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 29 of 29 FirstFirst ... 19 25 26 27 28 29
Results 561 to 565 of 565
  1. #561
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    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:

    https://www.economy.com/dismal/analysis/datapoints/296127/There-Is-No-US-Wage-Growth-Mystery/

    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.

  2. #562
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,480
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    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.
    What you are describing here is not a tautology. Asking a question, then answering it with data doesn't make something a tautology.

    What you seem to be describing is a misaprehension on your part. I started the thread to discuss the economic and personal impacts of a harmful public policy prescription. You, initially, wanted to debate just that, does the minimum wage create a net worse outcome? When it was clear the answer was "yes," you wanted instead to discuss policy prescriptions for how how the MW could be salvaged. While pointing out that that was outside of the scope of this thread, I asked you what policies you would propose. You've never answered that question.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    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?
    Red Herring. Let's say I verbatim copied the argument (without plagerizing of course) from a Cafe Hayek post or Mises.org article, or from Paul Krugman's textbook? Who cares. Where I get the argument and how I understand it are irrelevant to the question at hand;

    Yes or no, increasing the minimum wage, on net, harms the population of economically vulnerable people. IE that the total harm done by raising the minimum wage out weighs the total benefits accrued from raising the minimum wage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    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?
    Ok, so then you would accept definition 1 I proposed with one small edit? Those people whose household income is in the lowest half of the lowest quintile regardless of workforce status?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I don't know - seems to me that you don't really want to discuss MW in a larger contex
    Again, as I've said throughout the thread, to the extent that that context is relevant to the actual lives of the people in question, of course it is relevant. If that context means nothing to them and doesn't affect their wellbeing, it is simply noise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Of course not...
    That is, literally, what retracting every claim posted in thread means. That is the definition of conceding the thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    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.
    You realize you are literally describing the scientific process here, right?

    I'm sure you don't realize that this isn't some "new" model, we've been talking about monopsony effects in this thread alone for months, and the concept of its affect on wages goes back to the 1920s.
    I realize that it is "new to you" but that doesn't mean it is a new model.

    [side note: the author isn't even proposing a model, you are using that term incorrectly. He is referencing how the additional data from the last few years is being applied to labor markets.]


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I don't know if this 2-3% growth is meaningful in terms of our debate anyway
    That seems somewhat apparent from the question you ask after this quote. The increase isn't being compared to MW rates. It is highlighting an additional piece of evidence that there is no monopsony power in US labor markets. Increases in wages absent productivity growth is, by definition, indication that there is no monopsony power.

    To rephrase this a bit, the wages increasing absent them being able to produce more, is driven by competition amongst employers to attract workers. That is the exact opposite of a scenario were companies have negotiating power over labor.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shramak
    Seems to me that saying there's decent growth after the government has already made a decision to force wage rises
    This comment seems to indicate that you think the minimum wage increases we've been discussing are occuring at the national level. Is that your perception? Because so far, the larger ones we've discussed, and all of the ones in the time period of the article, are at City level, not even state increases.
    "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.


  3. #563
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What you are describing here is not a tautology. Asking a question, then answering it with data doesn't make something a tautology.

    What you seem to be describing is a misaprehension on your part. I started the thread to discuss the economic and personal impacts of a harmful public policy prescription. You, initially, wanted to debate just that, does the minimum wage create a net worse outcome? When it was clear the answer was "yes," you wanted instead to discuss policy prescriptions for how how the MW could be salvaged. While pointing out that that was outside of the scope of this thread, I asked you what policies you would propose. You've never answered that question.
    I'm not sure if it really is a clear yes and certainly not a yes in ALL circumstances in ALL economies. I only have some papers that are disputed by people you claim are not economists and merely bloggers; while recently quoting one yourself.

    And if policy prescriptions are out of scope then let's not discuss them. I already know the real-world outcome so there's little you can say to convince me that we should not continue raising MW or introducing it where needed.



    Red Herring. Let's say I verbatim copied the argument (without plagerizing of course) from a Cafe Hayek post or Mises.org article, or from Paul Krugman's textbook? Who cares. Where I get the argument and how I understand it are irrelevant to the question at hand;
    Well, it kinda does - you're just parroting back what the papers have already concluded. You haven't synthesized a new argument and not said anything new. You're not really asking a question and then presenting evidence: you have evidence and reverse engineered a position that those papers purport to support.

