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 32 of 34 FirstFirst ... 22 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 LastLast
Results 621 to 640 of 661
  1. #621
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,424
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think this is undoubtedly the case, it just depends on time horizons as you mentioned. We did see something similar with bonuses and pay increases following the decrease in corporate tax rates last year. It seems likely that something similar would happen here, though certainly less flashy and over a longer period of time.


    Sure, the relevant questions from my chair are; 1) how much of that additional value accrues to the worker vs. the owner vs. other capital investments? IE if that additional $1.10 is the result of a new machine that makes the laborer more efficient, shouldnít the owner of the capital used to buy that machine get a portion of that $1.10?
    2) Far more importantly, imo, who makes that decision? Do the parties involved in the transaction make that decision? Or do we, who have far less knowledge of the details and are operating under some veil of rational ignorance interject ourselves to make that decision?


    Iím pretty sure Iíve trotted out my favorite Thomas Sowell quote here a couple of times so Iíll spare you, but I completely agree with this sentiment.
    The point of this thread, and almost all of my participation is to establish what those trade-offs are. If individuals want to pick one side of the trade off vs the other, that is a subjective value judgement (though we can have some discussion about the morality involved).
    Having that kind of discussion would be something that hasnít yet occurred in this thread. Starting with an agreement that there is a trade off, why would someone pick one alternative over the other? All weíve had so far (not including you of course) is generally the denial that there really is a trade off.


    Perhaps, though I think this is a fatal conceit of econometrics. It isnít so much lack of data as it is category of data. It is really hard to apply statistical techniques to subjective measurements. There are a host of people out there who do try that though (I encounter them a lot in my role in marketing) so it isnít as if there is some kind of consensus of impossibility.
    The problem with understanding that type of data here is that the result must, (almost by definition) be a nearly one size fits all response. Those factors might fit company X well and could result in a more efficient economic outcome, but result in a deadweight loss for company Y with the same factors. I donít think we have a good record of economic coordination of this sort.


    Fair reminder (I tend to get wrapped into the details of my response, sorry). As I hinted at above, this is, by far, the most cogent defense of the MW Iíve encountered (not just here, but elsewhere) that doesnít involve invoking monopsony power. You could be right about the net effect of a hyper targeted wage law being positive. There are two major factors imo:
    1) Do the factors to be measured actually result in economic deadweight loss? IE are we actually shifting the efficient frontier by correcting for these factors or are we just redistributing? For example, if the law resulted in a higher or more efficient use of capital it could be a net benefit. If it just shifts money from the equity owners to labor, it probably wonít.
    2) Can the government coherently manage such a program. I think you and I share a doubt on this issue. Iím not sure any governmental program could effectively manage the scope and data requirements of such an effort, let alone not let political, social, and corruption influence their application.
    I think we agree on many of the major points here. There is some disagreement on whether MW could be effectively calculated, but we both share a pretty high level of distrust for the government which would enact such a plan. Anyhow, I appreciate the conversation. Probably best to leave it here for now.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  3. #622
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,174
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think we agree on many of the major points here. There is some disagreement on whether MW could be effectively calculated, but we both share a pretty high level of distrust for the government which would enact such a plan. Anyhow, I appreciate the conversation. Probably best to leave it here for now.
    Ok, since you two agree, let me throw my couple "cents worth" at it.

    MW for all of the US is just plain untenable at the moment.
    Let's explore Wa St where I live. My company pays $4.00/hr more if you work at our Seattle branch as apposed to my side of the state for the same job.

    Now imagine a smaller town in TN VS Seattle. What basic wage works for all or even most areas? A "living wage" (rent/food/power/water/basic necessities) varies greatly across our fairly large country.

    How can we discern what a "fair" MW should be that could apply everywhere in the US in a manner that everyone would be equal???

    Answer:
    It can not be done (at the moment to be sure).
    A wage that afforded basic living expenses in Seattle would amount to a much higher standard of living in many other areas of the country...

  4. #623
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    A wage that afforded basic living expenses in Seattle would amount to a much higher standard of living in many other areas of the country...
    So?

  5. #624
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,174
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    So?
    IOW, there is no MW that works for the country as a whole
    and/or
    You are legislating some people to be better off/wealthier than others by virtue of a MW...

  6. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  7. #625
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You are legislating some people to be better off/wealthier than others by virtue of a MW...
    I suppose. What would be so awful about that?

