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.

Results 1 to 20 of 615

Threaded View

  1. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don't think you are using tautology correctly in that sentence. A tautology is a statement that is self-referentially true. Something like "all bachelors are not married." Did you mean something else with that objection?
    No, I'm pretty sure I am using the word correctly. You are saying that MW causes harm and you have papers proving it to be the case. So you're literally parroting back the results of the paper. I thought the papers were a starting point and that you wanted to discuss the next step: what should we now do with MW. But you've put all those discussions off limits, which basically means you want me to argue the veracity of your evidence; i.e. do I believe your papers are accurate and confirm your OP, which merely restates the results of said papers.

    Seems kinda pointless if you ask me.

    Additionally, I think you misunderstood the claim I'll defend. It isn't that some people are harmed, it is that the population of economically vulnerable are, on net harmed. IE that the total harm done by raising the minimum wage out weighs the total benefits accrued from raising the minimum wage.
    So what part of this is your original thought, your synthesis of what the papers have said? Or did you merely summarize what the papers said to 'draw' your conclusions?

    Sure, makes sense. I am open to an alternative definition of who should be included, if you have one that makes more sense to you.

    Narrow Definition: Those people whose household income is in the lowest half of the lowest quintile and who are in the workforce.

    Broad Definition: Any individual currently earning minimum wage.
    Sure, but are those really the MOST VULERABLE in our society (these are the words you use in the OP)? People earning MW are certainly better off than those that have no jobs. And what about those immigrants or migrant works (who are also part of our society) that earn even less and have to work harder whilst being under the threat of deportation? Surely they're even more vulnerable than the MW worker?

    And what about those people that don't have jobs? Aren't they even more vulnerable than those that have MW jobs?

    How so? Wouldn't your other defenses be considered "benefits" to that population and need to be weighed? I'm happy to include other objectively verifiable criteria in the thread.
    I don't know - seems to me that you don't really want to discuss MW in a larger context and such a debate is pointless without putting everything that you've said in some kinda of context: specifically, in the context of the decision making process. I'm not sure if it's worth my trouble sifting through everything I've said and ask permission to include it in the argument!

    If you wish to concede the thread that is your affair, rationalize it however you like.
    Of course not, there are papers that counter your specific point but even they're kinda pointless because I think that MW is implemented with more considerations than you're willing to allow for discussion. Just because (for the sake of argument only), your evidence is true, then it still remains the fact that it is wholly ignored. And not just by 'politicians' but those economists and government decision makers that provide input into them. So there's really nothing for me to concede - I'm just trying to understand what your argument actually is: it's not about policy at all and it seems to me you're just parroting back some papers and what do you expect me to do?

    ---------- Post added at 09:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Just an evidence based side note, it looks as if US wage rates are increasing over the last two quarters in low income sectors. This undercuts the idea that employers are keeping wages down with their monopsony power as we should only see wage rate increases in higher income sectors in that case. That lower income sectors are growing faster indicates a more competitive employment field for employers and less bargaining power. http://www.aei.org/publication/so-wh...FIWmFqVlRxRCJ9
    When your source's source starts off:


    Economists are puzzled over U.S. wage growth, wondering why it has been so slow despite a labor market that is allegedly back to or close to full employment. However, if you look at the right wage growth and the right measure of employment slack there is no mystery: Wage gains are right where they should be. And it indicates the labor market has room to improve.

    it explains to me how 'economists' just make stuff up as they go along. That they're easily surprised, as they nearly always are when something out of the ordinary happens, tells me whatever model they have just isn't good enough. It's easy to see why because the 'economists' that are puzzled clearly have the wrong model and the blogger suggests a different one that magically explains everything. Yet this guy may later be proven wrong because of something he didn't consider and so on ad-nauseum.

    I don't know if this 2-3% growth is meaningful in terms of our debate anyway: is it more or less the MW of $15 or not? The article goes on to say "But not terribly good news for those saying the US labor markets are meaningfully dysfunctional and thus require government action, without which wage growth will stay stuck", which seems like a bit of straw man - no one is saying that wage growth will stay stuck, the argument is for a living wage, and that appears to require government action to achieve.

    Seems to me that saying there's decent growth after the government has already made a decision to force wage rises is trying to close the door after the horse has bolted and is the article truly taking the MW raises out of the equation here in calculating this 'natural' growth?

    And ending with "being perceived as the Party of Impeachment may have limited political power for Democrats. " pretty much tells me to ignore this guy whose obviously biased and on a political blog cherry picking or being ordered to promote anti-MW propaganda rather than being a serious economist.



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


Posting Permissions

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