Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MarCustomized

Minimum Wage

Recommended Posts

Ok, picture this. some young person is desperate for money and is looking for a job. He finds a job to work for Greasy A. McCheapo(use your imagination what the A stands for). Now greasy hires this kid for 2$ per hour to do the exact same job that buddy down the street offers 6$ per hour to do. Now that this kid is desperate for money, and 6$ per hour guy is not hiring, therefore the young person has to take on more shifts just to get the amount of money he needs to pay the bills and gives greasy cheap labor.

A person could only be put in this position if there were extreme job scarcity. Because employment is not plentiful, the young person has to accept a lower wage in order to have a job. If the minimum wage were in effect, employers would not be able to hire workers AT ALL because they would need to meet a specific payment range. In this instance, the elimination of the minimum wage reduced unemployment in a harsh economic climate at the cost of administering lower wages for workers. It's better to be employed gaining very little than to not be employed at all.

Some fresh Mexican immigrant is looking for any job in the united states, and greasy McCheapo pays the Mexican 50 cents per hour when he would pay a white American citizen 2$ per hour. no minimum wage=No dictation on the minimum amount of money you can pay, and believe me, you can make any excuse to exploit people for cheap labor.

Immigrants are already payed under the table, typically below the minimum wage. There is no incentive to hiring an immigrant if you can't pay them less than minimum wage. This argument is moot.

Hire the mentally retarded like wal-mart does and pay them half as much as able-minded people do because the mentally challenged don't know better.

Please explain why the mentally and or physically handicapped should be payed the same wages as an average person if the handicapped person is unable to perform all of the exact same duties. I don't mean to come off as crass or inconsiderate with this question. I just want to know if you can back that up without using moral justification.

====================

All this stuff, pardon my ignorance, is making me celebrate that we do have a minimum wage. I see no good coming of economics that treat profit as sacrosanct when the things done to obtain those profits are almost if not always damaging to some human who may not necessarily consent to that damage - and by tossing sociology into the mix, we find that it may not even be okay to consent to that damage if the act of consenting would itself be damaging in some way to a witness of that act.

What the FUCK are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honkey Kong    11
person could only be put in this position if there were extreme job scarcity. Because employment is not plentiful, the young person has to accept a lower wage in order to have a job. If the minimum wage were in effect, employers would not be able to hire workers AT ALL because they would need to meet a specific payment range. In this instance, the elimination of the minimum wage reduced unemployment in a harsh economic climate at the cost of administering lower wages for workers. It's better to be employed gaining very little than to not be employed at all.

Ok, obviously you're not taking into account that it takes a certain amount of employees to run a business properly. Like, if there are jobs that only require 2 people to do that job, do you think an employer is going to hire a third person to add to it? believe me, being overstaffed can slow somebody down just as much as being understaffed because it just causes everything to be 1 big clusterfuck of getting in the way and whatnot. So, unless you're having like 6 shift rotations, which isn't any cheaper(2 per shift at the same rate, which can still be done with minimum wage). For some businesses(like the food service industry), employers have an absolute hayday, and won't hire anybody else for the exact same reason. to keep labor costs down(for profit of course) and as well as simply not needing any more employees.

are you going to hire 10 guys for a dollar per hour to do a 1 man job? fuck no. 1 man job=1 man doing it. even if you hire all 10 guys and had them take turns, it would still cost the same.

Please explain why the mentally and or physically handicapped should be payed the same wages as an average person if the handicapped person is unable to perform all of the exact same duties. I don't mean to come off as crass or inconsiderate with this question. I just want to know if you can back that up without using moral justification.

Who the fuck said they should be? why are handy retards working at all, and taking jobs from healthy people who is able to do the jobs? If they are forced to be paid the same as the average person, then it removes the insentive to hire handy steve just to push the carts in from thr wal-mart parking lot and two other retards to do two other tasks that 1 person can do within the exact same timeframe it takes 3 retards you would have to pay. Are you going to pay 1 able-minded person 2$ per hour to get all of the work done without the risk of having the task fucked up, or are you going to hire 3 handy retards at 50 cents per hour, and run the risk of either one retard fucking up a very simple job, because you were too lazy or cheap to hire a handler for them? think about that one.

Immigrants are already payed under the table, typically below the minimum wage. There is no incentive to hiring an immigrant if you can't pay them less than minimum wage.

So why should an immigrant be paid like a handy retard, when they are capable of doing the same tasks as any normal person would? Try answering this one without coming off as a racist prick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, obviously you're not taking into account that it takes a certain amount of employees to run a business properly. Like, if there are jobs that only require 2 people to do that job, do you think an employer is going to hire a third person to add to it? believe me, being overstaffed can slow somebody down just as much as being understaffed because it just causes everything to be 1 big clusterfuck of getting in the way and whatnot. So, unless you're having like 6 shift rotations, which isn't any cheaper(2 per shift at the same rate, which can still be done with minimum wage). For some businesses(like the food service industry), employers have an absolute hayday, and won't hire anybody else for the exact same reason. to keep labor costs down(for profit of course) and as well as simply not needing any more employees.

are you going to hire 10 guys for a dollar per hour to do a 1 man job? fuck no. 1 man job=1 man doing it. even if you hire all 10 guys and had them take turns, it would still cost the same.

How does any of that counter my point about job scarcity being the cause of that young persons predicament? What the fuck are you talking about?

Please explain why the mentally and or physically handicapped should be payed the same wages as an average person if the handicapped person is unable to perform all of the exact same duties. I don't mean to come off as crass or inconsiderate with this question. I just want to know if you can back that up without using moral justification.

Who the fuck said they should be?

You were implying that handicapped americans were entitled to the same wages as those who aren't handicapped when you said, "Hire the mentally retarded like wal-mart does and pay them half as much as able-minded people do because the mentally challenged don't know better." I asked for clarification of your views. Do you believe handicapped Americans should be payed the same wages as average Americans. If you don't, your whole point about Wal-Mart paying handicapped people half is irrelevant and inadmissible.

Immigrants are already payed under the table, typically below the minimum wage. There is no incentive to hiring an immigrant if you can't pay them less than minimum wage.

So why should an immigrant be paid like a handy retard, when they are capable of doing the same tasks as any normal person would? Try answering this one without coming off as a racist prick.

You aren't refuting my point here. You're asking me if illegal immigrants should be paid the same wages as handicapped Americans, which has no relation to my initial point stating immigrants are ALREADY stealing jobs from Americans because they are paid under the table. Illegal immigrants shouldn't be payed the same amount as Americans because they aren't Americans.

If you're refering to LEGAL immigrants being payed less, that is a matter of competition in the workforce, which exists with the minimum wage. Here is an example:

You and I have the exact same medical qualifications and apply for the exact same job at a hospital. When asked what you wanted your salary to be, you wrote in $150,000. I, however, only asked for $135,000. Well, guess who just got hired? Me, because I accepted less money for the same job. That situation happens with minimum wage in effect, so your argument is fucking useless.

Also, immigrant isn't a race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'mike    12
Okay, how can raising of minimum wage create inflation? Only the government printing more money can do that.

LOL.

It comes down to this. Would you rather the government set the minimum wage through law, or that the unions did it through widespread disruption and anarchy? Anyone who lives in the UK pretty much hates the shit out of the postal union right now. They are actually weakening their own position and longevity by striking.

When workers are not tied into unions and/or can easily be replaced, you have the exploitation scenario where people are willing to work for extremely low wages because they have no alternate. This is where the minimum wage (and a benefits system) is needed. I shouldnt need to explain this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15772
All this stuff, pardon my ignorance, is making me celebrate that we do have a minimum wage. I see no good coming of economics that treat profit as sacrosanct when the things done to obtain those profits are almost if not always damaging to some human who may not necessarily consent to that damage - and by tossing sociology into the mix, we find that it may not even be okay to consent to that damage if the act of consenting would itself be damaging in some way to a witness of that act.

What the FUCK are you talking about?

You disappoint me; I'm obviously happy there's a minimum wage, for obvious reasons that essentially say "damn economics that don't fit some sort of high ethical demand."

I see no good coming of economics that treat profit as sacrosanct when the things done to obtain those profits are almost if not always damaging to some human who may not necessarily consent to that damage - and by tossing sociology into the mix, we find that it may not even be okay to consent to that damage if the act of consenting would itself be damaging in some way to a witness of that act.

Or,

All you're talking about seem to be matters of efficiency and nothing more. Efficiency as demanded by such economic systems as the profit-driven world we live in are at odds with what humans actually are, and how they actually behave. The minimum wage is essentially one of two things - either a vanguard against folks not being paid what they deserve, or an attempt at such a vanguard that placates the matter regardless of actual effectiveness (especially in light of the more severe plight of those who weren't covered by such in the past). Either the minimum wage protects folks from being in a shitty situation, or it's an attempt that doesn't quite make it; in both cases it's charitable in intent.

For the anti-minwage position, no evidence exists beyond what seems like conjecture to me, whereas the situation we recollect about how the world's places without such minimums happen to be very real things. The only remaining pillar I see for the position against minimum wage would be the concept of simply not caring about the circumstances of how bad things get for some folks, which goes against humanitarian concerns. I see no way for this change to make the situation better, ergo I hoped you would've gotten the hint that speaking to concerns of how everyone (yeah, everyone) would stand to benefit from such a thing without necessarily contorting themselves further into competition and nothing more.

Sartre made the point that what we call a waiter is not a mere thing that waits on people, but first and foremost a person. Competition would be improved in some respects without a minimum wage; but when profit and competition is all we seemingly care about, we treat humans as mere things to be toyed with and discarded. The minimum wage has significance that regardless of what you do, you at the very least have significance as a human being that is contributing in some way to the existence of others; it's literally recognition that you're cool simply for not being a bump on a log.

Competition that's out for improvement in such regard that this sort of thing can be discarded... changes the standard for what people are to be considered. If you earn low wages, you are seen by many as a thing that isn't worth much at all, something easily culled off. This is true either with or without a minimum wage; the minimum stands as, at the very least, a protection in some sense from that culling.

It also exists as a standard that "pay below this amount may as well be slavery", at least in countries where the local minimums aren't enough to get by upon without existing in poverty, such as our own.

Essentially, if there's a problem with legally mandated minimum wage, it seems to me that the problem is that we had to legally mandate it in the first place; a minimum wage itself is fine, when that decided wage manages to make it so that everyone at the bottom has a damn good life and situation. Government has failed to do that, thanks of course to other competing viewpoints; but government only tried because those viewpoints in years past only cared about select portions of the population in the first place. The problem, thus, is that the "minimum" set by the market led to shitty lives.