  8. #626
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,424
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ok, since you two agree, let me throw my couple "cents worth" at it.

    MW for all of the US is just plain untenable at the moment.
    Let's explore Wa St where I live. My company pays $4.00/hr more if you work at our Seattle branch as apposed to my side of the state for the same job.

    Now imagine a smaller town in TN VS Seattle. What basic wage works for all or even most areas? A "living wage" (rent/food/power/water/basic necessities) varies greatly across our fairly large country.

    How can we discern what a "fair" MW should be that could apply everywhere in the US in a manner that everyone would be equal???

    Answer:
    It can not be done (at the moment to be sure).
    A wage that afforded basic living expenses in Seattle would amount to a much higher standard of living in many other areas of the country...
    Yes, I think the disparity a company would have to pay in one locale vs another could be a difficult obstacle to overcome. I'll even add to the complexity of your argument. In light of legislation either passed or pending which forces companies to prove gender equal pay, how would a company handle this? If a company hired more women in location B than A while the living wage was greater in A than B, it would most definitely skew their potential pay gap. I am not offering a prescription for wages here. That was never my intention. I am offering that with any scheme to balance pay by the government, there are trade-offs which need to be both stated and agreed upon. The ideological argument being made by most progressives attempts to hide the trade-offs and I find this makes their arguments weak and untenable. Now, it is possible, if we properly discuss the trade-offs and work through the complexities (one of which you noted and which I made even more complex) that we can find ways to reduce the complexity or navigate through the complex issues and then agree upon a settlement.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  9. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  10. #627
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,174
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I suppose. What would be so awful about that?
    WOW! You see no issue with gov't policy enriching some poor people but not others, on purpose?

    Isn't the whole idea of a MW in the first place is to treat people "fairly" and allow them to support their basic needs?

    Person A in Seattle barely gets by. Person B in TN has much more because of MW (or Seattle vs the east side of the state).
    IOW, person B is getting much more than basic living expenses while person A struggles because the gov't is "helping" everyone get a living wage by virtue of a MW..

    ---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Yes, I think the disparity a company would have to pay in one locale vs another could be a difficult obstacle to overcome. I'll even add to the complexity of your argument. In light of legislation either passed or pending which forces companies to prove gender equal pay, how would a company handle this? If a company hired more women in location B than A while the living wage was greater in A than B, it would most definitely skew their potential pay gap. I am not offering a prescription for wages here. That was never my intention. I am offering that with any scheme to balance pay by the government, there are trade-offs which need to be both stated and agreed upon. The ideological argument being made by most progressives attempts to hide the trade-offs and I find this makes their arguments weak and untenable. Now, it is possible, if we properly discuss the trade-offs and work through the complexities (one of which you noted and which I made even more complex) that we can find ways to reduce the complexity or navigate through the complex issues and then agree upon a settlement.
    I think you are spot on about the trade offs involved . If people could honestly discuss the subject with that in mind, I'm sure it would be more productive.

    A progressive commonly is a person that basically has the same thoughts/ideas/political leanings as liberals, but at the same time feels superior to them, because of a more enlightened outlook and you are correct how they typically present this issue.

  11. #628
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    WOW! You see no issue with gov't policy enriching some poor people but not others, on purpose?

    Isn't the whole idea of a MW in the first place is to treat people "fairly" and allow them to support their basic needs?

    Person A in Seattle barely gets by. Person B in TN has much more because of MW (or Seattle vs the east side of the state).
    IOW, person B is getting much more than basic living expenses while person A struggles because the gov't is "helping" everyone get a living wage by virtue of a MW..[COLOR="Silver"]
    Couldn't person A move to TN? They're getting paid the same rate for the same job, no? Why should it matter where it is.

  12. #629
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,174
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Couldn't person A move to TN? They're getting paid the same rate for the same job, no? Why should it matter where it is.
    So now person A, who barely gets by, needs to save/barrow enough money to move out of state/across the country, away from their families, so they can hopefully enjoy the "benefits" of MW?

    Wow, this does just keep getting better for the poor?
    Now we can direct/encourage where they live too?
    This is a special kind of social engineering not seen in the US (yet, hopefully never....)...

  13. #630
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So now person A, who barely gets by, needs to save/barrow enough money to move out of state/across the country, away from their families, so they can hopefully enjoy the "benefits" of MW?
    What if they had to move? Would it be better to be getting paid less for the same job?

