a deal that allowed me to whip him while he works, so couldn't I say that he is "choosing not to participate?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Operating a business is a privilege, not a right
    This is a very common mantra on those advocating for these kinds of policies, but I've yet to see it defended. In what sense is this a priveledge and not a right?

    Certainly we have a Constitutionally protected right of association; which would seem to be a strike against your view.

    Perhaps a better approach, given that constiutions are enumerated powers documents (ie they only explicitely grant power to the government) is; where in the Constitution do you get the idea that people don't have a right to conduct bussiness?

    Follow-up question for consistency's sake. Does that mean the government has a legitimate power to stop, say a race of people, from selling their labor?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    In Idaho there is a very real possibility that all of their state regulations will go poof today.
    I saw, it presents them with a very interesting opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    Maybe it was a couple of days ago. So, if your claim is true, then we should expect a sudden massive rise in wages for workers in the state of Idaho. So, let's think about this, even if ALL the regulations don't suddenly sunset. The governor could choose to send many or all back to the legislator to renew. Is it reasonable to think workers will suddenly see 40% raises? 30%? 20%? 10? Maybe, over a long period of time worker wages will increase.
    A couple of points here. Of course a lot of those compliance costs are federal, not state. It depends on industry of course and I have no specific knowledge of Idaho's labor distribution, but some portion of that cost will still exist. Additionally, not all your compliance costs are from the state you reside in. A lot of state level compliance costs come from California, New York, and (oddly) Florida. You have to bear those costs if you do business in those states.

    More importantly, and I think you are on this point as well, these cost structures are "sticky." Compliance costs are associated with system purchases, compliance department, processes. Those take time to change. I agree that it will take time. But what I don't agree with is your model for how wages are set.

    Wages aren't set because a company felt obliged to offer higher wages. Nor because a new higher or existing employee demanded a raise. Sure, those factors affect wages in some small manner, but th elephant in the room is competition. What really affects wages is the competition for the best labor. Its why there is no monopsony power in the US and why wages are pretty consistently close to marginal product. So after that 5 years as profits increase due to lower compliance costs competition for labor will begin to eat at that rate and wages will rise. All it takes is one firm to offer a slightly higher wage to get the best talent and we start to move the wage curve to the right. Another will have to rise or accept a loss of labor. That cycle is pretty consistent in the US (especially in more exotic sectors) where we’ve seen benefits expand pretty relentlessly over the last 20 years to include things like unlimited PTO, pet insurance, group legal or tax accounts, commuter savings accounts, etc. I’m not saying these are standards of course. But neither was optometry benefits 20 years ago, but they are now.

    Employers have to compete for labor and will do so with whatever resources they have. If they, over time, end up with larger cash accounts due to decreased compliance costs, that money will end up in employees pockets over the medium term (and their retirement accounts in most cases in the short term).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    There is a gap between things we can quantify and justify a wage and things that are more phycological or procedural which prevent wages from equaling true value. Maybe this doesn't justify a $15 hr min wage, but it justifies a min wage and it may be higher or lower than $15/hr.
    To the extent that these factors aren’t something we can tangibly point to (like contracts for systems, process, or labor) I’m wary of thinking that we know enough to ever point to what they might be, let alone quantify how much of a wage would account for them.

    More importantly, imo, the question isn’t so much about those factors as it is about the effects. We can say that the MW is because of psychological factors, sticky wages, racism, or whatever. The driving factor isn’t really the important point I think. And if the outcome is still lower employment, with lower growth, reduced benefits, and disparate impact, I’m not sure we have a legitimate course of action.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #617
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,624
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This doesn't seem to represent the analogy. I have agreed to participate. I have agreed to pay Ibelsd X dollars. He has agreed to perform services. The only non-agreement on this deal is the government, right?

    You seem to be arguing that because I did not agree to some hypothetical third deal proposed by you that that means I'm not agreeing to all deals? Thats obviously fallacious. Ibelsd wouldn't agree to a deal that allowed me to whip him while he works, so couldn't I say that he is "choosing not to participate?"
    Right but you've agreed to the government setting the rules. Let's say you bought a piece of property intending to start a business but you didn't do your due diligence and found out later it was zoned as residential as opposed to commercial. Who cares, right? You intend to do business there, as do your customers.

    I doubt you're going to have an easy time of it, though, especially when the neighbors find out.

    ---------- Post added at 11:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    This is a very common mantra on those advocating for these kinds of policies, but I've yet to see it defended. In what sense is this a priveledge and not a right?

    Certainly we have a Constitutionally protected right of association; which would seem to be a strike against your view.

    Perhaps a better approach, given that constiutions are enumerated powers documents (ie they only explicitely grant power to the government) is; where in the Constitution do you get the idea that people don't have a right to conduct bussiness?