Of course, you can argue that my sense of human entitlement is far too costly to grant to everyone; said argument seems untenable to me out of

Flawed and incomplete as they may be, the above ethical considerations have sincere points at heart, although the conclusions they're taken to may be inaccurate. Cold logic and machination alone are not endemic to humanity's true nature; we're irrational, inefficient beasts a degree of the time, thus an economic answer undertaken for humans must meet us on that playing field. So, get to the ethical heart of this. Point out why it's silly to feel that the world without a minimum would lead to the impoverishment of those already on the lower end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the anti-minwage position, no evidence exists beyond what seems like conjecture...

Efficiency as demanded by such economic systems as the profit-driven world we live in are at odds with what humans actually are, and how they actually behave.

The minimum wage is either a vanguard against folks not being paid what they deserve, or an attempt at such a vanguard that placates the matter regardless of actual effectiveness. Either the minimum wage protects folks from being in a shitty situation, or it's an attempt that doesn't quite make it; in both cases it's charitable in intent.

The only remaining pillar I see for the position against minimum wage would be the concept of simply not caring about the circumstances of how bad things get for some folks, which goes against humanitarian concerns.

Competition would be improved in some respects without a minimum wage; but when profit and competition is all we seemingly care about, we treat humans as mere things to be toyed with and discarded.

The minimum wage has significance that regardless of what you do, you at the very least have significance as a human being that is contributing in some way to the existence of others; it's literally recognition that you're cool simply for not being a bump on a log.

If you earn low wages, you are seen by many as a thing that isn't worth much at all, something easily culled off.

It also exists as a standard that "pay below this amount may as well be slavery", at least in countries where the local minimums aren't enough to get by upon without existing in poverty, such as our own.

Essentially, if there's a problem with legally mandated minimum wage, it seems to me that the problem is that we had to legally mandate it in the first place...

Cold logic and machination alone are not endemic to humanity's true nature; we're irrational, inefficient beasts a degree of the time, thus an economic answer undertaken for humans must meet us on that playing field.

CONJECTURE!

I picked out the next few pieces because they seemed to be your only valid points deserving of a rebuttal.

A. The situation we recollect about how the world's places without [such] minimums happen to be very real things...

B. Point out why it's silly to feel that the world without a minimum would lead to the impoverishment of those already on the lower end.

Your claim that the minimum wage is the primary instigator behind the elimination of unethical working conditions, poverty, unreasonable payment, corporate greed, and every other evil business practice is very weak. To put this simply, what happened then is what happened then and now is another time. Social progress alone is why I believe that the unethical treatment of workers simply won't stand. It was in 1920 when U.S. lawmakers passed a federal minimum wage. The 1920's are a time when women couldn't vote, blacks were lynched, and Jim Crow was in full effect - before the Nazi's, Stalin, and hippies. Do you honestly believe that what passed during that evolutionary stage of society would pass now? Sure gays don't have marriage rights but that doesn't mean you can go gather your cop buddies and lynch one like you could in the 20's. It's unreasonable to think that society will devolve the moment the minimum wage in eliminated. I'd equate this to saying, "Gun control is what gave rise to totalitarianism, so if we enact any form of gun control in America, another Hitler will surely rise up and kill millions just like before."

minimum wage itself is fine, when that decided wage manages to make it so that everyone at the bottom has a damn good life and situation.

Define "damn good".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honkey Kong    11
You were implying that handicapped americans were entitled to the same wages

Yes, and for the reason of(and I did answer it without moral issues)

why are handy retards working at all, and taking jobs from healthy people who is able to do the jobs? If they are forced to be paid the same as the average person, then it removes the insentive to hire handy steve just to push the carts in from thr wal-mart parking lot and two other retards to do two other tasks that 1 person can do within the exact same timeframe it takes 3 retards you would have to pay. Are you going to pay 1 able-minded person 2$ per hour to get all of the work done without the risk of having the task fucked up, or are you going to hire 3 handy retards at 50 cents per hour, and run the risk of either one retard fucking up a very simple job, because you were too lazy or cheap to hire a handler for them? think about that one.

The reason is right in this statement.

Minimum wage=No incentive=No retard hirings.=1 or possibly 2 jobs for the average joe opened up.

How does any of that counter my point about job scarcity being the cause of that young persons predicament?

Actually, it was more to counter the particular point of lower wages will reduce unemployment in a harsh economic environment. more employees for a particular area would be a waste of money and get in each other's way, and the only way an employer can be short on any area in a harsh economic climate is if thy are being absolute cheap asses and won't hire anybody, and only if the business is struggling, which in that case, it doesn't matter if you're paying 10 dollars or 10 cents per hour if your goods are absolute shit. If business is booming and you're business is suffering because you don't have enough people in a harsh economic climate, then that's a mismanagement problem, and not a wage problem.

You were implying that wages were the problem of the job scarcity, and the paragraph was to correct you that minimum wage doesn't cause job scarcity. A shitty economy of nobody buying anything is, which brings me to another point. If they're being paid fuck all, then they will be able to afford fuck all, which is what partially caused this particular recession, along with people spending what they didn't have and couldn't pay back, because they were making....Fuck all!

So you see, if you pay shit, then well...you're going to get shit. See the big pattern here, marc?

You aren't refuting my point here. You're asking me if illegal immigrants should be paid the same wages as handicapped Americans, which has no relation to my initial point stating immigrants are ALREADY stealing jobs from Americans because they are paid under the table. Illegal immigrants shouldn't be payed the same amount as Americans because they aren't Americans.

It has alot to do with it because you tried to use the excuse of not being able to perform the same tasks as normal americans as the reason, and now that I confronted you with the fact that they in fact can do the same tasks and wanted to hear what excuse you got for not paying immigrants the same wage. Illegals are a legal matter, and as you pointed out, would happen no matter what, so how is that justifiable to giving companies the license to gut everybody else's wages? there's a reason why they call them illegal immigrants. they're not supposed to be here in the first place, and therefore, makes your arguement absolutely irrelevent on illegals.

If you're refering to LEGAL immigrants being payed less, that is a matter of competition in the workforce, which exists with the minimum wage. Here is an example:

You and I have the exact same medical qualifications and apply for the exact same job at a hospital. When asked what you wanted your salary to be, you wrote in $150,000. I, however, only asked for $135,000. Well, guess who just got hired? Me, because I accepted less money for the same job. That situation happens with minimum wage in effect, so your argument is fucking useless.

But then, they decide to find a way to get rid of you because I asked for only 125 000$, and then, fearing not to loose this job, rebuttal down to 115 000$ which if your living expenses were for say 114 000$, I could lowball you again down to 110 000 because my living expenses were lower than that. So, you are thrown out on the street, cold, unable to feed your family because you would have to take a job that would force you to lower your living standards by working at some third rate clinic for only 90 000$, that you had to beat out 100 other applicants and got it because you were overqualified and asked even less than what the other guys did. Then, it happens again until you are working at a burger joint because you had to lowball some greasy teenager to the point where you have to give some fat, greasy manager a blowjob every day just to hang on to your job because pablo was going to do it for a dime cheaper. I hope you enjoy working twice as hard to not lose your job to somebody who would do it for cheaper, because that's exactly what would happen.

Sorry to burst your bubble with my "useless" arguement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimum wage=No incentive=No retard hirings.=1 or possibly 2 jobs for the average joe opened up.

Are you saying that having a minimum wage reduces the incentive to hire handicapped Americans? If so, that actually supports my position, not yours.

Actually, it was more to counter the particular point of lower wages will reduce unemployment in a harsh economic environment. more employees for a particular area would be a waste of money and get in each other's way, and the only way an employer can be short on any area in a harsh economic climate is if thy are being absolute cheap asses and won't hire anybody, and only if the business is struggling, which in that case, it doesn't matter if you're paying 10 dollars or 10 cents per hour if your goods are absolute shit. If business is booming and you're business is suffering because you don't have enough people in a harsh economic climate, then that's a mismanagement problem, and not a wage problem.

You have like 5 points in all of that. What is your main point?

You were implying that wages were the problem of the job scarcity, and the paragraph was to correct you that minimum wage doesn't cause job scarcity. A shitty economy of nobody buying anything is, which brings me to another point. If they're being paid fuck all, then they will be able to afford fuck all,... []

So you see, if you pay shit, then well...you're going to get shit. See the big pattern here, marc?

If businesses can't sell goods to poor people, they'll reduce their prices. You think they'll just keep their prices too high to sell anything, then go out of business? You're fucking dumb. It's simple supply and demand.

Illegals are a legal matter, and as you pointed out, would happen no matter what, so how is that justifiable to giving companies the license to gut everybody else's wages?

What the hell are you talking about? When did I say or even imply that illegal immigrants gave companies the license to reduce everyones pay? That doesn't even make sense. Please quote my exact words that gave you that impression.

If you're refering to LEGAL immigrants being payed less, that is a matter of competition in the workforce, which exists with the minimum wage. Here is an example:

You and I have the exact same medical qualifications and apply for the exact same job at a hospital. When asked what you wanted your salary to be, you wrote in $150,000. I, however, only asked for $135,000. Well, guess who just got hired? Me, because I accepted less money for the same job. That situation happens with minimum wage in effect, so your argument is fucking useless.

But then, they decide to find a way to get rid of you because I asked for only 125 000$, and then, fearing not to loose this job, rebuttal down to 115 000$ which if your living expenses were for say 114 000$, I could lowball you again down to 110 000 because my living expenses were lower than that. So, you are thrown out on the street, cold, unable to feed your family because you would have to take a job that would force you to lower your living standards by working at some third rate clinic for only 90 000$, that you had to beat out 100 other applicants and got it because you were overqualified and asked even less than what the other guys did. Then, it happens again until you are working at a burger joint because you had to lowball some greasy teenager to the point where you have to give some fat, greasy manager a blowjob every day just to hang on to your job because pablo was going to do it for a dime cheaper. I hope you enjoy working twice as hard to not lose your job to somebody who would do it for cheaper, because that's exactly what would happen.

Sorry to burst your bubble with my "useless" arguement.

You actually believe qualified doctors will magically have to work for $2.00 an hour just because of the elimination of the minimum wage? Find me a doctor that works for $7.25 [the current minimum wage] then maybe you'll have a leg to stand on. If any of that bullshit you just stated occured in the real world, there would be tons of doctors working at McDonalds or recieving minimum wage at shitty clinics. Newflash: Only 3% of workers receive a wage less than or equal to the minimum wage. It has no affect on everyone else [except the affects of inflation/deflation]. You're trying to pull impossible examples out of your ass to create the illusion of a strong argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15772
For the anti-minwage position, no evidence exists beyond what seems like conjecture...

Efficiency as demanded by such economic systems as the profit-driven world we live in are at odds with what humans actually are, and how they actually behave.

The minimum wage is either a vanguard against folks not being paid what they deserve, or an attempt at such a vanguard that placates the matter regardless of actual effectiveness. Either the minimum wage protects folks from being in a shitty situation, or it's an attempt that doesn't quite make it; in both cases it's charitable in intent.

