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 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13 19 20 21 22 23
Results 441 to 454 of 454
  1. #441
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    They believe it does. Let's say they are pacifists and this plant makes weapons...or what about an abortion clinic!
    I thought you said they thought he was a jerk.. that is why they were trying to kick him out.
    From the above, his being a jerk is irrelevant.
    So stick to the jerk thing, after all we are the gov it can be whatever we make of it. Being a jerk is thus sufficient cause.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  2. #442
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,856
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I thought you said they thought he was a jerk.. that is why they were trying to kick him out.
    From the above, his being a jerk is irrelevant.
    So stick to the jerk thing, after all we are the gov it can be whatever we make of it. Being a jerk is thus sufficient cause.
    I said they didn't like his business plan...what if he's a muslim and wants to build a mosque?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #443
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,264
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    First of all, Bob is only investing $20 a month at %5...that same $20 is being invested at %5 whether it is being held by bob or his employer so it is a wash. You have it figured that it isn't invested the first month while the employer waits to pay bob.
    Two points here, please address both.

    1) The time difference isn't a wash, it is the product of creating value. The employer gets an extra month of investable income because he employing his capital in the most economically efficient manner. When we pay Bob the additional $20, we lose that economic efficiency, in this case via a time delay, correct?

    2) You seemed to ignore my question about going bankrupt. What happens to Bob in month 6?


    At the beginning of month 1, the employer has $100 in capital.

    At the end of month 1 he has $92.50

    At the end of month 2 he has $84.63

    Month 3: $76.36

    Month 4: $67.68

    Month 5: $58.56

    Month 6: $48.99

    So at that point he can no longer make payroll right? That means he has to fire Bob.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I'm desiring apples. Let's say I go to the market to look for apples and MT is there and he's produced turnips...which no one wants. I tell him I want apples and that if he has them tomorrow I'll buy them. He goes back to his farm and picks apples to return the next day.
    When you went to the market and found that MT had only turnips, what had you planned to trade for the apples? You needed to produce whatever that was before you set out for the market right? Hence you needed to create a supply of something to trade in order to go to the market and express your demand, correct?

    You'll notice that Say didn't say that "Production guarantees demand" he said that production is necessary for demand.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I already agreed that they weren't.

    As a part of the society in which we've agreed to make our contract, our contract is automatically covered under its laws or in our informal example our traditions.
    That is what I pointed out was an "is/ought" fallacy. You are substituting the assertion that "it is that way" for the defense you needed to offer of why it should be that way.

    This particular issue is even more of a problem because several pages ago you already conceded that he government isn't a party to contracts in current law.

    So we are left with the conclusion that the government isn't a party to a contract under the law and that you've offered no rational defense for why it should be.


    So I'll have to wind back to the original question. What is the moral justification for abridging someone's right to make a labor contract?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Why is the employer hurt? Because he's paying more than something's worth, right?
    Being forced to pay more than you need to for a good or service doesn't harm you? So the poor wouldn't suffer any harm if we passed a law mandating rents be no less than $3000 a week?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Right, who determines what is espionage and what is speech?
    Generally those are terms defined via the emergent process of language. IE nobody determines what is espionage and what is speech. A court determines if a specific act becomes espionage by comparing the act to the definition, if that is what you mean.

    But let's say a court also made the definition. That doesn't really help your defense. The court also determines what is rape and what is sex. Does that mean sexual practice is a privilege? Is it permissible in your view to ban homosexual activity under this logic? If not, how are the arguments different?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Insecurity and instability to security and stability. Progress.
    That wasn't your definition though. Now you are simply substituting the term "good" for the term "progress." Regardless, the Magna Carta didn't do any such thing.

    The 50 years prior to the Magna Carta saw no major violence in England. King Richard and then King John ruled and while certainly not popular, there was no instability or insecurity.

    Following the Magna Carta, England was invaded by France and London was sacked by rebel Barons.

    How does that show "progress?"
    "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.


  4. #444
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,856
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Two points here, please address both.

    1) The time difference isn't a wash, it is the product of creating value. The employer gets an extra month of investable income because he employing his capital in the most economically efficient manner. When we pay Bob the additional $20, we lose that economic efficiency, in this case via a time delay, correct?
    What time delay?

    ---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    That is what I pointed out was an "is/ought" fallacy. You are substituting the assertion that "it is that way" for the defense you needed to offer of why it should be that way.

    This particular issue is even more of a problem because several pages ago you already conceded that he government isn't a party to contracts in current law.

    So we are left with the conclusion that the government isn't a party to a contract under the law and that you've offered no rational defense for why it should be.