    Yes or no, increasing the minimum wage, on net, harms the population of economically vulnerable people. IE that the total harm done by raising the minimum wage out weighs the total benefits accrued from raising the minimum wage.
    I think it has been shown in a limited sense that this could be true but I think there needs to be more follow up studies and broader examinations of policy in order to properly determine a long term effect. One of the 'total benefits' is getting rid of bad companies and also ensuring that companies don't rely on the government. BUT you have put those kinds of argument out of scope so I withdraw it.

    I have to remain skeptical of your claims since they are limited in time and geography and duration.


    Ok, so then you would accept definition 1 I proposed with one small edit? Those people whose household income is in the lowest half of the lowest quintile regardless of workforce status?
    Sure.


    Again, as I've said throughout the thread, to the extent that that context is relevant to the actual lives of the people in question, of course it is relevant. If that context means nothing to them and doesn't affect their wellbeing, it is simply noise.
    Not really since these changes take time to institute and new business ideas to come to the fore, or profiteers taking less profit and choosing to pay more rather than forcing their workers to take multiple jobs or government handouts to survive. But again, these are arguments that you're deeming out of scope. So I withdraw them and continue the point that your points have no prescriptive worth.


    That is, literally, what retracting every claim posted in thread means. That is the definition of conceding the thread.
    Well, no, I have new claims that would fall within your limited scope of discussion.


    You realize you are literally describing the scientific process here, right?

    I'm sure you don't realize that this isn't some "new" model, we've been talking about monopsony effects in this thread alone for months, and the concept of its affect on wages goes back to the 1920s.
    I realize that it is "new to you" but that doesn't mean it is a new model.

    [side note: the author isn't even proposing a model, you are using that term incorrectly. He is referencing how the additional data from the last few years is being applied to labor markets.]
    Um, so a blogger somehow has better insights than these economists he claims are constantly wrong. And yes, it seem 'scientific' to you but to be so drastically wrong about all the major events just kinda tells me that this is at best an early science. Hence no reason to pay too much attention yet.


    That seems somewhat apparent from the question you ask after this quote. The increase isn't being compared to MW rates. It is highlighting an additional piece of evidence that there is no monopsony power in US labor markets. Increases in wages absent productivity growth is, by definition, indication that there is no monopsony power.

    To rephrase this a bit, the wages increasing absent them being able to produce more, is driven by competition amongst employers to attract workers. That is the exact opposite of a scenario were companies have negotiating power over labor.
    And are these wages living wages or not? That's the only goal for MW to achieve.

    This comment seems to indicate that you think the minimum wage increases we've been discussing are occuring at the national level. Is that your perception? Because so far, the larger ones we've discussed, and all of the ones in the time period of the article, are at City level, not even state increases.
    No, I understand how limited in scope some of your studies are. I read a bunch remember and challenged you specifically on the point that your studies are too limited to be of real use. Which is why they are nearly universally ignored, because for each economic argument you provide, there are counterarguments (that are beyond the scope of your too-narrow OP) that appear to be swaying the decision making. But since you refuse to allow discussion of those counter-arguments, there's little point going down that path.

  4. #564
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,480
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I'm not sure if it really is a clear yes and certainly not a yes in ALL circumstances in ALL economies. I only have some papers that are disputed by people you claim are not economists and merely bloggers; while recently quoting one yourself.
    It certainly isn't applicable to all markets (economies is a bit overbroad for what you mean). Markets with monopsony power would not have these findings. That is, quite literally, the only time when it wouldn't apply.

    If we want to talk about instituting minimum wage legislation in those markets (professional sports) that would make sense and wouldn't necessarily make people's lives worse. If you want to apply your minimum wage policy to any other market, then you are going to be, on net, making the problem worse.


    [Side note: I've never criticized you for citing a blogger. I criticized you for citing a blogger who didn't rely on any evidence. The article I cited is quoting specific works and data sets and, importantly, economists. It is one thing to cite a blog written with quotes from MDs about heart health. It is another to cite a blog written by someone with a masters in history on heart health with no citations.]


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Well, it kinda does - you're just parroting back what the papers have already concluded.
    And? If I simply parrot back what papers are saying about climate change, does that make the point invalid about how CO2 is affecting the climate? Of if I quote a large series of papers about sugar intake leading to obesity, does that make an argument about providing sugar to people invalid?