The only remaining pillar I see for the position against minimum wage would be the concept of simply not caring about the circumstances of how bad things get for some folks, which goes against humanitarian concerns.

Competition would be improved in some respects without a minimum wage; but when profit and competition is all we seemingly care about, we treat humans as mere things to be toyed with and discarded.

The minimum wage has significance that regardless of what you do, you at the very least have significance as a human being that is contributing in some way to the existence of others; it's literally recognition that you're cool simply for not being a bump on a log.

If you earn low wages, you are seen by many as a thing that isn't worth much at all, something easily culled off.

It also exists as a standard that "pay below this amount may as well be slavery", at least in countries where the local minimums aren't enough to get by upon without existing in poverty, such as our own.

Essentially, if there's a problem with legally mandated minimum wage, it seems to me that the problem is that we had to legally mandate it in the first place...

Cold logic and machination alone are not endemic to humanity's true nature; we're irrational, inefficient beasts a degree of the time, thus an economic answer undertaken for humans must meet us on that playing field.

CONJECTURE!

Oh, of course. You prove my point!

If anything, this lends a more even playing field to ethics vs. capital than your initial points let on; my point is that by not addressing ethics more clearly and thoroughly, your position is weak, unappealing, and autocratic - and in essence seems like a system not only saddled with conjecture, but one where folks either have the competition and nothing else or simply have nothing. You need to remedy this, as you have attempted to in the below - and you would be best served by continuing to remedy it.

I am the pot calling you out, you kettle; but unlike me, you took an initial position and sought to work with it, thus you are the subject matter of the day, you charcoal bitch. (I will be the charcoal bitch later.)

Your act of calling my argument out on its conjecture, though, seems to be an attempt to dismiss the complaint that you have conjecture - which boils to an attempt to ignore. If it is, we've a tu quoque logical fallacy on your part. This is why I respectfully say while you only find parts of my response worth your time, you seem to me trapped between fallacy and responding to the rest.

For historical examples, research the phrase "and you are lynching Negroes." Trust me, we both have conjecture; my calling you out on it while being a person who can also be called out on it, if anything, makes it all the more imperative we both deal with it.

A. The situation we recollect about how the world's places without [such] minimums happen to be very real things...

B. Point out why it's silly to feel that the world without a minimum would lead to the impoverishment of those already on the lower end.

Your claim that the minimum wage is the primary instigator behind the elimination of unethical working conditions, poverty, unreasonable payment, corporate greed, and every other evil business practice is very weak. To put this simply, what happened then is what happened then and now is another time. Social progress alone is why I believe that the unethical treatment of workers simply won't stand. It was in 1920 when U.S. lawmakers passed a federal minimum wage. The 1920's are a time when women couldn't vote, blacks were lynched, and Jim Crow was in full effect - before the Nazi's, Stalin, and hippies. Do you honestly believe that what passed during that evolutionary stage of society would pass now? Sure gays don't have marriage rights but that doesn't mean you can go gather your cop buddies and lynch one like you could in the 20's. It's unreasonable to think that society will devolve the moment the minimum wage in eliminated. I'd equate this to saying, "Gun control is what gave rise to totalitarianism, so if we enact any form of gun control in America, another Hitler will surely rise up and kill millions just like before."

Hyperbole doesn't suit you, since you've a position to defend and construct; that, and your points are quite optimistic, almost to the point where they don't seem sober. Hyperbole doesn't suit me, either; I just said that folks'd be exploited, I didn't go as far as all that. Your equation only works when you take a tablespoon rather than a teaspoon. You're going to ruin the teapot.

We have no evidence that humans aren't going to lapse into exploitation when given the chance; goodness forbid that our sort of liberal democracy where those things don't happen so often is a rarity. (I say "so often" because they still do happen at times, just not as often, and most folks either pretend to or actually do dislike it now.)

Goodness forbid indeed, because if it turns out that there is a lapse, your argument is fucked - and my right to live is equally fucked. Point is, I don't have the faith you do.

minimum wage itself is fine, when that decided wage manages to make it so that everyone at the bottom has a damn good life and situation.

Define "damn good".

It sure as hell isn't the current circumstance; starvation outside of your volition remains possible, and folks still die from exposure to elements. These happenings are relics with no true usefulness to us, except to remind of our limited abilities to survive against them; as long as we remember that 1) we starve, 2) we freeze, 3) we overheat, and 4) germs no like us, there is no reason to permit a system that doesn't drive the possibilities of those as low as doable at present.

So, yeah - food, clothing, and shelter to all. It's an arbitrarily chosen boundary, but let's see if the no-min-wage situation can make it work without screwing either itself or something else up. If it can't, there exists a huge grievance with your position, one you need to remedy by deciding once and for all who does and doesn't deserve to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honkey Kong    11
Are you saying that having a minimum wage reduces the incentive to hire handicapped Americans? If so, that actually supports my position, not yours.

Ok, seeing how you are all for hiring retards at reduced rates and whatnot, and how it "supports" your point(which is what, let companies hire retards and and put more Canadian and American citizens out of work?), I would like you to tell 1.6 million Canadians on Social assistance that you simply support the notion that companies are allowed to hire the mentally challenged at reduced rates and that it will be even harder for them to find work because of it, and that's not including the immigrants. Better yet, how about we take away your job, hire 2 retards to do it, and call it "competition" as you would say?

You actually believe qualified doctors will magically have to work for $2.00 an hour just because of the elimination of the minimum wage?Find me a doctor that works for $7.25 [the current minimum wage] then maybe you'll have a leg to stand on. If any of that bullshit you just stated occured in the real world, there would be tons of doctors working at McDonalds or recieving minimum wage at shitty clinics. Newflash: Only 3% of workers receive a wage less than or equal to the minimum wage. It has no affect on everyone else [except the affects of inflation/deflation]. You're trying to pull impossible examples out of your ass to create the illusion of a strong argument.

You gave me an example where you can get hired in the medical inbdustry because you asked for less, and I gave you an example where you got low-balled by yours truely and ended up having to take a lesser paying job that you make less than you afford, and now to avoid looking like an idiot, you're trying to take the example as literal. Now, we're talking about minimum wage, not fatcat doctors, so I don't even know why you felt it to be nessasary to get all pissed off about the fact(and it does happen) that you can get low-balled by a competitor in wages to levels below your means. Now, imagine what would happen in that 3 percent if everybody was able to low-ball the other. Nobody in that percentage would be able to live and even pay off their bills.

It's not joe blow's fault that the bills are due at the end of the month and has to apply for a sucky job, only to get low-balled by pablo for half of what he asks, because he can't afford anything less than below 6$ per hour, or hires some kid with less credentials because he asked for 4$ per hour. Something I know you're not taking into account.

If businesses can't sell goods to poor people, they'll reduce their prices. You think they'll just keep their prices too high to sell anything, then go out of business? You're fucking dumb. It's simple supply and demand.
No, they're not there to sell to poor people, they are there to sell to paying customers. "Simply lower the price" jeez, are you that dense? Do you have any sense of business ethics at all? Have you even had a job or even bills at all? Ok, I'm going to have to paint a pretty little picture for you.

Lets say I own an electronics store and sell DVD players for 30$. The company I buy them off of a company sells them to me for 20$ each. now, lets say that 5$ of those sales goes towards the bills and 2$ for each unit goes towards the store's operating costs. Now, let's say a business is selling the exact same product for 25$. Do you really think I am going to drop off the 5$ profit and loose money?? if so, I may as well close the damn store down. remember, stores have to pay for their water, heating, electricity e.t.c too, you know.

Ok, obviously you are not even taking into consideration with any of your arguement the bills people have to pay. people have mortgages, water bills(if not not on a septic system), heating bills, electric bills, maybe car payments, internet payments cable bills, bills bills and more bills.

Just because I'm an ass like that, I want you to tell me how people can pay off a bunch of bills,while making absolute shit wages, without having to lower their living standards, mainly because the standards can't go any lower to the point of living in a shack that may not have electricity or running water at the end of the month or be able to put food on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying that having a minimum wage reduces the incentive to hire handicapped Americans? If so, that actually supports my position, not yours.

Ok, seeing how you are all for hiring retards at reduced rates and whatnot, and how it "supports" your point(which is what, let companies hire retards and and put more Canadian and American citizens out of work?)

How does hiring handicapped Americans "put more Canadian and American citizens out of work"? What the fuck are you talking about?

I would like you to tell 1.6 million Canadians on Social assistance that you simply support the notion that companies are allowed to hire the mentally challenged at reduced rates and that it will be even harder for them to find work because of it,...[]

Mentally challenged people already have a tough time finding jobs BECAUSE of the minimum wage. The minimum wage demands that potential employees meet an average skill requirement. For example, you will not be able to get a job at McDonalds if you cannot do basic math or operate machinery. Sadly, many mentally challenged people have those problems, so they won't get hired because it wouldn't make sense to pay them $7.25 an hour just to mop the floor. However, if McDonalds could pay them only $3 an hour, the handicapped person could be hired. I support the elimination of the minimum wage because it would increase the employability of handicapped and low-skilled workers.

Better yet, how about we take away your job, hire 2 retards to do it, and call it "competition" as you would say?

Oh wow. I, one person, lost my job while two others were hired. Employment is up! Hooray!

You gave me an example where you can get hired in the medical inbdustry because you asked for less, and I gave you an example where you got low-balled by yours truely and ended up having to take a lesser paying job that you make less than you afford, and now to avoid looking like an idiot, you're trying to take the example as literal.

If there's anything I'm trying to avoid, it's your stupidity rubbing off on me. No business would consistently rehire workers in the manner you presented. That's the difference between our arguments -mine is reasonable, yours isn't. The "wage game" only happens once; wages aren't renegotiated infinitely as you implied.

Now, we're talking about minimum wage, not fatcat doctors, so I don't even know why you felt it to be nessasary to get all pissed off about the fact(and it does happen) that you can get low-balled by a competitor in wages to levels below your means. Now, imagine what would happen in that 3 percent if everybody was able to low-ball the other. Nobody in that percentage would be able to live and even pay off their bills.

Those receiving what you would consider "less than adequate" pay obviously lack the skills to be payed a more reasonable wage. If they must lower their means to have a job, they must have been living beyond their means prior to acquiring it.

It's not joe blow's fault that the bills are due at the end of the month and has to apply for a sucky job, only to get low-balled by pablo for half of what he asks, because he can't afford anything less than below 6$ per hour, or hires some kid with less credentials because he asked for 4$ per hour. Something I know you're not taking into account.

As I stated before, this kind of case only happens when there is extreme job scarcity. You have yet to provide a valid counterpoint against my claim of job scarcity causing wages to dip that low.

