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 14 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 457
  1. #261
    Registered User

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, you're suggesting we don't follow economic principles and laws which should be followed?
    I'm saying we don't have to, for whatever reason.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #262
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,158
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I'm saying we don't have to, for whatever reason.
    Of course, we don't HAVE to. The question is whether it is wise not to do so. I am arguing that MW hurts people in every economic bracket. I have demonstrated this via economic theory AND via real-world data. To this point, your argument has been simple denial. It is fine if you have a logical argument/rebuttal against the economic theory or the data. However, shaking your head, 'no,' and saying you don't believe either is not an argument. You're just sticking your head in the sand pretending the argument will go away.

    What you fail to grasp is that the welfare state, in all its forms, hurts people. Welfare, MW, a forced living wage, etc al. removes the incentives that drive people to self-sustaining lives. So, when we, as a society, decide to implement one or more of these sorts of mechanisms, we also need to weigh the costs. Not just in tax money, but in real productive costs. How much money will someone lose over the course of their career if they have an incentive to earn slightly less as a young person? This is a real cost created by things like MW. The loss of mobility the researches discussed is a real effect of MW and is harmful to someone's economic well-being over the course of their lifetimes. You claim you are for the worker. For the little guy. Yet, the policies you support hurt the little guy in a way which most will never recover. Yes, I support the business owner and his desire to earn a profit. However, economics is not a zero-sum gain. I support the little guy and his ability to earn an income just as much as anyone.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  3. Thanks Lukecash12 thanked for this post
  4. #263
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    You're entire premise does nothing but assume.
    Cowboy, perhaps it would be productive if you were to list a few of the assumptions you believe him to be making? We could then analyze the robustness of those assumptions and the consequences if they are violated, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Not that undermines a law of economics, rather that they need to be obeyed.
    I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this statement. What do you mean by “obeyed?” Do you mean like gravity? That we can’t choose to act not in accordance with economic principles? Obviously that is the case (just as there are caveats and exemptions to the law of gravity). But certainly you don’t hold that:

    a) A large portion of people actually do ignore those laws and
    b) That for those that do there aren’t significant, and destructive consequences for that decision.
    Right?

    The first one is supported in the volume of literature referenced here. People do, actually, have a downward sloping demand for labor. If it costs more, they will consume less.

    And I’m pretty sure I posted it here, but a great example of the second comment relates to the Seattle business owner who raised his MW arbitrarily to a city living wage. He was then unable to invest in the company to continue product upgrades, saw decreases in productivity (as people found the system unfair), and had to require exceptionally long hours because he was unable to hire sufficient staff. As a result, he has declared bankruptcy and the company was liquidated.

    That is why I was asking you earlier in thread about details for how we would pay for an increase in wages. That money has to come from somewhere, and taking it from that other use has consequences.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Well, of course. The rules of a baseball game are coercive, you won't be playing very long if you insist you get 5 strikes while everyone else gets three.
    Except, as I demonstrated in my last post, that isn’t coercion. A negative consequence is not the same thing as a threat of force to get someone to do something.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    But in his situation Simon no longer needs to move, because he is now making his cost of living. Why would Simon have to move and take on all that added expense? Why is that loss (over in Eggville) connected to what Simon and his neighbors did?
    First, let me just ask if you agree with the point I was making above, that the law’s justification isn’t tied here to the economic consequences of the law, right?

    Second, let's remember that all I'm talking about here is the consequences of an artificial wage into a market. In IBELSD's example there are two different scenarios.

    In scenario 1, there is no MW enacted. Simon uses his current income to take on the expense of moving in order to move to a town where the wages are higher. This opens up his job position for someone previously unemployed.

    1) Simon is better off because he valued the new wage more than the cost of moving, right?

    2) The new employee is better off because he took the job, and thus has an income where he previously had none.


    In Scenario 2, Simon's town enacts a MW for whatever reason (as I pointed out earlier, the reason is irrelevant to the outcome). Simon now doesn't move because the smaller wage increase doesn't offset his moving expenses, thus he is better off in the old job.

    1) Simon is better off than he was before because he is now making a higher wage. But he isn't as better off as he was in scenario 1 because he is still making a lower wage than he would have made if he had moved.