    We aren't looking here for points on creativity, we are looking about how the minimum wage affects peoples' lives.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I think it has been shown in a limited sense that this could be true but I think there needs to be more follow up studies and broader examinations of policy in order to properly determine a long term effect.
    So yes then.

    If you had read the OP you would see that some of the studies mentioned cover periods lasting up to 25 years post MW implemmentation. How many studies exactly would you need to see in order for this to be, in your mind, an inescapable conclusion?

    What would the scientific consensus rate need to be?

    What specific examinations are required? What specifically do they need to look at or do?


    I'm asking these because to the extent you've hinted about them here, I've pointed out that those have already been done.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I have to remain skeptical of your claims since they are limited in time and geography and duration.
    They are? How so? Why would studies conducted over the last 100 years across the world be limited in geography or duration?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Sure.
    Great, were there any other definitional concerns you had?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Not really since these changes take time to institute
    Ok, what is the relevant timeline in your opinion?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Well, no, I have new claims that would fall within your limited scope of discussion.
    If you do, I don't think you've presented them. What are they? Or would you rather hold those to a formal debate?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Um, so a blogger somehow has better insights than these economists he claims are constantly wrong.
    I'm not relying on his insights. I'm relying on his quotations of economists and references to economics publications. You'll also notice, if you actually read the article, that he isn't saying any economist is "wrong." He is saying that the additional data answered a predictive question levelled by economists.

    Being "puzzled" by why labor markets haven't tightened is no different than physicists being puzzled as to why they hadn't found the Higgs Boson yet in 2009.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    And are these wages living wages or not? That's the only goal for MW to achieve.
    1) Can you precisely define a living wage? I can't answer that question unless you can define your term.

    2) Interesting that you say that a living wage is the only goal for a minimum wage. Given that virtually all the evidence shows that wages do not increase, but decrease (sometimes to 0), then would you say the minimum wage has failed?

    3) This all misses the point. The point is that the only legitimate use of a minimum wage is in a market where employers have monopsony power (the power to push down wages). Since we don't have that, we know that the minimum wage will cause, on net, harm, not benefit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    No, I understand how limited in scope some of your studies are.
    Hard for the studies to be broader if the policies are limited, right? Are you saying they should survey national unemployment when Seattle raises its MW?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    I read a bunch remember and challenged you specifically on the point that your studies are too limited to be of real use.
    Indeed. And if you remember correctly, I answered your challenge showing that the studies covered the last century of changes and covered vastly different economies both in the US and in Europe. I asked you then, what additional data would you need. A question you never answered.
    "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.


  5. #565
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,480
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    This is related to an aspect of the harm minimum wage laws cause that I dealt with in the OP and later. I was specifically addressing the MW increase in SEATAC (Seattle-Tacoma, which is not the same increase we've discussed in Seattle more recently, but about 4 years older). One of the things that immediately came out after Seatac increased its minimum wage rate was that "non-pecuniary benefits" (IE things your job gives you that aren't wages) were dramatically cut. From eliminating on shift free meals, to employee discounts, to work safety conditions.

    A new study has found this effect to be more broadly supported in the evidence, applying to minimum wage increases over multiple states and decades.

    This factor matters because it shows that even unemployment rates don't tell the full story of harm caused by MW laws. Even for those who keep their jobs, other benefits are cut. And since those former benefits were often not-taxed, but the new wages are, it is a worse than one for one trade off for employees. What is interesting is that not only does the evidence show that significant parts of the wage gain are undermined by this benefit loss, but that the effect spills over into jobs earning above minimum wage as well.

    As economist Art Carden succinctly put it:

    Of course, there’s a lot more to a job than wages. People want work that is meaningful or enjoyable. They might especially value safety, comfort, or flexibility. People can also get a lot of non-wage benefits like health coverage, scholarship opportunities, and paid vacation. Workers can (and do) “buy” these perks by accepting lower wages than they would require if the job weren’t as pleasant, meaningful, or safe or if the fringe benefits weren’t as good.


    In short, workers don’t live on wages alone, and minimum wages might not change what workers get paid but rather how they get paid. Minimum wages mandate that cash wages take up a bigger part of employee compensation.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/artcard.../#424a07d73b7b
    "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 29 of 29 FirstFirst ... 19 25 26 27 28 29

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
  •