Lets say I own an electronics store and sell DVD players for 30$. The company I buy them off of a company sells them to me for 20$ each. now, lets say that 5$ of those sales goes towards the bills and 2$ for each unit goes towards the store's operating costs. Now, let's say a business is selling the exact same product for 25$. Do you really think I am going to drop off the 5$ profit and loose money??

Thank God you don't own a business. You're obviously an idiot. Yes, you will price the goods that aren't selling well at a value likely beneath market value. While you do that, you will also raise the prices of the goods that are selling well to hopefully break even. The way a proper business runs is by forecasting what consumers want, and then ordering the appropriate quantities of those items. Of course, not every item gets sold, so businesses must then reduce the prices to sell, sometimes below a level that produces a profit. If you have a stock of DVD players that aren't selling, you have to reduce the prices. If you were intelligent with your initial orders, then you should only have to sell a small amount of DVD players at that low price. Only a dumbass would buy a fuckton of DVD players from a supplier unsure if he could actually resale them all. Example:

meijer-saturday1.jpg

Please read up on supply and demand before posting in this thread again. You obviously don't have even a middle school grasp of it.

Ok, obviously you are not even taking into consideration with any of your arguement the bills people have to pay. people have mortgages, water bills(if not not on a septic system), heating bills, electric bills, maybe car payments, internet payments cable bills, bills bills and more bills.

The minimum wage alone can't pay a mortgage, cable, internet, and a car note for a one man household. The current minimum wage equates to approximately $1160 a month BEFORE taxes if you work the full 40 hours per week. You're implying the minimum wage alone DOES provide all those things, when the fact is, it doesn't. If people can't afford to pay their bills, they need to get a better job. Simple.

Just because I'm an [dumb]ass like that, I want you to tell me how people can pay off a bunch of bills,while making absolute shit wages, without having to lower their living standards, mainly because the standards can't go any lower to the point of living in a shack that may not have electricity or running water at the end of the month or be able to put food on the table.

If you lack the skills to get a job that pays well, you MUST lower your standard of living.

====================

Atem, I'll get to your post soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15772

I know. I just want you to add why your position is ethically sound as well as economically sound; economics themselves are innately neutral, and thus are easily steered toward good or evil devices. You need thus to construct a system that is (somehow) hard to steer toward evil devices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honkey Kong    11

I love how every example I make, you fly right off the handle and assume they're literal, but on the other hand, I am not surprised seeing how you're only doing it to appear smarter than you really are, and then accuse me of not knowing of something that I wasn't even talking about. But, now that you did mention it, let's take a look at supply and demand, shall we?

Ok, you mentioned that if I owned a business and not selling anything due to lack of demand, that's fine. But now I have a load of DVD players that I need to sell at the price I need to sell them at in order to break even to actually pay the bills. Dropping the price down to below what you can afford makes a business take a hit, and if that has to happen every single time, then you will go out of business, no matter how little the demand or the amount of supply. Now, if I got something else in and they sold like hotcakes, then you can jack the price up to whatever the hell you wanted to if the demand outsrips the supply(it happened when the wii and PS3 came out and people were buying these systems for stupid amounts of money). but if you are charging not enough for a product, in spite of it selling very well, then the exact same thing will happen. you will loose money. Why do you think you don't see companies like ford,GM, or chrysler selling 200$ cars "for poor people"?

Have you ever wondered why the gas prices are lower in the winter than they are in the summer? because the demand for gas in the winter time is softer than what it is in the summer and prices fall. However, Gas companies usually never sell their gas any lower than the price they paid for it(except for very rare occasions like a gas station in port perry Ontario did) because they want to either break even or make money. now, here is a somewhat accurate breakdown of crude oil

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficie.../gas-price1.htm

of course, this is written when the oil was alot higher, but still paints a very good picture as to what I am talking about and most likely the reason why you don't see gas "on sale". which brings me to another thing you were trying to imply with your flier.

When I worked at the arbys in Ontario, it cost them 20 cents to make a drink. I'm not even making this shit up, either. So when you are paying 1.20$ for a drink there, they're making a dollar off you per drink, unless you have a refill. So, unless you have more than 5 drinks there, they're making money off you. if they go on sale for like 75 cents per drink, and you have less than three, they're still making money off you. Don't even get me started about the food, because you don't want to know how much they're making off that alone. Just think about this statement next time you order a beef and chedder and a large coke at half price. they're still ass fucking you for money, just like they do at the grocery stores.

The minimum wage alone can't pay a mortgage, cable, internet, and a car note for a one man household. The current minimum wage equates to approximately $1160 a month BEFORE taxes if you work the full 40 hours per week. You're implying the minimum wage alone DOES provide all those things, when the fact is, it doesn't

LMAO of course it doesn't, and hardly anybody can hardly live on less than 1000$ a month as it is if you factor in rent, groceries, and other expenditures. If you're hardly making ends meat as it is with minimum wage, just imagine what would happen if you had to take less than minimum wage and had to live on even less than that. Are you saying people should be living dirt poor because you don't like the cost of a cup of coffee? Maybe we should put you in africa for a month and see what living in poverty can do to people, seeing how there's

-Lack of education(in this case, unable to afford post-secondary education)

-disease due to lack of personal hygeine(even with universal healthcare)

-Crime rates go up(Poverty is a big motivator for crimes like muggings, robbery, e.t.c)

Not to mention, that 3% will still get taxes, and therefore, tax revenue go down a bit. Not to mention, more people will go on social assistance just to be able to be able to pay some bills or just stay on welfare because they get more money from it to be able to feed and clothe themselves. right now, the only reason for people not getting off social assistance is either pure laziness or unable to find a job.

but hey, as long as the mentally challenged are working for sub par wages, who gives a flying fuck if there's disease, crime and not being afford post-secondary education, right? Who gives a rat's ass if able-bodied americans are groveling and begging for jobs that won't pay them worth a shit because they got beat out by somebody who can't even count to three without fucking it up?

Something tells me you would feel right at home being on the african continent

Although it has abundant natural resources, Africa remains the world's poorest and most underdeveloped continent, due to a variety of causes that may include the spread of deadly diseases and viruses (notably HIV/AIDS and malaria), corrupt governments that have often committed serious human rights violations, failed central planning, high levels of illiteracy, lack of access to foreign capital, and frequent tribal and military conflict (ranging from guerrilla warfare to genocide).[55] According to the United Nations' Human Development Report in 2003, the bottom 25 ranked nations (151st to 175th) were all African.[56]

Poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition and inadequate water supply and sanitation, as well as poor health, affect a large proportion of the people who reside in the African continent. In August 2008, the World Bank[57] announced revised global poverty estimates based on a new international poverty line of $1.25 per day (versus the previous measure of $1.00). 80.5% of the Sub-Saharan Africa population was living on less than $2.50 (PPP) a day in 2005, compared with 85.7% for India.[58] The new figures confirm that sub-Saharan Africa has been the least successful region of the world in reducing poverty ($1.25 per day); some 50% of the population living in poverty in 1981 (200 million people), a figure that rose to 58% in 1996 before dropping to 50% in 2005 (380 million people). The average poor person in sub-Saharan Africa is estimated to live on only 70 cents per day, and was poorer in 2003 than he or she was in 1973 [59] indicating increasing poverty in some areas. Some of it is attributed to unsuccessful economic liberalization programs spearheaded by foreign companies and governments, but other studies and reports have cited bad domestic government policies more than external factors.[60][61][62]

But hey, it's not like the abolishment of minimum wage would make this kind of living a hell a reality for them, would it? It's not like the 97% of us are going to feel it or anything, are we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ DIN365

I love how every example I make, you fly right off the handle and assume they're literal, but on the other hand, I am not surprised seeing how you're only doing it to appear smarter than you really are, and then accuse me of not knowing of something that I wasn't even talking about.

Do you expect me or anyone else to take your examples in a non-literal fashion? This is the debate section, not your tenth grade creative writing class. No one is going to sit and try to decipher whatever abstract message you are trying to submit. Everything you say will be taken literally, as is, then poked and prodded to substantiate its ultimate truth value. Stop crying. It's not my fault all of your generalizations are false and/or unrealistic.

Ok, you mentioned that if I owned a business and not selling anything due to lack of demand, that's fine. But now I have a load of DVD players that I need to sell at the price I need to sell them at in order to break even to actually pay the bills. Dropping the price down to below what you can afford makes a business take a hit, and if that has to happen every single time, then you will go out of business,.. []

If that's happening every time, you're clearly too incompetent to run a business.

Now, if I got something else in and they sold like hotcakes, then you can jack the price up to whatever the hell you wanted to if the demand outsrips the supply(it happened when the wii and PS3 came out and people were buying these systems for stupid amounts of money). but if you are charging not enough for a product, in spite of it selling very well, then the exact same thing will happen. you will loose money.

If you've made the decision not to charge more for a product that's selling exceptionally well, you've made an awful business decision. This and the previous statements have nothing to do with minimum wage, only shitty business management that fails at applying the laws of supply and demand.

Why do you think you don't see companies like ford,GM, or chrysler selling 200$ cars "for poor people"?

Demand isn't so outrageously low that cars need to be sold at those rates. Also, it's probably impossible to build a car that cheaply. Is this meant to be a rhetorical question?

Have you ever wondered why the gas prices are lower in the winter than they are in the summer? because the demand for gas in the winter time is softer than what it is in the summer and prices fall. However, Gas companies usually never sell their gas any lower than the price they paid for it(except for very rare occasions like a gas station in port perry Ontario did) because they want to either break even or make money. now, here is a somewhat accurate breakdown of crude oil

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficie.../gas-price1.htm

of course, this is written when the oil was alot higher, but still paints a very good picture as to what I am talking about and most likely the reason why you don't see gas "on sale". which brings me to another thing you were trying to imply with your flier.

The demand for gas has ALWAYS outpaced its supply. There has been a shortage of gas since it was discovered by man.

When I worked at the arbys in Ontario, it cost them 20 cents to make a drink. I'm not even making this shit up, either. So when you are paying 1.20$ for a drink there, they're making a dollar off you per drink, unless you have a refill. So, unless you have more than 5 drinks there, they're making money off you. if they go on sale for like 75 cents per drink, and you have less than three, they're still making money off you. Don't even get me started about the food, because you don't want to know how much they're making off that alone.

The demand for Arby's is high enough to where they don't need to reduce the price in order to sell it. God, I feel like I'm just wasting my time explaining this to you.

The minimum wage alone can't pay a mortgage, cable, internet, and a car note for a one man household. The current minimum wage equates to approximately $1160 a month BEFORE taxes if you work the full 40 hours per week. You're implying the minimum wage alone DOES provide all those things, when the fact is, it doesn't

LMAO of course it doesn't, and hardly anybody can hardly live on less than 1000$ a month as it is if you factor in rent, groceries, and other expenditures. If you're hardly making ends meat as it is with minimum wage, just imagine what would happen if you had to take less than minimum wage and had to live on even less than that. Are you saying people should be living dirt poor because you don't like the cost of a cup of coffee?