    2) Person 2 is no better off because no open position was created so he remains unemployed.

    Does this reasoning seem to make sense?

    Alternatively, I could put it into a table, if the numbers make it a bit clearer. Lets say Town A's original wage is $5, their MW is $7, it costs $5 to move, the wage at the new town is $8

    Scenario 1 Simon Person 2 Total Scenario 2 (with MW) Simon Person 2 Total
    Starting Wage $5 $0 $5 $0
    Moving Expenses -$5 0 $0 (He doesn't move) $0
    Ending Wage $10 $5 $7 $0
    Net Improvement $5 $5 $10 $2 $0 $2

    So we see that in scenario 1 the total improvement is $10, while in the MW scenario, prices are dampened and information obscured such that the total benefit is only $2. And all of this assumes that Simon's job isn't cut because of the new wages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Well, never, since I'm actually in favor of a living wage and a guaranteed income instead of UI.
    Isn’t a “living wage” just another name for a minimum wage? How would a “living wage” not suffer from the same disemployment effects noted in this thread?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Your premise was silly and predicate on so many assumptions as to render it meaningless.

    Such as? What assumptions are in Ibelsd’s example? How would violating them mean his point doesn’t hold?
    "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. Likes Ibelsd liked this post
  6. #264
    Registered User

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

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

    Right, you've assumed you've captured all of Simon's expenses and he still ends up the same. Does that even capture the bother of moving...why would he go?

    Why wouldn't Person 2 go?

    ---------- Post added at 12:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this statement. What do you mean by “obeyed?” Do you mean like gravity? That we can’t choose to act not in accordance with economic principles? Obviously that is the case (just as there are caveats and exemptions to the law of gravity). But certainly you don’t hold that:

    a) A large portion of people actually do ignore those laws and
    b) That for those that do there aren’t significant, and destructive consequences for that decision.

    My boyfriend tells me that Ikea sells a **** ton of those hangers. They're a wealthy company doing just fine.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #265
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Right, you've assumed you've captured all of Simon's expenses and he still ends up the same. Does that even capture the bother of moving...why would he go?
    Since you didn't quote any text in this part of the reply, I'm not sure what you are referring too. I can say that I never found Simon "ending up the same" so I'm not sure of your take on this.

    Do you mean to say that his "net improvement" is the same as his initial wage? I think this might overlook what the term "net" means here. It also forgets that moving expenses are one time things, while wages are reoccuring. Or I could just overcome the objection by making the ending wage $11, right? I'm not sure how this really overcomes the conclusion being drawn.



    I also did capture all of Simon's expenses in the "Moving expenses" line item. This includes the "bother" of moving approximated to dollar form (ie how much would I have to pay Simon to get him to go through with that bother). Remember, this is a hypothetical to prove a point. The objection that there might be other costs not covered doesn't really change the outcome, it only means I would need to change the value in the "ending wage" row to illustrate the point again.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Why wouldn't Person 2 go?

    Well, as Ibelsd explained, Person 2 doesn't have the resources to go. Remember, Person 2 is unemployed at the start of both scenarios.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    My boyfriend tells me that Ikea sells a **** ton of those hangers. They're a wealthy company doing just fine.
    Let me ask one question and make one point on this issue.

    Q) Do you really believe that Ikea is operating in a manner other than the laws of economics? Not that there is just another factor that we haven't discussed, but that they are truly operating against standard economic principles?


    P) Returning to the hangar question, do you have any reason to believe that those hangars are, in the long term, unprofitable for Ikea?






    Let me also just try to sum up what I think your position is, and you can tell me if I'm incorrect.


    While it is true that companies do decrease employment as a response to minimum wage increases, that doesn't have to be the case. They could well choose not to and we could then have a higher wage rate without job loses.
    "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.


  8. #266
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,158
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Why wouldn't Person 2 go?