    So I'll have to wind back to the original question. What is the moral justification for abridging someone's right to make a labor contract?
    They're not parties, right, they're arbiters.

    ---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    That wasn't your definition though. Now you are simply substituting the term "good" for the term "progress." Regardless, the Magna Carta didn't do any such thing.

    The 50 years prior to the Magna Carta saw no major violence in England. King Richard and then King John ruled and while certainly not popular, there was no instability or insecurity.

    Following the Magna Carta, England was invaded by France and London was sacked by rebel Barons.

    How does that show "progress?"
    Indeed, which refutes your point (and the myth) that Magna Carta was only reinforcing ancient traditions instead of setting out something new.

    ---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post


    Being forced to pay more than you need to for a good or service doesn't harm you? So the poor wouldn't suffer any harm if we passed a law mandating rents be no less than $3000 a week?

    Need to or want to?

    ---------- Post added at 12:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Generally those are terms defined via the emergent process of language. IE nobody determines what is espionage and what is speech. A court determines if a specific act becomes espionage by comparing the act to the definition, if that is what you mean.

    But let's say a court also made the definition. That doesn't really help your defense. The court also determines what is rape and what is sex. Does that mean sexual practice is a privilege?
    Homosexuality has been a crime and being sanctioned (by an employer for example) is still legal in many states.

    Doesn't this support my point, I have a right to have sex, yes, but the person has to be willing, right?

    The community has to be willing to accept the business. If they don't they have no right to be there.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #445
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,264
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    What time delay?
    In scenario 1 (the efficient capital scenario), the owner efficiently allocates his capital at the beginning of the month to begin creating an economic return.


    In scenario 2 (the inefficient capital scenario), a portion of the capital ($20) is inefficiently allocated towards the purchase of labor rather than being invested (where it would create net economic benefit). That allocation does not produce an economic benefit like in scenario 1 because it costs more to produce the good ($50) than how much people value it ($40). That economic loss can be accounted for in two ways. The first is to point out that we've used $50 in capital to produce $40 in value. Clearly not a strategy for economic growth and hence why the business owner will go out of business in 6 months. The second is to account for the time value of money (you value a dollar today more than a dollar tomorrow), and show that the transfer cost of allocating that $20 to the employee results in a delay in its investment and thus an economic loss as well.


    ___

    2) You seemed to ignore my question about going bankrupt. What happens to Bob in month 6?


    At the beginning of month 1, the employer has $100 in capital.

    At the end of month 1 he has $92.50

    At the end of month 2 he has $84.63

    Month 3: $76.36

    Month 4: $67.68

    Month 5: $58.56

    Month 6: $48.99

    So at that point he can no longer make payroll right? That means he has to fire Bob.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    They're not parties, right, they're arbiters.
    Excellent, then we agree. So if, as you say, the government is an arbiter of a contract, not a party to the contract, in what sense should it be involved when there is no dispute?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Need to or want to?
    Well in this case we are discussing being compelled to via an article of law, so..need to.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Homosexuality has been a crime and being sanctioned (by an employer for example) is still legal in many states.

    Doesn't this support my point, I have a right to have sex, yes, but the person has to be willing, right?

    The community has to be willing to accept the business. If they don't they have no right to be there.
    Ok, so you are saying that there is no moral justification for opposing sodomy laws then? IE if a court can rule on sexual issues (which you've agreed to) and that makes it a privilege (your argument) then laws barring sexual activity are perfectly acceptable right?


    To use a different parallel, Courts clearly rule on zoning privilege, which makes private property rights a privilege in your view, not a right. So if a community voted not to accept black people in a certain neighborhood, "they have no right to be there" in your view, correct?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I'm desiring apples. Let's say I go to the market to look for apples and MT is there and he's produced turnips...which no one wants. I tell him I want apples and that if he has them tomorrow I'll buy them. He goes back to his farm and picks apples to return the next day.
    When you went to the market and found that MT had only turnips, what had you planned to trade for the apples? You needed to produce whatever that was before you set out for the market right? Hence you needed to create a supply of something to trade in order to go to the market and express your demand, correct?

    You'll notice that Say didn't say that "Production guarantees demand" he said that production is necessary for demand.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Indeed, which refutes your point (and the myth) that Magna Carta was only reinforcing ancient traditions instead of setting out something new.
    Huh? How does the violence resulting from the Anglo/French war "refute" the idea that the Magna Carta concerned itself with ancient traditions?