The point is that the minimum wage has never and likely will never provide enough money for a person to afford a "plush modern lifestyle". You will be in poverty with or without it.

Maybe we should put you in africa for a month and see what living in poverty can do to people, seeing how there's

-Lack of education(in this case, unable to afford post-secondary education)

-disease due to lack of personal hygeine(even with universal healthcare)

-Crime rates go up(Poverty is a big motivator for crimes like muggings, robbery, e.t.c)

Africans are living in poverty because of the lack of education and the failure to properly equip servicemen like cops and firefighters, which then turned those uneducated, unprotected people towards a life of crime. The crime has stifled the power of government to provide those things. Many African nations don't even have typical governments and are run militarily by dictators who kill their people for outlandish reasons, or impose irrational rules and regulations onto the people. Even if a minimum wage were in effect, the unstable corrupt government systems would make them meaningless. Don't even get me started on the age-old tribal conflicts. You think the lack of a minimum wage is the cause of their plight?

Not to mention, that 3% will still get taxes, and therefore, tax revenue go down a bit. Not to mention, more people will go on social assistance just to be able to be able to pay some bills or just stay on welfare because they get more money from it to be able to feed and clothe themselves.

People receiving minimum wage are likely ALREADY on social assistance. I don't know where you get the idea that more people will magically sign up.

but hey, as long as the mentally challenged are working for sub par wages, who gives a flying fuck if there's disease, crime and not being afford post-secondary education, right? Who gives a rat's ass if able-bodied americans are groveling and begging for jobs that won't pay them worth a shit because they got beat out by somebody who can't even count to three without fucking it up?

LOL, get the fuck out of my thread.

Something tells me you would feel right at home being on the african continent

Although it has abundant natural resources, Africa remains the world's poorest and most underdeveloped continent, due to a variety of causes that may include the spread of deadly diseases and viruses (notably HIV/AIDS and malaria), corrupt governments that have often committed serious human rights violations, failed central planning, high levels of illiteracy, lack of access to foreign capital, and frequent tribal and military conflict (ranging from guerrilla warfare to genocide).[55] According to the United Nations' Human Development Report in 2003, the bottom 25 ranked nations (151st to 175th) were all African.[56]

Poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition and inadequate water supply and sanitation, as well as poor health, affect a large proportion of the people who reside in the African continent. In August 2008, the World Bank[57] announced revised global poverty estimates based on a new international poverty line of $1.25 per day (versus the previous measure of $1.00). 80.5% of the Sub-Saharan Africa population was living on less than $2.50 (PPP) a day in 2005, compared with 85.7% for India.[58] The new figures confirm that sub-Saharan Africa has been the least successful region of the world in reducing poverty ($1.25 per day); some 50% of the population living in poverty in 1981 (200 million people), a figure that rose to 58% in 1996 before dropping to 50% in 2005 (380 million people). The average poor person in sub-Saharan Africa is estimated to live on only 70 cents per day, and was poorer in 2003 than he or she was in 1973 [59] indicating increasing poverty in some areas. Some of it is attributed to unsuccessful economic liberalization programs spearheaded by foreign companies and governments, but other studies and reports have cited bad domestic government policies more than external factors.[60][61][62]

So the lack of a minimum wage is responsible for Africa's corrupt government, illiteracy, AIDs epidemic, guerilla warfare, devalued currency, genocide, human rights violations, and tribal disputes? Are you REALLY that stupid is this another one of your abstract generalizations I'm supposed to try and decipher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Pharaoh Atem

Your act of calling my argument out on its conjecture, though, seems to be an attempt to dismiss the complaint that you have conjecture - which boils to an attempt to ignore. If it is, we've a tu quoque logical fallacy on your part... [] Trust me, we both have conjecture; my calling you out on it while being a person who can also be called out on it, if anything, makes it all the more imperative we both deal with it.

I have no problem with conjecture, just you calling me out on it while utilizing it yourself. Me calling you on it was most certainly not an attempt to dismiss your argument, but to mearly point it out. Conjecture can be in a healthy debate. After all, most scientific/philosophical/economic debate is nothing but conjecture. However, I do take issue with your usage of it, but that's not up for debate...

Your claim that the minimum wage is the primary instigator behind the elimination of unethical working conditions, poverty, unreasonable payment, corporate greed, and every other evil business practice is very weak. To put this simply, what happened then is what happened then and now is another time. Social progress alone is why I believe that the unethical treatment of workers simply won't stand. It was in 1920 when U.S. lawmakers passed a federal minimum wage. The 1920's are a time when women couldn't vote, blacks were lynched, and Jim Crow was in full effect - before the Nazi's, Stalin, and hippies. Do you honestly believe that what passed during that evolutionary stage of society would pass now? Sure gays don't have marriage rights but that doesn't mean you can go gather your cop buddies and lynch one like you could in the 20's. It's unreasonable to think that society will devolve the moment the minimum wage in eliminated. I'd equate this to saying, "Gun control is what gave rise to totalitarianism, so if we enact any form of gun control in America, another Hitler will surely rise up and kill millions just like before."

Your points are quite optimistic, almost to the point where they don't seem sober.

Is it optimistic to believe that the social marker establishing an acceptable treatment of workers will stay where it currently resides? I've taken the timid approach while you proclaim a radically pessimistic view.

We have no evidence that humans aren't going to lapse into exploitation when given the chance

False - every police officer isn't a dirty cop.

Define "damn good".

It sure as hell isn't the current circumstance; starvation outside of your volition remains possible, and folks still die from exposure to elements.

So you admit that the minimum wage is not properly combating homelessness, starvation, etc? You admit the minimum wage is not meeting its desired goals? If the latter is what you believe, then the minimum wage is just an idea. All that you are left with is good intentions. Good intentions is not sufficient backing for public policy.

So, yeah - food, clothing, and shelter to all. It's an arbitrarily chosen boundary, but let's see if the no-min-wage situation can make it work without screwing either itself or something else up. If it can't, there exists a huge grievance with your position, one you need to remedy by deciding once and for all who does and doesn't deserve to exist.

As you just stated, people can and will still die in the streets with minimum wage in affect. You're asking me to support why it should not exist, effectively making me argue the negative. If anything, this should start with you arguing why the minimum wage SHOULD exist, not expecting me to argue why it SHOULDN'T exist. As much as I'd like to respond here, I'm not sure what your argument is yet.

- "The minimum wage should exist because it provides food, clothing and shelter to all."

- "The minimum wage should exist because it's unethical for it not to exist."

- "The minimum wage should exist because it limits unfair treatment of workers."

Which is your argument?

I just want you to add why your position is ethically sound as well as economically sound; economics themselves are innately neutral, and thus are easily steered toward good or evil devices. You need thus to construct a system that is (somehow) hard to steer toward evil devices.

Elimination of the minimum wage does not equate to zero regulations. Define "evil devices". Outline as many as you can as specifically as you can.

===== Previous Point

minimum wage itself is fine, when that decided wage manages to make it so that everyone at the bottom has [food, clothing, and shelter]

The minimum wage doesn't do that, in fact, the people all the way at the bottom are the ones who are hurt the most. Here is one of my previous statements which addresses that problem:

Mentally challenged people already have a tough time finding jobs BECAUSE of the minimum wage. The minimum wage demands that potential employees meet an average skill requirement. For example, you will not be able to get a job at McDonalds if you cannot do basic math or operate machinery. Sadly, many mentally challenged people have those problems, so they won't get hired because it wouldn't make sense to pay them $7.25 an hour just to mop the floor. However, if McDonalds could pay them only $3 an hour, the handicapped person could be hired. I support the elimination of the minimum wage because it would increase the employability of handicapped and low-skilled workers.

That same circumstance happens with low-skilled workers, not just the handicapped. If you increase the minimum wage, you fortify the barrier of entry into the job market for low-skilled and handicapped workers, who are certainly the poorest and neediest among us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»infinite    2317

This is a good debate. I don't have anything to add but I'm learning things reading all this. Very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15772
Your act of calling my argument out on its conjecture, though, seems to be an attempt to dismiss the complaint that you have conjecture - which boils to an attempt to ignore. If it is, we've a tu quoque logical fallacy on your part... [] Trust me, we both have conjecture; my calling you out on it while being a person who can also be called out on it, if anything, makes it all the more imperative we both deal with it.

I have no problem with conjecture, just you calling me out on it while utilizing it yourself. Me calling you on it was most certainly not an attempt to dismiss your argument, but to mearly point it out. Conjecture can be in a healthy debate. After all, most scientific/philosophical/economic debate is nothing but conjecture. However, I do take issue with your usage of it, but that's not up for debate...

Aye; your having a problem with it, though, is even more indicative of my point. Best to hear about from someone who has and knows intimately the flaw you have, rather than from someone else. We live the flaw we call conjecture; thus I recognize it better than those who do not. I'm not an uninformed guy about it, so you really have no reason to feel a problem.

The usual rhetoric is that the anti-min position is factual, whereas the pro is conjecture; that rhetoric needs to die at the doorstep, hence why it was my first charge.

Your claim that the minimum wage is the primary instigator behind the elimination of unethical working conditions, poverty, unreasonable payment, corporate greed, and every other evil business practice is very weak. To put this simply, what happened then is what happened then and now is another time. Social progress alone is why I believe that the unethical treatment of workers simply won't stand. It was in 1920 when U.S. lawmakers passed a federal minimum wage. The 1920's are a time when women couldn't vote, blacks were lynched, and Jim Crow was in full effect - before the Nazi's, Stalin, and hippies. Do you honestly believe that what passed during that evolutionary stage of society would pass now? Sure gays don't have marriage rights but that doesn't mean you can go gather your cop buddies and lynch one like you could in the 20's. It's unreasonable to think that society will devolve the moment the minimum wage in eliminated. I'd equate this to saying, "Gun control is what gave rise to totalitarianism, so if we enact any form of gun control in America, another Hitler will surely rise up and kill millions just like before."

Your points are quite optimistic, almost to the point where they don't seem sober.

Is it optimistic to believe that the social marker establishing an acceptable treatment of workers will stay where it currently resides? I've taken the timid approach while you proclaim a radically pessimistic view.

Considering that we live in a world of impermanence, I would think so; when we have something comparatively good, there are more ways to ruin it than to improve it. Consider a straight line between points A and B, where A is bad and B is good; closer we are to point B, the more places exist that are further from said point. This is the problem I speak toward - that as things have gotten better, it becomes more difficult simply to maintain that standard if only because to have that good status, MORE THINGS in our existence must maintain themselves in accord with what is necessary for that goodness.