    Cowperson, you've asked this same question at least three times now. So, either make some sort of coherent rebuttal or acknowledge the point. This is a complete waste of time. Squatch and I have offered a reasonable set of premises which arrive to a specific conclusion. Your rebuttal for all of it boils down to
    1) ignore it
    2) say uh-uh

    Neither are legitimate discussions. I can offer many examples. I have cited the research on the topic. I have provided the underlying theory. You have offered... ummmm.... nothing! Pointing at the wealth of others or what they COULD do if they choose is not an argument. It does not address a single point I have made. Nowhere in my argument is protecting the wealth of others mentioned. I have been arguing how to best help low-wage, unskilled, and unemployed individuals. You've been putting your best foot forward to keep them down. I understand that progressive views are semi-psychotic, but why do all progressives hate people so much? Why are you all so heartless that you wouldn't want to help the poorest among us? What did the unemployed do to you such that you'd behave so cruelly towards them? I just don't understand the hatred and vitriol you have for those just looking to get ahead.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  9. #267
    Registered User

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Let me ask one question and make one point on this issue.

    Q) Do you really believe that Ikea is operating in a manner other than the laws of economics? Not that there is just another factor that we haven't discussed, but that they are truly operating against standard economic principles?


    P) Returning to the hangar question, do you have any reason to believe that those hangars are, in the long term, unprofitable for Ikea?
    A) In this instance they are. Just like I would be selling my banana splits during the banana wars...no?

    The second part I don't understand your question. The hangers themselves make no profit, they have a negative margin. As an add-on sale - "Let's buy this wardrobe, honey, oh, look here's some nice hangers" - then, yes, they add value to the larger sale. They could also be an intro sale to the the actually profitable painted hangers "Oh, hangers...oh, look over here, white hangers".

    But all of those things were declared irrelevant by you during the discussion on selling bananas at a loss...as being contrary to the laws of economics.

    ---------- Post added at 01:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Do you mean to say that his "net improvement" is the same as his initial wage? I think this might overlook what the term "net" means here. It also forgets that moving expenses are one time things, while wages are reoccuring. Or I could just overcome the objection by making the ending wage $11, right? I'm not sure how this really overcomes the conclusion being drawn.
    Possibly, what if Simon's mother-in-law stays put in Bacontown. Now, every time his wife wants to see her she has to drive back to Bacontown. More expense. Or, now they don't have Grandma to watch the kids so they have to pay for childcare.

    So, no, moving expenses aren't a one-time thing they can go on indefinitely and are part of the complex decision Simon has to make.

    ---------- Post added at 01:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Cowperson, you've asked this same question at least three times now. So, either make some sort of coherent rebuttal or acknowledge the point. This is a complete waste of time. Squatch and I have offered a reasonable set of premises which arrive to a specific conclusion. Your rebuttal for all of it boils down to
    1) ignore it
    2) say uh-uh

    Neither are legitimate discussions. I can offer many examples. I have cited the research on the topic. I have provided the underlying theory. You have offered... ummmm.... nothing! Pointing at the wealth of others or what they COULD do if they choose is not an argument. It does not address a single point I have made. Nowhere in my argument is protecting the wealth of others mentioned. I have been arguing how to best help low-wage, unskilled, and unemployed individuals. You've been putting your best foot forward to keep them down. I understand that progressive views are semi-psychotic, but why do all progressives hate people so much? Why are you all so heartless that you wouldn't want to help the poorest among us? What did the unemployed do to you such that you'd behave so cruelly towards them? I just don't understand the hatred and vitriol you have for those just looking to get ahead.
    Your ridiculous hyperbole is telling. You will address me using my proper username.

    You've ignored and stated as irrelevant all of the complex variables this person has to weigh in order to move. This assumes a net loss in productivity but ignore that it may be a net gain...in whatever measure is important to that person. Perhaps, for example, he just doesn't want to change churches. He likes his, has a good bond with the other members and that has value. Perhaps he feels he has "laid down roots" in the community". Or whatever his reason are.