  14. #631
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,726
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    No, it's you taking you're ball and going home. It'd be like you insisting on having your goals count for five point to two for me then blaming the ref and scorekeeper on their being no game.
    Well to continue the analogy, it would be like like me insisting that my goals count for 5 and yours count for 2 and you agreeing to that scoring metric. Then the ref saying "no, you aren't allowed to play the game with those rules."

    Why? Why should a ref be the arbiter for the handicap you and I assign our goals? A handicap we both agree to?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I suppose there are cases where the immutable characteristics of an individual should be considered.
    Ok, but that would be a preference. IE you would prefer that we not use immutable characteristics to grant the privilege of being allowed to earn a living. What if some other jurisdiction doesn't have that preference? If we are operating under your hypothesis that business is a priviledge then there shouldn't be an legal restriction of preventing blacks, or gays, or whites, or women, or whatever from owning a business right? It would simply be a matter of what the public wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    To perform an abortion? No, not a right.
    No, I said to get an abortion. There are regulations on when and how you can get an abortion, right? If so, does that make getting an abortion a privilege or is your criteria incorrect?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    That involves the use of the public commons which would be the privilege in that case.
    Not according to the Supreme Court. The government's function in applying permits to publish speech on "common space" is solely to ensure coordination and appropriate safety standards. It is absolutely not a conference of privelege and must be considered on a "shall issue" basis (iE the permit is to be issued unless the government can elaborate a compelling interest to abridge the right).

    See: Skokie v. NSPA, Smith v. Collin, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, Collin v. Smith (I'm happy to elaborate these for you if you wish).



    Interesting paper out of NBER on Seattle. As I've noted previously, studies based on Seattle are widely becoming the gold standard in economics journals thanks to the Seattle City Council's foresight in providing far more detailed data than previous legislative changes. This paper serves as a replication of the University of Washington paper I posted several pages back. Applying similar techniques to a now more robust database. The results are still the same.

    While hourly wage rates increased by 3% (less than the total increase due to the law, indicating that people were making above the minimum wage prior to the law changing) hours decreased by 6-7% which means that overall take home pay decreased as well.

    In this case, by about $74/month. It also estimated that 5000 fewer jobs were created than would have been without the increase.

    Nerd point: This study found that the elasticity of labor was far lower (-2.6 vs -0.2) than previously estimated in other studies. Meaning employers were far more likely and able to to replace low wage labor with substitutes (think automation) as wage rates increased.

    An interesting note by the authors on that point: "An elasticity of -2.6 suggests that low-wage labor is a
    more substitutable, expendable factor of production. The work of least-paid workers might be
    performed more efficiently by more skilled and experienced workers commanding a higher
    wage." I've noted this before in the thread that minimum wage disemployment tends to happen to the most economically vulnerable. Those without experience and skills.

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532.pdf
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #632
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well to continue the analogy, it would be like like me insisting that my goals count for 5 and yours count for 2 and you agreeing to that scoring metric. Then the ref saying "no, you aren't allowed to play the game with those rules."

    Why? Why should a ref be the arbiter for the handicap you and I assign our goals? A handicap we both agree to?
    Because we've already agreed that there'd be a ref and rules - let's say we entered a tournament. I've already got three jackets and you're my buddy and I want you to win one so I say I'm agreeable to scoring against the rules.

    ---------- Post added at 11:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Ok, but that would be a preference. IE you would prefer that we not use immutable characteristics to grant the privilege of being allowed to earn a living. What if some other jurisdiction doesn't have that preference? If we are operating under your hypothesis that business is a priviledge then there shouldn't be an legal restriction of preventing blacks, or gays, or whites, or women, or whatever from owning a business right? It would simply be a matter of what the public wanted.
    Right, I think so. If some other jurisdiction doesn't have that preference or any others, I don't know. I want to say so what. The point is you're allowed the privilege of owning a business - or maybe more correctly a type of business - dependent on, yes, what the public wants, or doesn't want. "We don't want a Wal-Mart" "We don't want our restaurant operators to be typhus carriers"

    ---------- Post added at 12:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    No, I said to get an abortion. There are regulations on when and how you can get an abortion, right? If so, does that make getting an abortion a privilege or is your criteria incorrect?
    You said "around" abortion. I've been involved in two and don't remember any regulations concerning the recipient. Healthcare, as it stands now, is a privilege beyond the basic ER requirements.