Things are better now than before. Consequently, it's easier to fuck it up, and we've only got things to stay better out of stubborn resistance. Considering how fucking uncoordinated behavior of the species seems to be, it's a wonder! That's why I'm so grateful for it; I realize how rare and outright precious it is, that the situation isn't worse... It is a mark of gratitude to what we have now that I am so pessimistic about maintaining it for an indefinite time.

Essentially, the only way to keep things the same is to, well, stop everything. Even the variable called time. We can't keep the world under glass like that, though; so we have to realize that anything could change where that social marker of worker treatment resides.

Unrelated to the precise debate but related to that social marker, I only feel most people act nicely toward workers like that out of fear, not out of any sort of genuine kindness.

Yes, I'm pessimistic; I'm grateful, but really, the bad things about people are most of what I know of them. I refuse to be more optimistic than I feel logic would direct me to be - out of respect for our very sobering circumstances as beings in a world where we can just as easily destroy one another as mutually benefit from our coexistence.

So it may be a radical pessimism; but if it is born of my life and reactions, perhaps your seemingly timid optimism is born of yours, and only viewed as timid, dressed in timidity's clothing, by the drive most folks feel toward normalizing their own thoughts, feelings, so on. It is possible you have had the "better" life...

We have no evidence that humans aren't going to lapse into exploitation when given the chance

False - not every police officer is a dirty cop.

I feel an assumption in there.

Have we proof that the majority of officers have had the opportunity to do so with impunity? This ties back to my concept of folks having social markers out of a shared fear rather than a shared kindness...

It may tire you, but I honestly feel at times that I'm the only guy who cares about other people, and even then, I feel that my own reasons for caring about them aren't as good as they should be - that I only care because I can imagine myself in their circumstances, and thus imagine how I myself would feel. (I think Butler and Hume apply here...) I feel that that sort of imagination isn't enough, because it has been posited to me that others can also imagine the same for themselves, and the problem STILL ISN'T SOLVED.

Define "damn good".

It sure as hell isn't the current circumstance; starvation outside of your volition remains possible, and folks still die from exposure to elements.

So you admit that the minimum wage is not properly combating homelessness, starvation, etc? You admit the minimum wage is not meeting its desired goals? If the latter is what you believe, then the minimum wage is just an idea. All that you are left with is good intentions. Good intentions is not sufficient backing for public policy.

Mm, all true. The problem in not ending those things is not proven to lie with minimum wage, however. Other variables, such as folks' drive to hold extravagance even as others starve, come to mind. (I keep remembering Peter Singer, that jerkwipe "philosophical" wordlover, he beat me to all this and does a better job.) Insofar as that drive, no law can fix it, bar folks consenting to public review of private spending and earning. (I sure as hell wouldn't mind it, but folks who think that they deserve golden parachutes galore might disagree.)

I would argue that against that drive, all we have as a weapon are our good intentions, because at the time being we have no known way to use anything else against that drive. If others have to die for us to be "free" in the sense that we have been taught to accept, perhaps the problem lies with us and our way of being. Our good intentions here, a public act to at least make good faith that we try to bring up folks at the bottom, are a sort of rebellion against the concept of leaving folks to live or die under their own power and nothing more.

Conversely, I feel nothing but good intentions in the opposition as well. Folks don't ever feel that what they seek out is bad; they feel that what they seek out is ultimately good, and that any sort of bad thing that results is simply "bad" when looked at in a way that it shouldn't be looked at. Ergo, the starving people, the have-nots; they either deserve their suffering as punishment, or their suffering is a necessary thing for anyone to flourish, and we should recognize that while being grateful to them.

(No one ever espouses that gratitude to the have-nots, though, it seems...)

So we're left with doom as either a punishment, or a necessary circumstance so that others might not be doomed. In both, the doom is ultimately a good, not a bad; just a select batch gets to enjoy.

However, the meat of all this lies below.

So, yeah - food, clothing, and shelter to all. It's an arbitrarily chosen boundary, but let's see if the no-min-wage situation can make it work without screwing either itself or something else up. If it can't, there exists a huge grievance with your position, one you need to remedy by deciding once and for all who does and doesn't deserve to exist.

As you just stated, people can and will still die in the streets with minimum wage in affect. You're asking me to support why it should not exist, effectively making me argue the negative. If anything, this should start with you arguing why the minimum wage SHOULD exist, not expecting me to argue why it SHOULDN'T exist. As much as I'd like to respond here, I'm not sure what your argument is yet.

- "The minimum wage should exist because it provides food, clothing and shelter to all."

- "The minimum wage should exist because it's unethical for it not to exist."

- "The minimum wage should exist because it limits unfair treatment of workers."

Which is your argument?

I would go with the middle; it is an attempt to satisfy the others, albeit one that has not succeeded for reasons that are unknown. When we don't have success, intentions are ALL that remain aside from the failure; when we do have it, the success's importance is so bold as to destroy the intentions.

Folks have their suspicions as to what the reasons are, of course; in this, I find a lot of selfinterest to guide persons' feelings about what the reasons are or aren't. And I want it known explicitly that I don't exclude myself from that observation; I see it in everyone, bar none.

As for forcing you to argue a negative, I don't mean to force that on you - I see us as being born into a certain political climate, where we must live our lives; and the minimum wage came before us, thus I saw it not as arguing a negative, but arguing for the positive in terms of the "positive" being "We should change X to Y." How shall we frame the argument, then? We could default to how no economic laws of this sort exist before we invent them, and that might fit your feeling of arguing the negative.

Or we could note that neither a pro-min nor an anti-min stance so far seem to solve the problems highlighted, for reasons that themselves currently escape us; thus the only dominance the pro-min stance has is dominance called "It's the current law". Likewise, the only dominance the anti-min stance has is dominance called "It's the state we were in before the law was made." Really, picking either side to be the "negative" seems arbitrary to me at this point, and I can't really deduce what the actual negative IS anymore.

As for why the min should exist, and for my argumentative structure, you know from the outset that all I have are simple notions. I expect not to convert, to be honest; and I know the weakness of my position. It exists here solely so that you can have practice against a rare opponent, and absorb that opposition into your stance; before this started, your ethical involvements in the argument were implicit and thus seemed weak. That needed rectifying, and I hope it's been rectified at this point. At this point I feel the good intentions to be all that remain not only in wage policy, but in my argument.

I just want you to add why your position is ethically sound as well as economically sound; economics themselves are innately neutral, and thus are easily steered toward good or evil devices. You need thus to construct a system that is (somehow) hard to steer toward evil devices.

Elimination of the minimum wage does not equate to zero regulations. Define "evil devices". Outline as many as you can as specifically as you can.

Then give me some damn regulations to make up for it, something that makes me feel secure from those with power to damage and destroy me. My freedom and my safety are the same thing; if I am unsafe, I am a slave to my circumstances. Folks try to posit that regulations destroy freedom; the correct way to see it is that it destroys their freedom to destroy or damage myself and my freedom. Folks don't realize, insofar as I can tell, that they might not be able to have - or even deserve - the freedoms they seek. I know that they don't deserve the freedom to permit my unwilling starvation.

Evil devices... let's just stick our unwilling cases of starvation, nakedness, and exposure to elements to that for now. Keep it simpler than it could be in other senses.

I am attached to the min-wage, yes; but I will abandon it if given an alternative that meets more of the needs we each have.

minimum wage itself is fine, when that decided wage manages to make it so that everyone at the bottom has [food, clothing, and shelter]

The minimum wage doesn't do that, in fact, the people all the way at the bottom are the ones who are hurt the most. Here is one of my previous statements which addresses that problem:

Mentally challenged people already have a tough time finding jobs BECAUSE of the minimum wage. The minimum wage demands that potential employees meet an average skill requirement. For example, you will not be able to get a job at McDonalds if you cannot do basic math or operate machinery. Sadly, many mentally challenged people have those problems, so they won't get hired because it wouldn't make sense to pay them $7.25 an hour just to mop the floor. However, if McDonalds could pay them only $3 an hour, the handicapped person could be hired. I support the elimination of the minimum wage because it would increase the employability of handicapped and low-skilled workers.

That same circumstance happens with low-skilled workers, not just the handicapped. If you increase the minimum wage, you fortify the barrier of entry into the job market for low-skilled and handicapped workers, who are certainly the poorest and neediest among us.

If anything I would find it to be unethical for the businesses to take the higher-skilled and handicap-less persons amongst us, then. I know, this is a strange thing to hear, but to me it honestly seems that if someone wants to pay minimum wage for a job, it isn't right of them to expect the job to be done justly by anyone with higher abilities than what correlate to that wage.

"From each according to ability" comes to mind in a double-edged sense. If someone can only pay the minimum, they should only be allowed to get the minimum in return; by aiming for those who can do more, they sure do manage to "profit" if we can consider the abilities of employees a way to profit. (We can, I think.) And this profit comes at whose cost? Everyone's in a way; the poorest and neediest among us are not hired, and someone else is hired. Folks are profiting off of the suffering of those poor and needy. The damage to everyone is the fact that those folks suffer.

If there just aren't enough jobs in the area, that's a sign that someone (if not all of us) are spending their money on things that don't require as many folks working, and that's not exactly a good thing. Re: Redboxes in Wal-Mart, hm?

So, what's our priority, the employer demanding the right to pay minimum to an above-minimum-abled employee prospect, or making sure the

And what of inventing more jobs as well?

There's a lot to this. I find that there are so many ethical obligations to employment - not just to your customers and employees, but to everyone else in society - that folks just stop caring altogether about everyone but their customers and employees...

Wasn't it Adam Smith or some other guy, Locke, Bentham, maybe even Rawls if I'm not mixing my centuries, that said that an economic system based in a "free market" should be ordained to the maximum benefit of the worst-off? Folks choosing not to hire those worst-off, when those worst-off can do the job, seems to go against that to me.

OR maybe there's more to being a McDonald's frycook than meets my eye - not only must you meet the minimums, but you must actually excel at unmentioned things - be those unmentioned things something so innocuous as having a perkier personality than the other prospects, or something so grave and terrible a prejudice as being handicap-free, or being white, or looking like a stereotypical rich kid, something like that to appease the worst biases of the consumer.

(I worry that businesses DO use those biases to entice.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honkey Kong    11

I see that me calling you on your nitpicking really struck a nerve, and finally admit you are taking everything as face value, which is why you are going to absolutely hate me in a second here.

In this case, the smart business man will increase the price of his goods and services or else he faces losing more and more profits each time the minimum wage increases. That is inflationary. You can also tie my statement about wages correlating with the cost of goods and services from my initial post. If everyone now makes $50 an hour due to minimum wage, McDonalds will undoubtedly charge you more for a hamburger.

.

Newflash: Only 3% of workers receive a wage less than or equal to the minimum wage. It has no affect on everyone else

It has no affect on everyone else, eh? Just a page ago, you were bitching about this very 3% raising the price of your food, and then a page later, try to downplay them as being nothing and having "no affect on everyone else". Which is it? are hey significant enough to merit a pay cut, or are they insignificant enough that it doesn't make a difference either way?