    These provisions were intended to limit the arbitrary exercise of power by the king and, at the same time, reassert the traditions and customs
    (i.e. established precedents)
    that had governed feudal arrangements.
    http://edsitement.neh.gov/sites/edsi...bridged737.pdf

    The content of the Magna Carta was drafted between the Church and the rebelling barons. The majority of the content was written by Archbishop Stephen Langton and English barons. The Magna Carta was written and designed to reduce the powers held by the King and to make him govern the country by old English laws that had prevailed before the invasion of the Normans.
    ...
    The Magna Carta was a series of written promises between the king and his subjects that as the ruler of the country he would govern England and preside over its people according to the customs set out by feudal law.
    ...
    By 1204, John had lost the lands owned in northern France, and King John increased the taxes to recoup his losses without first consulting with the barons. This was against feudal law and accepted custom and the barons lost their patience.
    http://www.thefinertimes.com/Middle-...gna-carta.html


    Magna Carta as codification of English Common Law, and an understand of those terms: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library...raditions.html

    Writers contemporary to Magna Carta argued that legal authority derives from the customs and traditions of a society and that royal authority must comply with those existing customs and rights. https://www.gohastings.com/product/B.../289366211.uts

    Literally every mainstream historian you could cite that discusses Magna Carta discusses it in context of existing rights and customs. Can you cite a mainstream dissent from that position?
    "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.


  6. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  7. #446
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,856
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    In scenario 1 (the efficient capital scenario), the owner efficiently allocates his capital at the beginning of the month to begin creating an economic return.


    In scenario 2 (the inefficient capital scenario), a portion of the capital ($20) is inefficiently allocated towards the purchase of labor rather than being invested (where it would create net economic benefit). That allocation does not produce an economic benefit like in scenario 1 because it costs more to produce the good ($50) than how much people value it ($40). That economic loss can be accounted for in two ways. The first is to point out that we've used $50 in capital to produce $40 in value. Clearly not a strategy for economic growth and hence why the business owner will go out of business in 6 months. The second is to account for the time value of money (you value a dollar today more than a dollar tomorrow), and show that the transfer cost of allocating that $20 to the employee results in a delay in its investment and thus an economic loss as well.
    Again, what delay? The employee can be paid by direct deposit. The funds are deposited automatically and the employee has them set to invest automatically.

    Unless less we're back to Ibsled's argument about the transactions costs...which I agreed to.

    ---------- Post added at 11:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Huh? How does the violence resulting from the Anglo/French war "refute" the idea that the Magna Carta concerned itself with ancient traditions?

    These provisions were intended to limit the arbitrary exercise of power by the king and, at the same time, reassert the traditions and customs
    (i.e. established precedents)
    that had governed feudal arrangements.
    http://edsitement.neh.gov/sites/edsi...bridged737.pdf

    The content of the Magna Carta was drafted between the Church and the rebelling barons. The majority of the content was written by Archbishop Stephen Langton and English barons. The Magna Carta was written and designed to reduce the powers held by the King and to make him govern the country by old English laws that had prevailed before the invasion of the Normans.
    ...
    The Magna Carta was a series of written promises between the king and his subjects that as the ruler of the country he would govern England and preside over its people according to the customs set out by feudal law.
    ...
    By 1204, John had lost the lands owned in northern France, and King John increased the taxes to recoup his losses without first consulting with the barons. This was against feudal law and accepted custom and the barons lost their patience.
    http://www.thefinertimes.com/Middle-...gna-carta.html


    Magna Carta as codification of English Common Law, and an understand of those terms: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library...raditions.html

    Writers contemporary to Magna Carta argued that legal authority derives from the customs and traditions of a society and that royal authority must comply with those existing customs and rights. https://www.gohastings.com/product/B.../289366211.uts

    Literally every mainstream historian you could cite that discusses Magna Carta discusses it in context of existing rights and customs. Can you cite a mainstream dissent from that position?

    "At the end of the 16th century, there was an upsurge in antiquarian interest in England.[156] This work concluded that there was a set of ancient English customs and laws, temporarily overthrown by the Norman invasion of 1066, which had then been recovered in 1215 and recorded in Magna Carta, which in turn gave authority to important 16th century legal principles.[161][156][162] Modern historians note that although this narrative was fundamentally incorrect—many refer to it as a "myth" – it took on great importance among the legal historians of the time.[162][e]

    Among the historians to have discussed the "myth" of Magna Carta and the ancient English constitution are Claire Breay, Geoffrey Hindley, James Holt, John Pocock, Danny Danziger, and John Gillingham.[162][163][164][165][166]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#cite_ref-171

    ---------- Post added at 11:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Excellent, then we agree. So if, as you say, the government is an arbiter of a contract, not a party to the contract, in what sense should it be involved when there is no dispute?
    They are always involved, even when there is no dispute, proven by the fact that when there is a dispute they are an available means of settling it. They are involved since they are the governeing body under which the contract is agreed to. I can't contract to have my house burned down and spilt the insurance money, can I?