    ---------- Post added at 12:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Not according to the Supreme Court. The government's function in applying permits to publish speech on "common space" is solely to ensure coordination and appropriate safety standards. It is absolutely not a conference of privelege and must be considered on a "shall issue" basis (iE the permit is to be issued unless the government can elaborate a compelling interest to abridge the right).

    See: Skokie v. NSPA, Smith v. Collin, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, Collin v. Smith (I'm happy to elaborate these for you if you wish).
    No need. So is there a similar ruling for the issuing of business licenses?

  16. #633
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,726
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Because we've already agreed that there'd be a ref and rules - let's say we entered a tournament. I've already got three jackets and you're my buddy and I want you to win one so I say I'm agreeable to scoring against the rules.
    That doesn't fit our analogy very well at all. We didn't "enter a tournament." There was no pre-existing organization and widely accepted set of rules that other parties will be impacted by the changing of and that you and I agreed to be part of. It is a game between you and me, a pickup game of basketball in the neighborhood. You agree to spot me a couple of points because I am frankly (and truthfully) terrible at basketball. Then the NBA rolls up and physically restrains us from playing because it isn't how it plays games.

    The problem with how you are approaching this analogy, imo, is that you aren't asking why those sets of rules exist or should exist if both you and I agree that we don't need them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Right, I think so. If some other jurisdiction doesn't have that preference or any others, I don't know. I want to say so what.
    The so what is the consequence of your argument. If we were really correct in adopting your ideology here, we would forfeit any right to argue that Jim Crow was, in fact, wrong. Likewise you forfeit any ability to object to President Trump's tariffs, business is just a privelege after all. Ditto Alabama's abortion restrictions. They don't have a right to do business, right?

    This is the issue when we don't have a fundamental principle driving policy analysis beyond majority rule. Majorities can rule with a pretty nasty and iron hand some times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    You said "around" abortion. I've been involved in two and don't remember any regulations concerning the recipient.
    Like most service functions they do a good job insulating you from the effects of regulations on you. There are regulations aroudn recieving an abortion as well.

    Many states require a mother to recieve in person counseling, have a waiting period, and/or recieve an ultrasound before being able to obtain an abortion legally. Certainly you have no objections to these limits given that business transactions are a privilege.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    . So is there a similar ruling for the issuing of business licenses?
    Absolutely. Take Tennessee Wine and Spirit v Thomas (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...18-96_5i36.pdf) for example, where Scotus struck down in state licensing requirements as spurious. Specifically arguing that provision to open a business can only be abridged in cases of compelling public interest. You can read that as, essentially, opening a business is, in fact, a right. A right that can only be abridged with a compelling public interest.

    Likewise, North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission detailed how regulatory boards for licensing cannot act in an anti-competitive manner. Again, the basis for their actions is compelling public interest in an established right, not a more nebulos concption of overall pulic good.




    Adding to the list, the CBO, generally considered the least biased analytical group (until the issue somethng one side or the other doesn't like)came out with an analysis of what a national minimum wage would look like.

    The outcomes shouldn't be too surprising. Most of those that keep their jobs see a modest improvement in take home pay with a small off set in working conditions and decreased non-pecuniary benefits.

    This is offset by three primary factors. The reduction in hours worked, those who lose their jobs, and the increased cost of goods and services. Those three factors dramatically overwhelm the benefit leading to a decrease of about 33 Billion in total income and nearly 1.7-3.7 million workers losing their jobs in the first three years (importantly, the CBO notes this increases over time.

    https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/201...umWage2019.pdf
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #634
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That doesn't fit our analogy very well at all. We didn't "enter a tournament." There was no pre-existing organization and widely accepted set of rules that other parties will be impacted by the changing of and that you and I agreed to be part of. It is a game between you and me, a pickup game of basketball in the neighborhood. You agree to spot me a couple of points because I am frankly (and truthfully) terrible at basketball. Then the NBA rolls up and physically restrains us from playing because it isn't how it plays games.

    The problem with how you are approaching this analogy, imo, is that you aren't asking why those sets of rules exist or should exist if both you and I agree that we don't need them.
    Hmmm, this was a long time ago. I thought we had already agreed that the government has the ability to regulate these transactions through the commerce clause, no? So the NBA, in this universe, would have the ability to regulate pickup games.