If you've made the decision not to charge more for a product that's selling exceptionally well, you've made an awful business decision.

Is there an echo in here, or are you just repeating exactly what I just told you, that a post ago, said was no good because of "supply and demand"?

Demand isn't so outrageously low that cars need to be sold at those rates. Also, it's probably impossible to build a car that cheaply.

Exactly the point.

The demand for gas has ALWAYS outpaced its supply. There has been a shortage of gas since it was discovered by man.

The demand for Arby's is high enough to where they don't need to reduce the price in order to sell it. God, I feel like I'm just wasting my time explaining this to you.

No, you're wasting your time parroting my exact point back to me.

The point is that the minimum wage has never and likely will never provide enough money for a person to afford a "plush modern lifestyle". You will be in poverty with or without it.

there you go, champ. destroying your own arguement for me. So why the hell would the government risk loosing tax revenue by abolishing it in the first place anyways and subject people to even more miserable conditions than already possible with minimum wage? People have some kind of wage to work with, government doesn't have to cut services, so it's win-win. Also, when you pay for your higher priced coffee, the government gets even more tax out of you, because taxes are done percentages.

So higher wages=More tax revenue=better services.

And regards to africa, are you saying that no minimum wage would make it possible for oobily boobily to get access to clean water, a better education, and afford proper medicine to stave off common, yet treatable ailments? and before you decide to inject your stupidity and start harping about how HIV isn't cureable, save your fucking breath because you know damn well it's not what i'm talking about when I say common treatable ailments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ DIN365

Newflash: Only 3% of workers receive a wage less than or equal to the minimum wage. It has no affect on everyone else

It has no affect on everyone else, eh? Just a page ago, you were bitching about this very 3% raising the price of your food, and then a page later, try to downplay them as being nothing and having "no affect on everyone else". Which is it? are hey significant enough to merit a pay cut, or are they insignificant enough that it doesn't make a difference either way?

Good job misquoting me to try and invent an argument you can hope to win. That's a tactic of true champions.

[] you're wasting your time parroting my exact point back to me.

Please quote your exact text which I am presumably parroting.

The point is that the minimum wage has never and likely will never provide enough money for a person to afford a "plush modern lifestyle". You will be in poverty with or without it.

there you go, champ. destroying your own arguement for me.

Which argument of mine does this destroy? Please quote my exact text which is contradicted by this statement.

why the hell would the government risk loosing tax revenue by abolishing [minimum wage] in the first place anyways and subject people to even more miserable conditions than already possible with minimum wage? People have some kind of wage to work with, government doesn't have to cut services, so it's win-win. Also, when you pay for your higher priced coffee, the government gets even more tax out of you, because taxes are done percentages.

So higher wages=More tax revenue=better services.

There is no evidence that suggests there would be a decrease in tax revenue. If anything, tax revenue would INCREASE because more people would have jobs. Fewer illegal immigrants would be hired. Profits for businesses increase. All of that equates to increased economic output.

And regards to africa, are you saying that no minimum wage would make it possible for oobily boobily to get access to clean water, a better education, and afford proper medicine to stave off common, yet treatable ailments?

Clean water, yes; a public education, yes; you can't afford proper medicine if you're making minimum wage, so that is irrelevant. Sadly, healthcare is not under the banner of "necessities any job should pay for", which begins to explain why so many Americans don't have it.

The majority of your arguments have been positions which stated "people will work and live in poor conditions if the minimum wage is eliminated." The failure of that position is that you haven't actually provided anything pro minimum wage. Answer this: How does the minimum wage benefit those who receive it? Try not to be so ambiguous with your reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honkey Kong    11
Good job misquoting me to try and invent an argument you can hope to win. That's a tactic of true champions

I didn't misquote you at all, and now that you are caught backpeddling two pages after you were complaining minimum wage raising the price of good, and I just quoted you saying there is no effect on anybody else. It's not my fault that I had you grasping at straws and ended up with a horn up your ass, so quit your whining.

Please quote your exact text which I am presumably parroting.

here

The demand for Arby's is high enough to where they don't need to reduce the price in order to sell it

Now, if I got something else in and they sold like hotcakes, then you can jack the price up to whatever the hell you wanted

There is no evidence that suggests there would be a decrease in tax revenue.

Really? do you even know how federal tax is calculated off a paycheque? Look here

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

They do it in percentages. If more people are working for less money(combined), you are going to loose tax revenue, and if a business is stupid enough to waste time and energy to hire two unskilled workers for the combined rate of one skilled worker(which will not happen because the business owner will only hire unskilled workers to cut costs) then you are just wastine time, resource, and killing the quality of service for nothing, which will make it a stupid business move.

If anything, tax revenue would INCREASE because more people would have jobs.

So here's some math to ponder(using Ontario's rate of minimum wage

40 hours a week for a standard 5 week month at 9.50$/h is 1900$ before taxes for one worker

and two workers working 80 hours combined at 4$/h in the same time frame is making 1600$ pefore taxes

Both amounts are going to be taxed the standard 15% as usual off that amount

So..

15% of 1900 is 285

15% of 1600 is 240

So in spite of the double the workforce, you're taking in 45$ less per two workers without minimum wage as you are one.

now times that by 1.2 million.

that's 54 million per month out of the government coffers and minus more money from the GST of people being able to afford less and that's not including the employers not doubling their workforce as you would have predicted, and that alone would cost up to a potential..

15% of 800=120

285-120=165 x 1.2 million=198 million dollars per month

Now to times that by the end of the year

198 million x 12= 2 billion 376 million dollars per year.

and 54 million times 12=648 million dollars.

Which of course, is assuming if the amount of current minimum wage jobs double, which would not happen, because alot of the jobs(especially in the food service industry, which is where a majority of the minimum wage jobs are) only need a certain amount of people to work those jobs. Tell me, do you need two cashiers to one till? do you need 4 fry cooks to operate a two man grill at the same time? no!(which is actually quite dangerous btw). At minimum wage, it would cost the same to have one cook on one shift, and another cook on the other. the only reason why businesses don't hire alot of people now, is because it makes sure each employee gets a reasonable amount of hours. The only possible reason somebody could no longer hire somebody is bacause of money issues, which is exactly what you tried to dodge earlier by trying to nitpick at my example, and still try to dodge.

Fewer illegal immigrants would be hired.

There's no evidence to support that cutting minimum wage would even make a dent in the hiring of illegals. As stated, even with minimum wage in place, it still happens, so what's your claim that it would reduce the numbers either way?

Profits for businesses increase.

And that's the only thing that will increase and businesses are taxed by gross income anyways, so tax revenue will still go down.

Clean water, yes; a public education, yes; you can't afford proper medicine if you're making minimum wage, so that is irrelevant.
I got a question for you. just how far do you have your head up your ass, anyways? And no, that's not irrelevent, because you just admitted just now that people on minimum wage can't afford medicine, so how in the hell are people making less than that going to even come close to be able affording it if companies are not forced to at least pay a half ased reasonable pay? Do you want people to get sick, die, and possibly spread disease to the other 97%? I don't think so.

Sadly, healthcare is not under the banner of "necessities any job should pay for", which begins to explain why so many Americans don't have it.

Oh? Can you apply that arguemrnt to Canadian health care? no. why? because our tax dollars pays for ours. It's not my fault that American health care is stuck in the stone age.

Which argument of mine does this destroy? Please quote my exact text which is contradicted by this statement.
By admitting it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't about poverty.

So basically, when it boils down to it, you are going to make more people's lives more miserable just for the sakew of businesses making more money and insignificantly raising the amount of labor(possibly). Well, it's good to know that you want more homeless people, more sick people, more uneducated people all for the sake of some fatcat prick making more money and knocking mere cents off a coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ DIN365

Good job misquoting me to try and invent an argument you can hope to win. That's a tactic of true champions

I didn't misquote you at all, and now that you are caught backpeddling two pages after you were complaining minimum wage raising the price of good, and I just quoted you saying there is no effect on anybody else. It's not my fault that I had you grasping at straws and ended up with a horn up your ass, so quit your whining.

ORIGINAL TEXT

Newflash: Only 3% of workers receive a wage less than or equal to the minimum wage. It has no affect on everyone else [except the affects of inflation/deflation].

Inflation and deflation alone is how the minimum wage affects the rest of us - it raises the price of goods and services. The initial statement was to point out the stupidity in you claiming doctors would magically be low-balled into working at McDonalds as if the minimum wage had that kind of effect. You didn't catch me in anything; you removed a clause from my statement which was my own acknowledgement of everything I had said prior. You obviously have no argument unless you omit that point, as you shamelessly tried to do. If you're going to purposefully misconstrue the things I've said, try to do it in a more thorough and convincing manner next time. At least then you won't look like a complete idiot.

How ironic of you to claim I'm backpedaling when you're trying to reinterpret shit I said 4 pages ago.

Please quote your exact text which I am presumably parroting.

here

The demand for Arby's is high enough to where they don't need to reduce the price in order to sell it

Now, if I got something else in and they sold like hotcakes, then you can jack the price up to whatever the hell you wanted

If you understand that principle, why are you asking me questions regarding supply and demand?

There is no evidence that suggests there would be a decrease in tax revenue.

Really? do you even know how federal tax is calculated off a paycheque? Look here

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

They do it in percentages. If more people are working for less money(combined), you are going to loose tax revenue, and if a business is stupid enough to waste time and energy to hire two unskilled workers for the combined rate of one skilled worker(which will not happen because the business owner will only hire unskilled workers to cut costs) then you are just wastine time, resource, and killing the quality of service for nothing, which will make it a stupid business move.

If anything, tax revenue would INCREASE because more people would have jobs.

So here's some math to ponder(using Ontario's rate of minimum wage

40 hours a week for a standard 5 week month at 9.50$/h is 1900$ before taxes for one worker

and two workers working 80 hours combined at 4$/h in the same time frame is making 1600$ pefore taxes

Both amounts are going to be taxed the standard 15% as usual off that amount

So..

15% of 1900 is 285

15% of 1600 is 240

So in spite of the double the workforce, you're taking in 45$ less per two workers without minimum wage as you are one.

now times that by 1.2 million.

that's 54 million per month out of the government coffers and minus more money from the GST of people being able to afford less and that's not including the employers not doubling their workforce as you would have predicted, and that alone would cost up to a potential..

15% of 800=120

285-120=165 x 1.2 million=198 million dollars per month

Now to times that by the end of the year

198 million x 12= 2 billion 376 million dollars per year.

and 54 million times 12=648 million dollars.