    ---------- Post added at 11:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Ok, so you are saying that there is no moral justification for opposing sodomy laws then? IE if a court can rule on sexual issues (which you've agreed to) and that makes it a privilege (your argument) then laws barring sexual activity are perfectly acceptable right?


    To use a different parallel, Courts clearly rule on zoning privilege, which makes private property rights a privilege in your view, not a right. So if a community voted not to accept black people in a certain neighborhood, "they have no right to be there" in your view, correct?
    First of all "sodomy" is a hateful word used to single out a certain population in a degrading way by tagging it with a Biblical reference to sin. Not all homosexuals practice anal sex and if you think heterosexuals don't, well then, I have a bridge to sell you.

    Those laws are designed to make homosexual relationships, including marriage, impossible by making intimacy illegal...one aspect of a relationship. Is a marriage based on sex alone?

    Following your logic, since my town doesn't want a Wal-mart, we're passing laws that are designed to prevent Wal-Mart from existing at all.

    ---------- Post added at 11:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    When you went to the market and found that MT had only turnips, what had you planned to trade for the apples? You needed to produce whatever that was before you set out for the market right? Hence you needed to create a supply of something to trade in order to go to the market and express your demand, correct?

    You'll notice that Say didn't say that "Production guarantees demand" he said that production is necessary for demand.

    Ok, I'll accept that.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #447
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,264
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Again, what delay? The employee can be paid by direct deposit. The funds are deposited automatically and the employee has them set to invest automatically.
    Even assuming that method, there is at least a 24 hour period right? That would represent at least some delay. But as I pointed out in a post earlier, workers are paid (just like the employer is paid) after their work.

    If we wanted to move up the employee pay date so that they are paid before they actually do any work we have to admit we are stacking the deck in their favor and you would need to explain why we should do that or why that represents economic reality in this case.



    _____

    2) You seemed to ignore my question about going bankrupt. What happens to Bob in month 6?


    At the beginning of month 1, the employer has $100 in capital.

    At the end of month 1 he has $92.50

    At the end of month 2 he has $84.63

    Month 3: $76.36

    Month 4: $67.68

    Month 5: $58.56

    Month 6: $48.99

    So at that point he can no longer make payroll right? That means he has to fire Bob.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Need to or want to?
    Well in this case we are discussing being compelled to via an article of law, so..need to.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Ok, I'll accept that.
    Ok, then does Say's law make more sense now?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    They are always involved, even when there is no dispute, proven by the fact that when there is a dispute they are an available means of settling it.
    So you seem to be backtracking a bit here. In our golf example, you are saying that the cousins should be involved in our making up golf rules? What reasoning do you have to connect the existence of a body that can be appealed to for arbitration with its involvement in writing a contract?

    Your example is clearly spurious because the contract itself to burn down the house isn't the problem, it is the fraud associated with obtaining the insurance money that is the problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Those laws are designed to make homosexual relationships, including marriage, impossible by making intimacy illegal...one aspect of a relationship.
    And given the reasoning you offered earlier, if a community is unwilling to accept homosexual relationships, what moral argument can be offered to reject that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    First of all "sodomy" is a hateful word used to single out a certain population in a degrading way by tagging it with a Biblical reference to sin.
    Well, no, it is a technical term that applied to all people. Sodomy laws covered any act that was considered unnatural by the Legislature, including homosexual activity, some heterosexual activity, and beastiality, so the term is not necessarily degrading.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Not all homosexuals practice anal sex and if you think heterosexuals don't, well then, I have a bridge to sell you.
    And sodomy doesn't only refer to anal sex. I would recommend reviewing the term before getting on the outrage wagon.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Among the historians to have discussed the "myth" of Magna Carta and the ancient English constitution are Claire Breay, Geoffrey Hindley, James Holt, John Pocock, Danny Danziger, and John Gillingham.[162][163][164][165][166]"
    Ahh, I had a suspicion that you were using Wiki as your source, and this is another example of why we don't consider Wiki a good source (though it is closer to accurate this time than usual).

    There are several relevant points here:

    1) Wiki points out that this change in opinion was about personal rights, which is correct. Magna Carta had virtually no coverage of individual rights, it was about legal structure at the peer level.