    This is what I mean by "blackboard economics". You not only don't account for them, you completely dismiss them out of hand and term them as irrelevant. Humans are more complex than that.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #268
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,158
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Your ridiculous hyperbole is telling. You will address me using my proper username.
    Your proper name??? lol. Lighten up Francis. I am not using hyperbole. I am making an argument. If you find it hyperbolic, it is incumbent upon you to support your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You've ignored and stated as irrelevant all of the complex variables this person has to weigh in order to move. This assumes a net loss in productivity but ignore that it may be a net gain...in whatever measure is important to that person. Perhaps, for example, he just doesn't want to change churches. He likes his, has a good bond with the other members and that has value. Perhaps he feels he has "laid down roots" in the community". Or whatever his reason are.

    This is what I mean by "blackboard economics". You not only don't account for them, you completely dismiss them out of hand and term them as irrelevant. Humans are more complex than that.
    Of course they are accounted for. This is rolled into the person's motivation to leave for a better job vs. to stay. You are, through MW laws, altering the motivational value of staying. More importantly, you have completely dismissed the needs of the unemployed who are hindered by the lack of mobility that MW laws tend to encourage.

    So, if you are dismissing our application of so-called "blackboard economics", which theory are you replacing it with? Again, I've offered more than just theory. I've offered research which supports the theory. I've offered examples of application of the theory. You are just saying, "uh-uh" without any sort of support or counter-theory.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  11. #269
    Registered User

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Of course they are accounted for. This is rolled into the person's motivation to leave for a better job vs. to stay. You are, through MW laws, altering the motivational value of staying. More importantly, you have completely dismissed the needs of the unemployed who are hindered by the lack of mobility that MW laws tend to encourage.

    So, if you are dismissing our application of so-called "blackboard economics", which theory are you replacing it with? Again, I've offered more than just theory. I've offered research which supports the theory. I've offered examples of application of the theory. You are just saying, "uh-uh" without any sort of support or counter-theory.
    You're blaming person A from staying in his job even though - through his calculation - it is in his net benefit to do so. What scenario of yours does that mesh with?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #270
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    A) In this instance they are. Just like I would be selling my banana splits during the banana wars...no?
    Well no. I mean first we only some random picture to go on, it could well be that Ikea is telling them not to sell the hangers. More likely, this is a console type of pricing structure. Gaming consoles generally (like the hangers) have a negative marginal contribution. IE companies sell them at a loss. Why? Because they drive game sales, which are far, far more profitable. It is worth it to lose $100 on an Xbox, if you are going to have one extra person buy it and then buy $300 in profit for games.

    Likely the hangers are the same issue here, where Ikea is being what is called a "loss leader" because it drives other business.


    In your example of the banana splits, I pointed out that you would only sell the splits at a loss if selling them also meant increasing the sales of something that returned a higher profit than the splits lost. Right?

    The argument you would seem to be making is that unskilled roles drive some other kind of profitable activity? If so, what would that activity be? And why, given that, do employers actually seem to reduce unskilled jobs given an increase in MW?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Possibly, what if Simon's mother-in-law stays put in Bacontown. Now, every time his wife wants to see her she has to drive back to Bacontown. More expense. Or, now they don't have Grandma to watch the kids so they have to pay for childcare.

    So, no, moving expenses aren't a one-time thing they can go on indefinitely and are part of the complex decision Simon has to make.
    But Simon's friend, Mimon's mother-in-law lives in the new town, so his moving expenses are lower than Simon's and his savings offsets Simon's payment. We an play a what-if game all day, if the objection you are raising doesn't actually strike at the fundamental principle (that MW legislation reduces the incentive to reallocate labor), then it isn't very persuasive.

    Now, I agree that moving is a complex decision only Simon can make. The question is, is Simon more likely or less likely to move in Scenario 1 than Scenario 2?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    This assumes a net loss in productivity but ignore that it may be a net gain...in whatever measure is important to that person. Perhaps, for example, he just doesn't want to change churches. He likes his, has a good bond with the other members and that has value. Perhaps he feels he has "laid down roots" in the community". Or whatever his reason are.
    Cowboy, I think Ibelsd's point here is that those individual factors are, as you point out, individual. They might make one person less likely to move, or another more likely to move. They might make the effect Ibelsd is talking about more pronounced or less pronounced, but they don't change the effect right? That incentive to move is still stronger (even if his Church preference overrules it in the end) in the scenario without MW right?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #271
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,158
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You're blaming person A from staying in his job even though - through his calculation - it is in his net benefit to do so. What scenario of yours does that mesh with?
    If I hand you a million dollars to remain at your job, then I'm changing YOUR calculations, aren't I? I am not blaming anyone. I am blaming the system of giving people artificial benefits which motivate people to act against their self-interests. A MW is an artificial means of altering behavior. What you have completely avoided is how MW laws effect those people harmed by the lack of mobility in the workforce that MW laws create. You are focused on some single hypothetical entity and his short-term benefits while completely avoiding discussion of the big picture (i.e. the macroeconomics). You don't even recognize that MW laws are actually harming the individual by lowering his net value over time. You are delusional and fighting for some ideological viewpoint regardless of the consequences.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  14. #272
    Registered User