    Follow-up question for consistency's sake. Does that mean the government has a legitimate power to stop, say a race of people, from selling their labor?
    In the sense that businesses are regulated and licenses issued. I'd argue this comes from the commerce clause. A town, for example, could say they don't want some said type of business in it's boundaries. Dry towns come to mind. Just not issue licenses. Is that unconstitutional? If I bought a piece of land I should be able to build my roadhouse there, no?

    Even if you bought a piece of commercial property it could be blocked. "We don't want a Wal-Mart here"


    I'm not sure what you're getting at with the race part. What would that be in reference to? Certainly there are restrictions on age.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  21. #618
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,373
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    A couple of points here. Of course a lot of those compliance costs are federal, not state. It depends on industry of course and I have no specific knowledge of Idaho's labor distribution, but some portion of that cost will still exist. Additionally, not all your compliance costs are from the state you reside in. A lot of state level compliance costs come from California, New York, and (oddly) Florida. You have to bear those costs if you do business in those states.

    More importantly, and I think you are on this point as well, these cost structures are "sticky." Compliance costs are associated with system purchases, compliance department, processes. Those take time to change. I agree that it will take time. But what I don't agree with is your model for how wages are set.

    Wages aren't set because a company felt obliged to offer higher wages. Nor because a new higher or existing employee demanded a raise. Sure, those factors affect wages in some small manner, but th elephant in the room is competition. What really affects wages is the competition for the best labor. Its why there is no monopsony power in the US and why wages are pretty consistently close to marginal product. So after that 5 years as profits increase due to lower compliance costs competition for labor will begin to eat at that rate and wages will rise. All it takes is one firm to offer a slightly higher wage to get the best talent and we start to move the wage curve to the right. Another will have to rise or accept a loss of labor. That cycle is pretty consistent in the US (especially in more exotic sectors) where we’ve seen benefits expand pretty relentlessly over the last 20 years to include things like unlimited PTO, pet insurance, group legal or tax accounts, commuter savings accounts, etc. I’m not saying these are standards of course. But neither was optometry benefits 20 years ago, but they are now.

    Employers have to compete for labor and will do so with whatever resources they have. If they, over time, end up with larger cash accounts due to decreased compliance costs, that money will end up in employees pockets over the medium term (and their retirement accounts in most cases in the short term).


    To the extent that these factors aren’t something we can tangibly point to (like contracts for systems, process, or labor) I’m wary of thinking that we know enough to ever point to what they might be, let alone quantify how much of a wage would account for them.

    More importantly, imo, the question isn’t so much about those factors as it is about the effects. We can say that the MW is because of psychological factors, sticky wages, racism, or whatever. The driving factor isn’t really the important point I think. And if the outcome is still lower employment, with lower growth, reduced benefits, and disparate impact, I’m not sure we have a legitimate course of action.
    I agree with you that removing all regulations doesn't mean Idaho will be truly free of regulatory costs which may cross state lines or be imposed federally. However, removing regulations should result in increased revenue for companies that work in and that do business in Idaho. How much? Obviously it'll be case by case. Yet, what are the chances that employees will see a commensurate increase in their earnings? It is, perhaps, because their is competition that wages will not keep up with inflation should regulations decrease. So, if the case for MW wage is to be made, I'd think it should be made along the lines of worker pay lagging behind actual production where we measure production by earnings and profit. If a widget is resulting in profit of X and post-regulations the profit is X * 1.10, then should workers be paid accordingly? That is a reasonable question, I'd think. And there is no objective answer. It comes to trade-offs. If I'm willing to limit the labor market to allow for higher wages that stay in tune with actual production, then that is a reasonable trade-off. I just have to be honest about it.

    I understand being wary of tying MW to things which are hard to measure. However, I don't think those things (i.e. psychology, sticky wages, et al.) are overly difficult using modern statistical techniques and in today's information heavy environment.

    Again, my intention here is to demonstrate how to properly argue in favor of a MW as I think a reasonable case can be made for it. It helps by not resorting to ideological arguments and ad homs. Personally, I am actually on the fence. I think subjective MW rates such as $15/hr are untenable as a national policy. However, if we were more precise and allowed MW's to be adjusted for both locale, labor type, and industry, then, perhaps, it is an enticing program. With that said, I am fearful of giving any government entity that kind of control as government has a tendency to always grow and become more cumbersome.