    2) The "modern" historians it is quoting are from the late 1700s, not contemporary to us like the sources I offered in my last post. The wiki site offers a single popular book (not a scholarly book) that cites exactly zero sources for its modern historians, only referring to responses by MPs in the 1700s. The author, Danny Danziger is a journalist, not a historian.

    3) The list of current "historians" referenced in the footnote is not actual support. As pointed out two are journalists (Danziger and Gillingham).

    Hindley's book supports my point, the book is described as "the Magna Carta is viewed as the forerunner to the American Constitution and its echoes can also be found in the struggles of most of the contemporary liberal nations" (ie hardly calling it a myth).

    Breary's work is scholarly and its abstract is my thesis: "It was a practical solution to a political crisis and it served the interests of the highest ranks of feudal society by reasserting the power of custom to limit arbitrary behaviour by the king."

    Sir Holt's reference is simply incorrect. Holt, part of the old line historians on this issue assert that Magna Carta was an essential driver of personal liberties in 13th Century England.

    Pocock's reference on this subject is a speech given at an event, "The Blessings of Liberty: Bicentennial Lectures at the National Archives" (you can see where this is going), titled "The Influence of British Political Thought on the American Constitution: Magna Carta in Context" so hardly an event where he is going to argue against the Magna Carta's influence on civil liberties.


    So to the extent we have modern historians in this context they tend to agree with my original point, that the Magna Carta was reaffirming traditional liberties enjoyed by Englishmen.

    Cowboy, I've now done quite a bit of actual research on this point, which is off topic. So if you are going to persist in it, I'm going to have to insist that you Challenge to support a claim. support or retract that the Magna Carta was "progressive" (IE brought about social progress, a claim your source above called a "myth") with sources to reputable historians.
    "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.


  9. #448
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,856
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Even assuming that method, there is at least a 24 hour period right? That would represent at least some delay. But as I pointed out in a post earlier, workers are paid (just like the employer is paid) after their work.

    If we wanted to move up the employee pay date so that they are paid before they actually do any work we have to admit we are stacking the deck in their favor and you would need to explain why we should do that or why that represents economic reality in this case.
    How is that delay any responsibility of the worker? The employer could pay him in cash.

    I'm not sure where you're going with the second part. Why would the worker have to be paid before they do the work?

    ---------- Post added at 01:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Well, no, it is a technical term that applied to all people. Sodomy laws covered any act that was considered unnatural by the Legislature, including homosexual activity, some heterosexual activity, and beastiality, so the term is not necessarily degrading.

    And sodomy doesn't only refer to anal sex. I would recommend reviewing the term before getting on the outrage wagon.
    Right, and the overuse of those laws against heterosexuals explains why they lasted so long and "Sodomites" is oh so often a smear of homosexuals.

    ---------- Post added at 01:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post


    So you seem to be backtracking a bit here. In our golf example, you are saying that the cousins should be involved in our making up golf rules? What reasoning do you have to connect the existence of a body that can be appealed to for arbitration with its involvement in writing a contract?

    Your example is clearly spurious because the contract itself to burn down the house isn't the problem, it is the fraud associated with obtaining the insurance money that is the problem.

    I suppose you could legally burn your house down, so I'll concede that.

    Let's say I wanted to contract to have my wife killed.

    ---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    And given the reasoning you offered earlier, if a community is unwilling to accept homosexual relationships, what moral argument can be offered to reject that?
    That it's an irrational breech of their civil rights.

    ---------- Post added at 01:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Ahh, I had a suspicion that you were using Wiki as your source, and this is another example of why we don't consider Wiki a good source (though it is closer to accurate this time than usual).

    There are several relevant points here:

    1) Wiki points out that this change in opinion was about personal rights, which is correct. Magna Carta had virtually no coverage of individual rights, it was about legal structure at the peer level.

    2) The "modern" historians it is quoting are from the late 1700s, not contemporary to us like the sources I offered in my last post. The wiki site offers a single popular book (not a scholarly book) that cites exactly zero sources for its modern historians, only referring to responses by MPs in the 1700s. The author, Danny Danziger is a journalist, not a historian.

    3) The list of current "historians" referenced in the footnote is not actual support. As pointed out two are journalists (Danziger and Gillingham).

    Hindley's book supports my point, the book is described as "the Magna Carta is viewed as the forerunner to the American Constitution and its echoes can also be found in the struggles of most of the contemporary liberal nations" (ie hardly calling it a myth).

    Breary's work is scholarly and its abstract is my thesis: "It was a practical solution to a political crisis and it served the interests of the highest ranks of feudal society by reasserting the power of custom to limit arbitrary behaviour by the king."