    ---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The so what is the consequence of your argument. If we were really correct in adopting your ideology here, we would forfeit any right to argue that Jim Crow was, in fact, wrong. Likewise you forfeit any ability to object to President Trump's tariffs, business is just a privelege after all. Ditto Alabama's abortion restrictions. They don't have a right to do business, right?

    This is the issue when we don't have a fundamental principle driving policy analysis beyond majority rule. Majorities can rule with a pretty nasty and iron hand some times.
    Jim Crow and it's subsequent legislation and rulings overturning it support my point. "We don't want businesses that won't serve everyone in our communities". Same with rullings that have upheld zoning laws.

    ---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Like most service functions they do a good job insulating you from the effects of regulations on you. There are regulations aroudn recieving an abortion as well.

    Many states require a mother to recieve in person counseling, have a waiting period, and/or recieve an ultrasound before being able to obtain an abortion legally. Certainly you have no objections to these limits given that business transactions are a privilege.
    Oh, of course if I do if they are not medically necessary and are intended to interfere with a person's right to an abortion.

    ---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:01 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Absolutely. Take Tennessee Wine and Spirit v Thomas (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...18-96_5i36.pdf) for example, where Scotus struck down in state licensing requirements as spurious. Specifically arguing that provision to open a business can only be abridged in cases of compelling public interest. You can read that as, essentially, opening a business is, in fact, a right. A right that can only be abridged with a compelling public interest.

    Likewise, North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission detailed how regulatory boards for licensing cannot act in an anti-competitive manner. Again, the basis for their actions is compelling public interest in an established right, not a more nebulos concption of overall pulic good.
    I didn't read either of them, just the beginning. But in those two cases it looks like the question turned on businesses which were going to be allowed and discrimination as to who could have those licenses. I, for example, live in a dry town. They don't say only residents of the town can have licenses - nobody gets a license. The right to own and operate that type of business here does not exist.

  18. #635
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,726
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I thought we had already agreed that the government has the ability to regulate these transactions through the commerce clause, no?
    You mean the interstate commerce clause? I'm not sure how me, in Seattle, deciding to pay Ibelsd, in Seattle a wage of $5.25/hour is related to the interstate commerce clause.

    What's more, it is inserting a kind of is/ought fallacy. Even if the commerce clause were relevant, it doesn't mean the government should do an action. The mafia can, in fact, extort money from businesses. It doesn't mean that it should. Likewise, the government can, in fact, put Japanese people in camps, conduct eugenics activities, and all kinds of other atrocities. It doesn't mean they should.

    IE there is no moral argument that the government should do these things. Likewise, there is no moral argument that the NBA should interfere in the private pickup game between two basketball players in a park, whatever their status as the governing body of basketball.

    Finally, this response misses the point of the analogy in the first place. By invoking the interstate commerce clause or the NBA's mythical power to regulate pickup games you are conceding the point. They (the government and the NBA) are the ones taking an action to prevent the game, right? They are the ones blocking the game from happening.

    You might argue they are right to do so, but you are de facto conceding that they are the ones doing it.

    To add a bit of levity, this surprisingly accurate meme does a good job of making this argument:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	67051615_2355502558100823_9187995619598270464_o.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	70.4 KB 
ID:	3820

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Jim Crow and it's subsequent legislation and rulings overturning it support my point.
    They exactly counter your point. Those rulings were based on exactly the opposite reasoning that you are invoking. The thrust of the ruling wasn't "we can decide what kind of businesses we like in a community" it was "you don't get to exclude people from business based on their skin color, even if you voted on it."

    Remember, that was your initial point, that business was a privilege and the majority gets to decide who gets to conduct it. The point of those examples is exactly the opposite. Business is a right, and popular votes don't get to abridge that right.

    As long as your fundamental principle for morally supporting the minimum wage is majority voting, you've lost the ability to object to Alabama's abortion law, or Jim Crow, or Trump's tariffs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Oh, of course if I do if they are not medically necessary and are intended to interfere with a person's right to an abortion.
    But that directly contradicts your last argument. If the majority gets to decide whether business is a right, then you can't hold this position coherently. Either the majority gets to decide or doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I didn't read either of them, just the beginning. But in those two cases it looks like the question turned on businesses which were going to be allowed and discrimination as to who could have those licenses.
    You should actually read them because your take has literally nothing to do with what those cases were actually about.