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If I hand you a million dollars to remain at your job, then I'm changing YOUR calculations, aren't I? I am not blaming anyone. I am blaming the system of giving people artificial benefits which motivate people to act against their self-interests. A MW is an artificial means of altering behavior. What you have completely avoided is how MW laws effect those people harmed by the lack of mobility in the workforce that MW laws create. You are focused on some single hypothetical entity and his short-term benefits while completely avoiding discussion of the big picture (i.e. the macroeconomics). You don't even recognize that MW laws are actually harming the individual by lowering his net value over time. You are delusional and fighting for some ideological viewpoint regardless of the consequences.
    Why is it an artificial benefit? Just because the company says so? Tough **** on them, who do you think they are?

    Why are his benefits short-term? That's an assumption on your part.

    How is his net value harmed? Maybe economically and in your narrow example, but I've offered hypotheticals that blow that out of the water when it comes to RL.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #273
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Why is it an artificial benefit? Just because the company says so?
    Well, no, it is artificial by definition because the imposition of the price floor comes from an agent outside the contractual relationship. That makes it an artificial constraint on both parties by definition.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    but I've offered hypotheticals that blow that out of the water when it comes to RL.
    Actually Cowboy, you have that a bit backwards. And I think we can agree that I'm approaching this from a pretty fair point of view so far. Ibelsd's examples are broader and cover, on average, large group's of people. His argument is about the direction of the effect. IE Does MW have a tendency to keep people from reallocating labor, all things being equal?

    Your argument is about the scale of the resulting effect. IE Does MW have a large enough push to actually make some individual alter his decision?
    "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. #274
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,158
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Why is it an artificial benefit? Just because the company says so? Tough **** on them, who do you think they are?

    Why are his benefits short-term? That's an assumption on your part.

    How is his net value harmed? Maybe economically and in your narrow example, but I've offered hypotheticals that blow that out of the water when it comes to RL.
    1. Squatch properly explained why MW is artificial. I'll let his explanation stand.
    2. I previously explained how his net value was harmed. Yes. Economically. You've offered hypotheticals which would weigh into his motivation for staying or leaving, however, the artificial motivation is the MW. When someone moves, switches jobs, etc. they are conducting some sort of cost benefit analysis. The neighborhood they live in, friends, connections, how much they like their current job, and job compensation all play into this. These are natural motivations. Now, if we provide artificial motivations such as MW, then the CBA is adjusted accordingly. Unfortunately, artificially adjusting someone's motivation to leave/stay has unintended consequences which I have explained in my previous posts. What you are saying is that you have no interest in the lack of opportunities for the unemployed because you have an ideological attachment to MW and harbor some weird resentment for people who own businesses. You are not interested in raising up the poor. You'd obviously much rather bring down the wealthy.

    Understand, your hypothetical does not "blow that out of the water" because I am not insisting anyone do anything that is against their own self-interests. I am pointing out the hidden and real costs of MW laws to the people who are hurting the most. So, if you want to defend government largess because you hate business owners just admit it. You don't care about the poor, homeless, or unemployed. All you care about is socking it to those you perceive as wealthy.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  17. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  18. #275
    Registered User

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

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

    If someone votes for a candidate that supports MW laws, those laws get introduced and passed...that doesn't make them "artificial".

    They may be not in the interest of the business owner as in not making economic sense for them, but the business owner's concern is no more valid than the person - how have I heard it put? - "voting themselves a pay raise".