    Sir Holt's reference is simply incorrect. Holt, part of the old line historians on this issue assert that Magna Carta was an essential driver of personal liberties in 13th Century England.

    Pocock's reference on this subject is a speech given at an event, "The Blessings of Liberty: Bicentennial Lectures at the National Archives" (you can see where this is going), titled "The Influence of British Political Thought on the American Constitution: Magna Carta in Context" so hardly an event where he is going to argue against the Magna Carta's influence on civil liberties.


    So to the extent we have modern historians in this context they tend to agree with my original point, that the Magna Carta was reaffirming traditional liberties enjoyed by Englishmen.

    Cowboy, I've now done quite a bit of actual research on this point, which is off topic. So if you are going to persist in it, I'm going to have to insist that you Challenge to support a claim. support or retract that the Magna Carta was "progressive" (IE brought about social progress, a claim your source above called a "myth") with sources to reputable historians.

    Yes, I delight in your vast amount of research vs. my 30 seconds.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #449
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,264
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Apparently I missed this last response. I came back today to add to the thread with some more research, but I'll address the salient points first.


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    How is that delay any responsibility of the worker? The employer could pay him in cash.
    Well no, he couldn't have because that violates IRS laws requiring a banking intermediary for audit purposes (or the procedure to do so results in an even lower take home pay for the employee due to compliance costs, additional withholding requirements, etc).

    And how is that delay any responsibility of the employer? It is simply a brute fact of a physical universe, why should the employer bear the nature of reality any more than the employee should?


    You also seem to have missed the practical question, which is about whether Bob has any income at all in month 6.

    2) You seemed to ignore my question about going bankrupt. What happens to Bob in month 6?


    At the beginning of month 1, the employer has $100 in capital.

    At the end of month 1 he has $92.50

    At the end of month 2 he has $84.63

    Month 3: $76.36

    Month 4: $67.68

    Month 5: $58.56

    Month 6: $48.99

    So at that point he can no longer make payroll right? That means he has to fire Bob.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I suppose you could legally burn your house down, so I'll concede that.

    Let's say I wanted to contract to have my wife killed.
    Same response as last time. The contract is not the issue. The conspiracy to murder someone is. It is exactly the same crime if there is no contract.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Yes, I delight in your vast amount of research vs. my 30 seconds.
    I'll take that as a concession. Thank you.








    Now to the part that actually brought me to the thread. We have some additional research to add to this fundamental argument.



    The Minimum Wage Causes Firms to Close That Serve and Employ Those at the Economic Margins


    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2951110

    This paper explored the effects on the restaurant industry, and the MW's role in a relatively unresearched area, a company's likelihood to shut down.


    There are two important findings in this paper.


    1) A $1 increase in the minimum wage caused a 4-10% increase in likelihood to shut down.

    This applies to all restaurants and can show how devastating a policy the MW can be, especially to people starting out and looking for their first food service job to build a resume on. The raw unemployment created by this driver alone is in the thousands of lost jobs and opportunities.


    2) For restaurants hiring economically marginalized employees and more likely to serve economically marginalized communities, a $1 increase leads to a 14% increase in the likelihood of shutting down.

    This means that the impact of the minimum wage is most keenly felt on those most vulnerable in our society. Those who live on the economic margins find less access to restaurants, higher prices at restaurants, and fewer employment opportunities in a field known to serve as a first step on the economic ladder.



    This paper also agrees with a forthcoming paper (Aaronsen et al.) that found a 10% raise in the MW (ie between $1-$1.5) increased restaurant closures by 18.3%, representing thousands of jobs in most metropolitan areas. [ibid]





    The Minimum Wage Causes Those With the Lowest Economic Margin to Spend More on Commuting Expenses


    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...n_sd_via_email


    Out-of-state commuting of low wage workers (less than 10 dollars an hour) is then compared to that of moderate wage workers (1013 dollars an hour). The results suggest that an increase in own state's minimum wage, relative to neighbor's, increases the frequency with which low-wage workers commute out of the state. The analysis is replicated on the subset of PUMAs that experience commuting flows with more than one neighboring state, so that the estimates are identified entirely within PUMA. As a whole, the results suggest that low-wage workers tend to commute away from minimum wage increases rather than towards them.

    Bottom Line, the minimum wage kills jobs and those who can afford it least must spend additional money commuting away from the MW in order to find jobs.
    "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.


  11. #450
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,856
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Apparently I missed this last response. I came back today to add to the thread with some more research, but I'll address the salient points first.