    Tennessee Wine and Spirit v Thomas (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...18-96_5i36.pdf) was SCOTUS cancelling a licensing requirement for all businesses of that type. It specifically said that the requirement to hold the license was not demonstrated as a compelling state interest and thus could not overcome their inherent right to run a business.

    Or North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission detailed how regulatory boards for licensing cannot act in an anti-competitive manner. Again, the basis for their actions is compelling public interest in an established right, not a more nebulos concption of overall pulic good.

    Both of these cases involved the Court striking dow a law under the presumption that the business has the right to exist. That right can only be overcome if there is a compelling interest (like public safety) to abridge the right.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #636
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    [QUOTE=Squatch347;566447]
    You should actually read them because your take has literally nothing to do with what those cases were actually about.

    Tennessee Wine and Spirit v Thomas (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...18-96_5i36.pdf) was SCOTUS cancelling a licensing requirement for all businesses of that type. It specifically said that the requirement to hold the license was not demonstrated as a compelling state interest and thus could not overcome their inherent right to run a business. /QUOTE]


    the residency requirements discriminated against out-of-state economic interests in
    violation of the Commerce Clause, the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage
    Commission (TABC) declined to enforce the requirements.
    Right, because it was discriminatory. I'd have a bar in my town otherwise.

    ---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that directly contradicts your last argument. If the majority gets to decide whether business is a right, then you can't hold this position coherently. Either the majority gets to decide or doesn't.
    The majority decides as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.

    Activists claim victory over Wal-Martís decision to not build stores in Somerville and Watertown

    Coalitions formed demanding Wal-Mart meet local standards for wages, working conditions and environmental practices, or, as in Watertown, that they stay out altogether.
    In these cases Wal-Mart backed out under pressure. But let's say they persisted and ballot measures were instituted to, say, not allow businesses that don't meet X, Y, and Z criteria. Or businesses of such and such type...tattoo parlors (just had that case here), vape stores, marijuana dispensaries (big time here right now) and now recreational stores, strip clubs, etc..."big box stores".

    ---------- Post added at 11:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    They exactly counter your point. Those rulings were based on exactly the opposite reasoning that you are invoking. The thrust of the ruling wasn't "we can decide what kind of businesses we like in a community" it was "you don't get to exclude people from business based on their skin color, even if you voted on it."

    Remember, that was your initial point, that business was a privilege and the majority gets to decide who gets to conduct it. The point of those examples is exactly the opposite. Business is a right, and popular votes don't get to abridge that right.

    As long as your fundamental principle for morally supporting the minimum wage is majority voting, you've lost the ability to object to Alabama's abortion law, or Jim Crow, or Trump's tariffs.
    It wasn't a majority ruling in the scotus that broke jim crow?

    ---------- Post added at 12:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You mean the interstate commerce clause? I'm not sure how me, in Seattle, deciding to pay Ibelsd, in Seattle a wage of $5.25/hour is related to the interstate commerce clause.
    I think it's based on the notion that all business has the potential to be interstate business. You and Ibsled's transaction isn't happening in a vacum.

  20. #637
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,726
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Right, because it was discriminatory. I'd have a bar in my town otherwise.
    Yes!!! And what right did it discriminate against?

    Go back and read sub-paragraph (d) of the court's findings. You'll notice specifically it talking about what is within a state's "legitimate interest" and what isn't. The entire case rests on whether the state, under the 21st Amendment has the right to regulate alcohol in the manner prescribed. The court finds that it doesn't because protectionism isn't a legitimate interest of the state. The fact that they are referencing legitimate interest at all is the key point here. Legitimate interest is a legal phrase for discussing what conditions need to apply to abridge a standing right. That is the case here. The court found that their interest in regulating alcohol was not a legitimate interest to prevent business formation.

    Ditto all of this for the case you didn't quote: North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...3-534_19m2.pdf

    In which the court presumed a legal right to conduct business then asked if the anti-competitive actions of the state board violated that right, or if there was a compelling interest to abridge that right. Regardless of finding, the point is that they presumed the right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    The majority decides as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.
    So you have no issue with Alabama's abortion law then, right? The majority decided after all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    It wasn't a majority ruling in the scotus that broke jim crow?
    That is a pretty weak defense and I think you know it. So you are ok with smaller, unelected majority's making a decision that circumvents the majority of voters at a ballot box? Be very careful here...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I think it's based on the notion that all business has the potential to be interstate business. You and Ibsled's transaction isn't happening in a vacum.
    So you are arguing that all business, no matter how small, how local is, by default interstate business? That doesn't seem a bit ludicrous to you? Normally in a SCOTUS setting when someone says something like that one of the justices leans forward and says "are you suggesting to the Court that your argument has no limiting principle?" and then a bunch of legal writers jot down that his case looks unlikely to prevail.