    ---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, no, it is artificial by definition because the imposition of the price floor comes from an agent outside the contractual relationship. That makes it an artificial constraint on both parties by definition.
    Do you mean that agent to be the duly elected representatives of the people? What is the argument against having them involved? (or any third party for that matter - such a s a union). I'd bet my condo Tom cruise hasn't had much to do with his contract negotiations in some time...if ever.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  19. #276
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,158
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    If someone votes for a candidate that supports MW laws, those laws get introduced and passed...that doesn't make them "artificial".
    Yes. Yes, it does. That is the exact definition of artificial. Someone's or some group's pay is being defined by some other group of people, without regard to actual value and without consent of those in contract to each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    They may be not in the interest of the business owner as in not making economic sense for them, but the business owner's concern is no more valid than the person - how have I heard it put? - "voting themselves a pay raise".
    Again, you keep positing this straw man about the business owner. I am not arguing on behalf of the business owners. I am arguing that it is bad for the workers making MW and for individuals who are unemployed. Where is your rebuttal for this? How does MW help unemployed persons? In the long-run, how does increasing the MW help those workers directly impacted? Please, explain to me the economic principles which support your ideology. Explain the math which supports your ideas. Can you? Or is all just hopes and wishes based on want? You keep attacking the unemployed, but these are real people and you're offering nothing more than paltry government assistance. I used to think, at the very least, progressives had their hearts in the right places. Now, I am thinking they are just callous individuals blinded by either jealousy or shame (or both). Here, I have painfully explained just how harmful MW is to the low-wage workers and unemployed and your rebuttals have consisted of diatribes against business owners. Your sole justification for a MW is that it forces business owners to pay more. The value system you seem to be supporting is how to decrease the living standards of others. The value system I am supporting is how to increase the living standards for all.

    By the way, if a policy is introduced which forces people to act in a way which does not make economic sense for them, then aren't you conceding the policy artificially alters the marketplace?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Do you mean that agent to be the duly elected representatives of the people? What is the argument against having them involved? (or any third party for that matter - such a s a union). I'd bet my condo Tom cruise hasn't had much to do with his contract negotiations in some time...if ever.
    Let's be clear here. Artificial is not synonymous with bad. I am not arguing that increasing the MW is bad/harmful because it is artificial. I am arguing that because it is artificial, it has unintended consequences and that those consequences are harmful to the people MW laws are intended to help.

    Why are laws artificial, as opposed to your Cruise example? Laws mandate changes in behavior. If they didn't mandate a change in behavior, then there would be no reason for the law in the first place. Not all laws are bad. Laws which punish murder and theft are examples of laws which benefit all those who choose not to steal and/or murder. So, while they artificially reduce instances of murder and theft, there is little argument that they are bad laws. MW laws also artificially change behavior. I'd think this is an obvious point. Now, the question is whether the unintended consequences outweigh the supposed benefits. So far, you've yet to support your claim that MW laws benefit anyone other than a short-term bump in pay for some people. What you have implied, though, is that absent of any evidence of MW laws helping people, you are quite content so long as MW laws harm those you deem wealthy. Kind of a sad world view.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. Likes Squatch347, Lukecash12, MindTrap028 liked this post
  21. #277
    Registered User

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Yes. Yes, it does. That is the exact definition of artificial. Someone's or some group's pay is being defined by some other group of people, without regard to actual value and without consent of those in contract to each other.
    That is no better or worse than the "artifical" reasoning for their wage based on a value determined by the owner. Of course the business owner is going to use a value that best suits him, if that number comes from an average of similar salaries then so be it.

    ---------- Post added at 11:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    By the way, if a policy is introduced which forces people to act in a way which does not make economic sense for them, then aren't you conceding the policy artificially alters the marketplace?
    For "them", the business owner you mean, if it makes economic sense for anyone else does it not matter?