    Well no, he couldn't have because that violates IRS laws requiring a banking intermediary for audit purposes (or the procedure to do so results in an even lower take home pay for the employee due to compliance costs, additional withholding requirements, etc).

    And how is that delay any responsibility of the employer? It is simply a brute fact of a physical universe, why should the employer bear the nature of reality any more than the employee should?
    The employer and employee have both agreed to operate under those rules, whether they affect one more than the other is moot.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #451
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,264
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The employer and employee have both agreed to operate under those rules, whether they affect one more than the other is moot.
    I don't think this quite addresses the point (the rule doesn't mean the employee needs to benefit as you suggest either).

    More importantly, the employer and employee have both agreed to set wage right? So what justifies your overriding their agreement on wage, but not on other rules?
    Last edited by Squatch347; May 18th, 2017 at 12:48 AM. Reason: Clean Up/Thread Split
    "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.


  13. #452
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Wow. Been a while since I've been on here. Good reason too it seems. Glad to see you have toned it down Mindtrap. And I will say the min wage is a hard topic. It can hurt employment BADLY if it goes up. However, I would argue that if a company has enough to drive up the wage, it should go ahead and do it. This is mostly referring to larger companies with way more wealth. There has to be realized that not all forty year olds have lived exact lives to each other. Lets say some people have been refugees from North Korea let's say, to escape Kim Jung Un and they happen to be around 40 in age. They come to America with small children and they are all pretty uneducated. The small children go to school so at least they can succeed while the parents meanwhile possibly maybe go to a community college. That is, if even that is affordable. Even with Fasfa and welfare, it really isn't enough to support themselves, so they barely find minimum wage jobs to support them all. Thing is, WE all pay for that welfare. I think it would be far so the corporations payed them higher wages instead. People who pay the taxes for welfare could then spend more on other things so it could maybe balance things out. Also in general, even if not refugees, there are people here we should maybe think about. Some people are born very poor and they can't help that. Their parent may neglect them so they have to support themselves somehow through high school and college. They could just sit on our taxes mooching 100% on welfare, OR, the super wealthy companies out there can pay to help them in the form of higher wages so our taxes are lower. And not all money has to go into wages, but possibly onto training for management positions so that way, with a college degree, they can even get a higher position in the company as CFO or CEO as it's often well noted how many current CEOs started from the very bottom position and worked their way up. The better training can also result in happier customers, therefore, happier employees, and therefore in essence, more money in the company that chooses this path. I've been researching this kind of thing and comparing different aspect. Two companies out there I have worked for as lowest position of cart pusher/janiter/bagger/cashier. They were Albertson's (owner of Safeway now) and Walmart. At Albertson's very little is done when it comes to employment. Turnovers are super high, everyone from bagger to manager are miserable. The managers get bonuses but only from extra effort from the baggers and lower positions and they get nothing in return. This results in baggers saying **** it, what do they care if these rude managers get bonuses? They quit! So do the mangers and all know who know they could get payed more at Walmart with the same effort (more on that later) On top of this, the training was basically nothing. Mistakes resulted in harsh yelling in the office. Also note the lowest wage possibly payed and the littlist benefits as well. Employees had plenty to be angry about and most only stayed because they were somewhat liked. Ironically, the ones liked are the ones who worked as little as possible. Eventually, all this leads to PISSED customers. They go elsewhere. They shop online. They go to Costco for bulk items. Or Walmart because of self check outs and better staffed and managed cash registers (beleive it or not, super true) Now I will get to Walmart, who had a past that seemed a bit similar, but is on a far better path than most realize. (just go on twitter and compare the feeds. See which company has complaints and which one has compliments. Yup, WALMART actually wins. Albertson's/Safeway are THAT pathetic) Now Walmart is by no means purpose. But at the same time. EVERYONE who works is at NINE dollars an hour. AT LEAST. Period. AND they have OPPORTUNITY GALORE compared to that of Albertson's/Safeway. If employees do a certain amount of TRAINING (meaning PAYED to learn to treat customers (and each other) better) they earn 10 an hour! On top of that, EVERYONE can earn part of the bonuses no matter the position. It's supposed to be split as a store, as a TEAM. So that means less likely that people will go so far to not work as much because the bonus is on the mind. Also, whether training is payed attention to or not, it's repeated quite often, meaning that eventually, part of it soaks in. That training had to be funded somehow. And the company in the end noticed MUCH difference from before. To top it off, working both places I know how the money is handled. The security. The treatment of employees as human beings. And especially the technology. Walmart has self checks which are well liked and they are continuing to innovate as much as they can. Albertson's on the other hand, seems to hate innovation and has GOTTEN RID of innovation and keep everything mainly very old. This of course results in many more accidents especially with the combo of poorly trained employees. Like I said, compare twitter feeds. See whos customers on average are happier and coming back. Who is going to earn more money in the end? And something to mention. Albertson's and many other companies don't have to pay a higher wage for higher efficiency. All that needs to be encouraged is teamwork and respect to each other and customers. That costs NOTHING. All it takes is a few seconds of communication. I'd love to see the min wage slowly get a bit better especially if things get more expensive. But compassion even for people unskileld and at low wage jobs needs to be encouraged. Because then there won't be any. They'll all choose somewhere else or death. We may end up using robots anyway, but if people hate customer service now, what about literal souless voices to talk to when problems arise? Not everything can be relied on from robotic technology. The point at the end is that min wage can be gradual and should be. Everyone DOES in fact have the right to a living wage aka a right to LIFE! People make mistakes. Doesn't mean they should just drop dead. And again, I'd rather somebody who works than sits on our welfare taxes all day. At least their children then maybe will learn right. And THEY will likely be BETTER because of being able to survive therefore contributing to medicine, world affairs, media, and business.