    Do you have any precedent that you can put forward showing that the interstate commerce clause has no limiting principle? That it covers all business transactions, regardless of size, locality, etc.?







    What's more, it is inserting a kind of is/ought fallacy. Even if the commerce clause were relevant, it doesn't mean the government should do an action. The mafia can, in fact, extort money from businesses. It doesn't mean that it should. Likewise, the government can, in fact, put Japanese people in camps, conduct eugenics activities, and all kinds of other atrocities. It doesn't mean they should.

    IE there is no moral argument that the government should do these things. Likewise, there is no moral argument that the NBA should interfere in the private pickup game between two basketball players in a park, whatever their status as the governing body of basketball.

    Finally, this response misses the point of the analogy in the first place. By invoking the interstate commerce clause or the NBA's mythical power to regulate pickup games you are conceding the point. They (the government and the NBA) are the ones taking an action to prevent the game, right? They are the ones blocking the game from happening.

    You might argue they are right to do so, but you are de facto conceding that they are the ones doing it.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #638
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes!!! And what right did it discriminate against?
    One group or person operating a business over another.

    ---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    So you have no issue with Alabama's abortion law then, right? The majority decided after all.
    It violates the constitution.

    ---------- Post added at 10:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is a pretty weak defense and I think you know it. So you are ok with smaller, unelected majority's making a decision that circumvents the majority of voters at a ballot box? Be very careful here...
    In certain circumstances, yes. That is how we got gay marriage.

    ---------- Post added at 10:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So you are arguing that all business, no matter how small, how local is, by default interstate business? That doesn't seem a bit ludicrous to you? Normally in a SCOTUS setting when someone says something like that one of the justices leans forward and says "are you suggesting to the Court that your argument has no limiting principle?" and then a bunch of legal writers jot down that his case looks unlikely to prevail.

    Do you have any precedent that you can put forward showing that the interstate commerce clause has no limiting principle? That it covers all business transactions, regardless of size, locality, etc.?
    I'm trying to think of an example where it wouldn't be. Maybe a kids lemonade stand? If they grew the lemons? Seems they'd have to get sugar from someplace. I suppose they could have a well for water.

  22. #639
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,726
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    One group or person operating a business over another.
    So very close, but no. The right for an individual to engage in economic activity. As I noted go back and read sub-paragraph (d) of the court's findings. You'll notice specifically it talking about what is within a state's "legitimate interest" and what isn't. The entire case rests on whether the state, under the 21st Amendment has the right to regulate alcohol in the manner prescribed. The court finds that it doesn't because protectionism isn't a legitimate interest of the state. The fact that they are referencing legitimate interest at all is the key point here. Legitimate interest is a legal phrase for discussing what conditions need to apply to abridge a standing right. That is the case here. The court found that their interest in regulating alcohol was not a legitimate interest to prevent business formation.

    Ditto all of this for the case you didn't quote: North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...3-534_19m2.pdf

    In which the court presumed a legal right to conduct business then asked if the anti-competitive actions of the state board violated that right, or if there was a compelling interest to abridge that right. Regardless of finding, the point is that they presumed the right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    It violates the constitution.
    It does? Can you cite a case that has found that it violates the constitution? Are you supportive of Indiana's abortion law? It got a clear blessing by SCOTUS after all.

    More importantly, so you are ok with the anti-democractic parts of the Constitution, that's fine so am I. I'll look forward to your next post on the second amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    In certain circumstances, yes. That is how we got gay marriage.
    Its also how we got fugitive slave laws...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I'm trying to think of an example where it wouldn't be. Maybe a kids lemonade stand? If they grew the lemons? Seems they'd have to get sugar from someplace. I suppose they could have a well for water.
    So you don' thave any precedent? You have to realize how patently ridiculous it would be to seriously argue that a private interaction about mowing the lawn between two individuals is "interstate" commerce. That is clearly stretching that clause beyond any possible meaning to get a desired result.
    What's more, it is inserting a kind of is/ought fallacy. Even if the commerce clause were relevant, it doesn't mean the government should do an action. The mafia can, in fact, extort money from businesses. It doesn't mean that it should. Likewise, the government can, in fact, put Japanese people in camps, conduct eugenics activities, and all kinds of other atrocities. It doesn't mean they should.