    I just heard this quote from Albert Jay Nock the other day:
    “In proportion as you give the state power to do things for you, you give it power to do things to you.”
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  22. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  23. #619
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,614
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Right but you've agreed to the government setting the rules.
    This would seem to concede that the one blocking the person from getting a job is the government.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    In the sense that businesses are regulated and licenses issued.
    I also have to obtain a permit to speak in a public park in most places. Does that mean that expressing political opinion is a privilege, not a right? Likewise, there are plenty of regulations and licensing issues around abortion, does that mean it isnít a right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I'm not sure what you're getting at with the race part. What would that be in reference to? Certainly there are restrictions on age.
    Well, your argument is that since running a business is a privilege, not a right, it shouldnít be illegal for the government to make other restrictions on business operation. That could be applied to hiring people from a certain race, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    Yet, what are the chances that employees will see a commensurate increase in their earnings?
    I think this is undoubtedly the case, it just depends on time horizons as you mentioned. We did see something similar with bonuses and pay increases following the decrease in corporate tax rates last year. It seems likely that something similar would happen here, though certainly less flashy and over a longer period of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    If a widget is resulting in profit of X and post-regulations the profit is X * 1.10, then should workers be paid accordingly? That is a reasonable question, I'd think.
    Sure, the relevant questions from my chair are; 1) how much of that additional value accrues to the worker vs. the owner vs. other capital investments? IE if that additional $1.10 is the result of a new machine that makes the laborer more efficient, shouldnít the owner of the capital used to buy that machine get a portion of that $1.10?
    2) Far more importantly, imo, who makes that decision? Do the parties involved in the transaction make that decision? Or do we, who have far less knowledge of the details and are operating under some veil of rational ignorance interject ourselves to make that decision?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    It comes to trade-offs. If I'm willing to limit the labor market to allow for higher wages that stay in tune with actual production, then that is a reasonable trade-off. I just have to be honest about it.
    Iím pretty sure Iíve trotted out my favorite Thomas Sowell quote here a couple of times so Iíll spare you, but I completely agree with this sentiment.
    The point of this thread, and almost all of my participation is to establish what those trade-offs are. If individuals want to pick one side of the trade off vs the other, that is a subjective value judgement (though we can have some discussion about the morality involved).
    Having that kind of discussion would be something that hasnít yet occurred in this thread. Starting with an agreement that there is a trade off, why would someone pick one alternative over the other? All weíve had so far (not including you of course) is generally the denial that there really is a trade off.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    I understand being wary of tying MW to things which are hard to measure. However, I don't think those things (i.e. psychology, sticky wages, et al.) are overly difficult using modern statistical techniques and in today's information heavy environment.
    Perhaps, though I think this is a fatal conceit of econometrics. It isnít so much lack of data as it is category of data. It is really hard to apply statistical techniques to subjective measurements. There are a host of people out there who do try that though (I encounter them a lot in my role in marketing) so it isnít as if there is some kind of consensus of impossibility.
    The problem with understanding that type of data here is that the result must, (almost by definition) be a nearly one size fits all response. Those factors might fit company X well and could result in a more efficient economic outcome, but result in a deadweight loss for company Y with the same factors. I donít think we have a good record of economic coordination of this sort.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    Again, my intention here is to demonstrate how to properly argue in favor of a MW as I think a reasonable case can be made for it. It helps by not resorting to ideological arguments and ad homs. Personally, I am actually on the fence. I think subjective MW rates such as $15/hr are untenable as a national policy. However, if we were more precise and allowed MW's to be adjusted for both locale, labor type, and industry, then, perhaps, it is an enticing program. With that said, I am fearful of giving any government entity that kind of control as government has a tendency to always grow and become more cumbersome.
    Fair reminder (I tend to get wrapped into the details of my response, sorry). As I hinted at above, this is, by far, the most cogent defense of the MW Iíve encountered (not just here, but elsewhere) that doesnít involve invoking monopsony power. You could be right about the net effect of a hyper targeted wage law being positive. There are two major factors imo:
    1) Do the factors to be measured actually result in economic deadweight loss? IE are we actually shifting the efficient frontier by correcting for these factors or are we just redistributing? For example, if the law resulted in a higher or more efficient use of capital it could be a net benefit. If it just shifts money from the equity owners to labor, it probably wonít.
    2) Can the government coherently manage such a program. I think you and I share a doubt on this issue. Iím not sure any governmental program could effectively manage the scope and data requirements of such an effort, let alone not let political, social, and corruption influence their application.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  24. #620
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,624
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This would seem to concede that the one blocking the person from getting a job is the government.
    No, it's you taking you're ball and going home. It'd be like you insisting on having your goals count for five point to two for me then blaming the ref and scorekeeper on their being no game.

    ---------- Post added at 10:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, your argument is that since running a business is a privilege, not a right, it shouldn’t be illegal for the government to make other restrictions on business operation. That could be applied to hiring people from a certain race, right?
    I suppose there are cases where the immutable characteristics of an individual should be considered. Typhoid Mary working in food service comes to mind. By race I take it you mean skin color. Are you thinking of an example? Perhaps pre-intergration of the military.

    ---------- Post added at 10:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Likewise, there are plenty of regulations and licensing issues around abortion, does that mean it isn’t a right?
    To perform an abortion? No, not a right.

    ---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    I also have to obtain a permit to speak in a public park in most places. Does that mean that expressing political opinion is a privilege, not a right?
    That involves the use of the public commons which would be the privilege in that case.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 31 of 32 FirstFirst ... 21 27 28 29 30 31 32 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
  •