  14. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  15. #453
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,264
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DethKnot View Post
    Some people are born very poor and they can't help that. Their parent may neglect them so they have to support themselves somehow through high school and college. They could just sit on our taxes mooching 100% on welfare, OR, the super wealthy companies out there can pay to help them in the form of higher wages so our taxes are lower. And not all money has to go into wages, but possibly onto training for management positions so that way, with a college degree, they can even get a higher position in the company as CFO or CEO as it's often well noted how many current CEOs started from the very bottom position and worked their way up.

    Hi DethKnot. I think you are making a great point here. The point of all jobs is not necessarily just wage income. Sometimes it is flexibility in hours (I need to pick up my kid from school) or benefits. For most low income jobs it is exactly what you are describing, training and experience.

    Most workers at the low end of the income spectrum are getting experience working full time at their job and with experience to show a future employer that they are not a risky higher because of their past successes. Those two factors create higher wages later and higher responsibility positions which builds their resume more, etc.

    The MW kills that particular economic ladder, which is why economic data shows that the MW stops economic mobility. People in areas with higher MW tend to earn less over their lives than the same person in an area with a low MW. What's worse, their children are generally poorer as well.
    Last edited by Squatch347; May 18th, 2017 at 12:48 AM. Reason: Clean Up/Thread Split
    "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.


  16. #454
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,264
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Returning to a theme earlier in the thread. One of the common myths often trotted out by MW advocates is that companies drive down wages via monopsony power. But as economist Warren Myer points out. Monopsony power isn't enough to actually drive wages down, because competition drives wages back to higher levels:



    So let's consider a company paying minimum wage to most of its employees. At least at current minimum wage levels, minimum wage employees will likely be in low-skill positions, ones that require little beyond a high school education. Almost by definition, firms that depend on low-skill workers to deliver their product or service have difficulty establishing barriers to competition. One can’t be doing anything particularly tricky or hard to copy relying on workers with limited skills. As soon as one firm demonstrates there is money to be made using low-skill workers in a certain way, it is far too easy to copy that model. As a result, most businesses that hire low-skill workers will have had their margins competed down to the lowest tolerable level. Firms that rely mainly on low-skill workers almost all have single digit profit margins (net income divided by revenues) -- for comparison, last year Microsoft had a pre-tax net income margin of over 23%.

    As a result, the least likely response to increasing labor costs due to regulation is that such costs will be offset out of profits, because for most of these firms profits have already been competed down to the minimum necessary to cover capital investment and the minimum returns to keep owners invested in the business. The much more likely responses will be

    1.Raising prices to cover the increased costs. This approach may be viable competitively, as most competitors will be facing the same legislated cost pressures, but may not be acceptable to consumers
    2.Reducing employment. This may take the form of stealth price increases (e.g. reduction in service levels for the same price) or be due to a reduction in volumes caused by price increases. It may also be due to targeted technology investments, as increases in labor costs also increase the returns to capital equipment that substitutes for labor
    3.Exiting one or more businesses and laying everyone off. This may take the form of targeted exits from low-margin lines of business, or liquidation of the entire company if the business Is no longer viable with the higher labor costs

    http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...62396240234375
    Last edited by Squatch347; May 18th, 2017 at 12:50 AM. Reason: Cleaning Post/Thread Split
    "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.


 

 
Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13 19 20 21 22 23

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, 09:02 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
  •