    IE there is no moral argument that the government should do these things. Likewise, there is no moral argument that the NBA should interfere in the private pickup game between two basketball players in a park, whatever their status as the governing body of basketball.

    Finally, this response misses the point of the analogy in the first place. By invoking the interstate commerce clause or the NBA's mythical power to regulate pickup games you are conceding the point. They (the government and the NBA) are the ones taking an action to prevent the game, right? They are the ones blocking the game from happening.

    You might argue they are right to do so, but you are de facto conceding that they are the ones doing it.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  23. #640
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    You might argue they are right to do so, but you are de facto conceding that they are the ones doing it.
    I'll agree that their laws are the ones preventing it but that there's no reason not to comply.

    ---------- Post added at 12:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So very close, but no. The right for an individual to engage in economic activity. As I noted go back and read sub-paragraph (d) of the court's findings. You'll notice specifically it talking about what is within a state's "legitimate interest" and what isn't. The entire case rests on whether the state, under the 21st Amendment has the right to regulate alcohol in the manner prescribed. The court finds that it doesn't because protectionism isn't a legitimate interest of the state. The fact that they are referencing legitimate interest at all is the key point here. Legitimate interest is a legal phrase for discussing what conditions need to apply to abridge a standing right. That is the case here. The court found that their interest in regulating alcohol was not a legitimate interest to prevent business formation.

    Ditto all of this for the case you didn't quote: North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...3-534_19m2.pdf

    In which the court presumed a legal right to conduct business then asked if the anti-competitive actions of the state board violated that right, or if there was a compelling interest to abridge that right. Regardless of finding, the point is that they presumed the right.
    I agree that there was the ability to conduct that type of business in these instances. They were granting licenses to do business in this manner only choosing one individual over another. So, yes, the right to that type of business existed only it was being denied to certain would-be operators in a discriminatory fashion. But they wouldn't have that right where it didn't exist.

    My town, for example, you couldn't open a restaurant and start serving liquor. You wouldn't be denied a liquor license, there's none to be had.

    ---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Its also how we got fugitive slave laws...
    That would not be a "certain circumstance".

    ---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So you don' thave any precedent? You have to realize how patently ridiculous it would be to seriously argue that a private interaction about mowing the lawn between two individuals is "interstate" commerce. That is clearly stretching that clause beyond any possible meaning to get a desired result.
    What's more, it is inserting a kind of is/ought fallacy. Even if the commerce clause were relevant, it doesn't mean the government should do an action. The mafia can, in fact, extort money from businesses. It doesn't mean that it should. Likewise, the government can, in fact, put Japanese people in camps, conduct eugenics activities, and all kinds of other atrocities. It doesn't mean they should.

    IE there is no moral argument that the government should do these things. Likewise, there is no moral argument that the NBA should interfere in the private pickup game between two basketball players in a park, whatever their status as the governing body of basketball.

    Finally, this response misses the point of the analogy in the first place. By invoking the interstate commerce clause or the NBA's mythical power to regulate pickup games you are conceding the point. They (the government and the NBA) are the ones taking an action to prevent the game, right? They are the ones blocking the game from happening.

    You might argue they are right to do so, but you are de facto conceding that they are the ones doing it.
    I mean, well, yes. Otherwise the reverse would be true where you could show that every aspect of a transactions was not interstate. Somewhere along the line it wouldn't be. Where did his lawnmower come from? The gasoline? Do the emissions from his mower and truck obey interstate boundaries?

    And sure there's a moral argument. For example, what about all of the legit landscape businesses in the area. They are licensed and bonded and have gone through great expense to do so. Now in come Ibsled undercutting them all.

 

 
Page 32 of 34 FirstFirst ... 22 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Minimum wage is better than nothing
    By Wolf Myth in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 28th, 2010, 10:50 AM
  2. Welfare vs. Minimum Wage
    By KevinBrowning in forum Politics
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2007, 01:59 AM
  3. Minimum Wage Hike?
    By market state in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: December 7th, 2006, 08:02 PM
  4. Minimum Wage
    By Dr. Gonzo in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 14th, 2006, 06:27 PM
  5. Minimum Wage
    By emtee10 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2004, 07:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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