    ---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    Why are laws artificial, as opposed to your Cruise example? Laws mandate changes in behavior. If they didn't mandate a change in behavior, then there would be no reason for the law in the first place.
    Well, yes, a law is the use of force and expression of power. Just as employing a good agent and lawyer is or a bunch of workers forming a union. What difference do you see?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  22. #278
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,338
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Do you mean that agent to be the duly elected representatives of the people? What is the argument against having them involved? (or any third party for that matter - such a s a union). I'd bet my condo Tom cruise hasn't had much to do with his contract negotiations in some time...if ever.
    That's kind of an interesting default position. Why would we assume a third party should be involved? What is the reasoning behind bringing them in?

    I wouldn't take that bet to be sure, but when Tom Cruise's representative negotiates a contract for him, that representative was invited there by Mr. Cruise right? Cruise hired him to conduct that negotiation right? Is the same true for MW laws? Do all laborers "contract" with the government to negotiate on their behalf? Can they opt out of that relationship?


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That is no better or worse than the "artifical" reasoning for their wage based on a value determined by the owner.
    Cowboy, why do you think that wages are "determined by the owner?"

    Do you mean the owner determines the maximum that he is willing to pay for labor? That isn't the same as a wage rate. And how would that be different from the laborer determining the minimum he is willing to sell his labor for?
    "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.


  23. #279
    Registered User

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That's kind of an interesting default position. Why would we assume a third party should be involved? What is the reasoning behind bringing them in?

    I wouldn't take that bet to be sure, but when Tom Cruise's representative negotiates a contract for him, that representative was invited there by Mr. Cruise right? Cruise hired him to conduct that negotiation right? Is the same true for MW laws? Do all laborers "contract" with the government to negotiate on their behalf? Can they opt out of that relationship?
    Sure, there's no guard towers or barbed wire around Baconville. There's plenty of other towns to live in.

    ---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Cowboy, why do you think that wages are "determined by the owner?"

    Do you mean the owner determines the maximum that he is willing to pay for labor? That isn't the same as a wage rate. And how would that be different from the laborer determining the minimum he is willing to sell his labor for?
    The business owner determines what the job is, no?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  24. #280
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,158
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That is no better or worse than the "artifical" reasoning for their wage based on a value determined by the owner. Of course the business owner is going to use a value that best suits him, if that number comes from an average of similar salaries then so be it.
    Again, you are not reading my argument. I specifically stated MW laws are not bad BECAUSE they are artificial. So, at best this is a straw man. At worst, you're just misdirecting the debate. It is precisely because the employer will tend to pay based on market value (i.e. the average of similar salaries), that he is likely to offer a fair wage for labor. Employers may offer more or less and employees may accept more or less. However, and this is key here, if you create a reason for workers to accept less (i.e. MW laws), then you are not helping the workers. I have clearly explained how this happens, so please do not merely question how lack of mobility lessens employee value without offering some sort of reasoned rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    For "them", the business owner you mean, if it makes economic sense for anyone else does it not matter?
    Why are you so fixated on the business owner? I am discussing the true victim of MW laws, the low wage earners and unemployed. It is not fair to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Well, yes, a law is the use of force and expression of power. Just as employing a good agent and lawyer is or a bunch of workers forming a union. What difference do you see?
    A good agent is not a use of force. His job is to use whatever leverage he can, i.e. based on the quality of his product, to help two parties agree on a price. How is that use of force? Tom Cruise's agent does not walk into Warner Bros. with a gun and a mandate specifying how much they must pay his client. A clearly defined why laws are artificial. They "mandate" a change in behavior. Cruise's agent does not create mandates. He cannot force a studio to pay a fee they do not find beneficial to their own business. A government law can do this.

    You just have a really warped idea of what the market place is and how it works. I am not sure how to get around this deficit in your knowledge base. I mean you insist on floating arguments that don't address anything I've claimed. You deny the very basic fundamental principles of economics but don't really have anything to replace them with other than your own dislike of business owners. You don't really seem to respect the industry of others. You have no respect for anyone who is responsible for running a company and all the work and risk involved. And really, you don't respect the worker. You want a system which protects workers by limiting their success. Your drive to harm one group of people is not tempered in the slightest by harm caused to other groups. So, from this point out, unless you address the arguments I have actually offered, I am simply not going to respond. Just quipping quote by quote is not a replacement for a well-reasoned argument.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 
Page 14 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 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, 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
  •