Which of course, is assuming if the amount of current minimum wage jobs double, which would not happen, because alot of the jobs(especially in the food service industry, which is where a majority of the minimum wage jobs are) only need a certain amount of people to work those jobs. Tell me, do you need two cashiers to one till? do you need 4 fry cooks to operate a two man grill at the same time? no!(which is actually quite dangerous btw). At minimum wage, it would cost the same to have one cook on one shift, and another cook on the other. the only reason why businesses don't hire alot of people now, is because it makes sure each employee gets a reasonable amount of hours. The only possible reason somebody could no longer hire somebody is bacause of money issues, which is exactly what you tried to dodge earlier by trying to nitpick at my example, and still try to dodge.

That is all quite hilarious. I'm literally laughing out loud at your poorly rendered argument, obvious falsehoods and contradictory bullshit. You account for the reduced wages of low class workers while not accounting for the increased profits of big business. The funniest part about this is, you actually acknowledged the fact that businesses would make more money in the same post, while excluding them from what you probably think is infallible math. Congrats on failing at applying your own knowledge. You're arguing that tax revenue will go down while the GDP goes up. I am in awe.

We've already established the fact that the reduction of wages at the lowest level reduces the cost of goods and services. When the cost of goods and services is reduced, the cost of things the government requires is also reduced. Because of this, the government will then require less money to afford the things government pays for.

Small example: the cost of producing lumber goes down reducing the cost of building materials, thus reducing the cost to build schools and hospitals.

In the end, decreased tax revenue wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but a logical outcome. Of course, I'm arguing that tax revenue will go up with the increasing economic output, something you didn't account for. If anything, in a climate which sets no minimum wage, the current tax levels should be reduced to equalize with the new wage standard. This also tells us that any additional wealth that the government acquires through an increase of the minimum wage is completely artificial. So much for your shitty argument. Next.

I could mention how a more progressive tax code would solve any tax problem you believe might crop up, but I'll save that...

Fewer illegal immigrants would be hired.

There's no evidence to support that cutting minimum wage would even make a dent in the hiring of illegals. As stated, even with minimum wage in place, it still happens, so what's your claim that it would reduce the numbers either way?

Businesses hire illegal immigrants because they can pay them under the table at a rate lower than the minimum wage. If you eliminate the minimum wage, you also eliminate the primary incentive to hiring illegal immigrants. Also, illegals don't pay an income tax, social security, etcetera, but American workers sure will. Illegal immigrants send their money back home, but American workers will surely spend it here.

Profits for businesses increase.

And that's the only thing that will increase and businesses are taxed by gross income anyways, so tax revenue will still go down.

LOL. Too bad you didn't take that into account when you were writing your shitty math problems. Increased employment will increase the purchasing of goods and services, increasing the gross income in most if not every sector of the economy. This increases the GDP. When the GDP goes up, the value of money goes up, effectively giving consumers more purchasing power. This increased purchasing power is of course transfered back to the businesses when consumers buy stuff, which results in more profits and the potential for further investment and expansion [more hiring]. In the end, the lack of a minimum wage would do more to end poverty and produce prosperity than actually having one. Entry level macroeconomics is clearly not your forte.

Clean water, yes; a public education, yes; you can't afford proper medicine if you're making minimum wage, so that is irrelevant.
I got a question for you. just how far do you have your head up your ass, anyways? And no, that's not irrelevent, because you just admitted just now that people on minimum wage can't afford medicine, so how in the hell are people making less than that going to even come close to be able affording it if companies are not forced to at least pay a half ased reasonable pay? Do you want people to get sick, die, and possibly spread disease to the other 97%? I don't think so.

It'll happen with or without a minimum wage. That's capitalism. Get over it. People die. Welcome to the real world. I just want to remind you that the cost of healthcare should decrease with wages. I've already went over this countless times.

Sadly, healthcare is not under the banner of "necessities any job should pay for", which begins to explain why so many Americans don't have it.

Oh? Can you apply that arguemrnt to Canadian health care? no. why? because our tax dollars pays for ours. It's not my fault that American health care is stuck in the stone age.

Nobody gives a shit about Canada. This debate is about the United States of America. In Canada, health care is a right, here it is a luxury - plain and simple. I'm not personally proud of it, but that's the case. Arguing over the role and consumption of healthcare is grounds for an entirelly different debate.

Which argument of mine does this destroy? Please quote my exact text which is contradicted by this statement.
By admitting it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't about poverty.

That actually destroys your entire position, not mine. Eliminating poverty is not a tenant of the anti-minimum wage position, however, that's one of if not THE main factor(s) in the pro-minimum wage position. If you agree with the fact that it's "damned if you do and damned if you don't" what then is the point of supporting the minimum wage? Are you saying you support the minimum wage even though it changes nothing? Good job.

So basically, when it boils down to it, you are going to make more people's lives more miserable just for the sake of businesses making more money and insignificantly raising the amount of labor (possibly). Well, it's good to know that you want more homeless people, more sick people, more uneducated people all for the sake of some fatcat prick making more money and knocking mere cents off a coffee.

I like how you use the phrase "insignificantly raising the amount of labor" to try and downplay the fact that removing the minimum wage increases employment. If the minimum wage is eliminated, homeless people would have an easier time finding jobs.

Your logic is so fucking twisted that you believe businesses would drive wages low enough as to prohibit the consumption of the goods and services these same businesses actually produce. You think businesses have no problem decreasing the demand for their own products. If people can't buy shit because their wages are too low, the businesses must either reduce the prices of their goods or increase the wages of their workers, else they have no business. There will eventually be an equilibrium between supply and demand. It happens with every commodity. Labor is just as much of a commodity as gold and silver. For whatever reason, you don't seem to see that.

You believe the government can and should legislate wealth into existance. If the minimum wage is so effective at bringing prosperity to the masses, why don't we just increase the minimum wage to $20/hr and stamp out poverty for good? The obvious answer is that it doesn't work that way. The minimum wage does not change the level of prosperity.

You believe that the elimination of the minimum wage would hurt working families, when that is the complete opposite of the truth. The majority of working families work a job that pays more than the minimum wage. When you increase the minimum wage, you create inflation which reduces the actual spendable incomes of those above the current minimum wage rate. After all, when the minimum wage goes up, you don't see an increase of wages for everyone else. So now, working families have to pay more for their goods and services than they did before the "increase". Mr. and Mrs. Smith must now pay more for their family's health insurance. You want to support working families while simultaneously fucking them in the ass.

What is the goal of the minimum wage and who are you helping by supporting it?

Oh, and you didn't answer this. Are you dodging on purpose or did you just miss it?

The majority of your arguments have been positions which stated "people will work and live in poor conditions if the minimum wage is eliminated." The failure of that position is that you haven't actually provided anything pro minimum wage. Answer this: How does the minimum wage benefit those who receive it? Try not to be so ambiguous with your reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honkey Kong    11

This is quite funny watching you having a full blown meltdown and beating yourself senseless with repeats, mainly because you are loosing traction on your thoughtless stupidity.

You're arguing that tax revenue will go down while the GDP goes up. I am in awe.

Actually, I never even mentioned GDP, but now that you mention it, lets take a look at it, shall we?

China, a country with no minimum wage and is a huge exporter of goods, with a larger population and industry, has a lower GDP than the united states, Japan and the combined EU(which have minimum wages), but to really give you a real good kick in the teeth

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/w...-exporters.html

So by your logic, China should be doing much better than it is on the world market because it has no minimum wage. So lower GDP than the smaller japan and united states, less export dollars in spite of having a bigger industry

Inflation and deflation alone is how the minimum wage affects the rest of us - it raises the price of goods and services

LMAO! do you really believe that minimum wage is driving up inflation, and that minimum wage isn't just adjusted to keep up with inflation? Let's take a look a zimbabwe to illustrate this point.

People were bringing home wheel barrows full of money not because they were absolutely rich, but because of hyperinflation. they were making tens and thousands of dollars because inflation pushed the value of money so low, that you could practically hand it out. You know what the funny part about this is? minimum wage had no part in it. it was their stupid president's fault for printing off money to the point of it being practically worthless. Do you honestly believe that stopping minimum wage will magically lower the price of your coffee? no, because inflation would have made it that price anyways, and minimum wage is only keeping up with inflation.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entr...shots_20051221/

Here is some nice reading for you on that case, but I did admit I was being a jerk by leading you on to believe I believed it, caused you to type out a long-winded lecture about how businesses will profit and save money(which is the same arguement the libtards are using to instate HST), when all of this time, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference, because inflation would be the same regardless of there being a minimum wage or not.

And again, you have yet to explain how it will increase labor, when in spite of the fact that I have already explained to you several times(which you constantly ignored) that businesses are not going to hire more people than they need. What's to stop businesses to just hiring people at half the rate and pocketing the rest? And again, what's to stop successful businesses from hiring more people now?

That is all quite hilarious. I'm literally laughing out loud at your poorly rendered argument, obvious falsehoods and contradictory bullshit. You account for the reduced wages of low class workers while not accounting for the increased profits of big business. The funniest part about this is, you actually acknowledged the fact that businesses would make more money in the same post, while excluding them from what you probably think is infallible math. Congrats on failing at applying your own knowledge. You're arguing that tax revenue will go down while the GDP goes up. I am in awe.

We've already established the fact that the reduction of wages at the lowest level reduces the cost of goods and services. When the cost of goods and services is reduced, the cost of things the government requires is also reduced. Because of this, the government will then require less money to afford the things government pays for.

Small example: the cost of producing lumber goes down reducing the cost of building materials, thus reducing the cost to build schools and hospitals.

In the end, decreased tax revenue wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but a logical outcome. Of course, I'm arguing that tax revenue will go up with the increasing economic output, something you didn't account for. If anything, in a climate which sets no minimum wage, the current tax levels should be reduced to equalize with the new wage standard. This also tells us that any additional wealth that the government acquires through an increase of the minimum wage is completely artificial. So much for your shitty argument. Next.

The only way the above would happen is if the dollar goes into deflation, which which the abolishment of minimum wage will not do. But, just seeing how you like unintended consequences, when you deflate the dollar, everybody at the top looses the amount of money too, because their dollar is worth more and therefore gets less of it because of that. When that happens, other countries loose interest in trade with you and trade with a country with a lesser currency, thus getting goods cheaper, and then when you loose trading partners, and ample supply(just piggybacking off your explanation) you have to drop your prices in order to entice other countries to buy off you, thus making you less money, and basically screws you over in the long run when money leaves the country and not getting as much back.

But of course, unlike a retail store, you can't drop the price on lumber because it's governed by the world trade organization, so you still loose.

So yeah, on paper it may appear cheaper, but if you are charging 50$ per hour to build a house before deflation, and charging 50$ after deflation, you just just made everything alot more expensive unless you droped it to what it would be after deflation, which in that case, would not save you a single penny, but just fuck your country over in terms of trade. Why the hell did you think Canada tried to keep it's loonie from going to parity with the united states? Because they want their dollar inflated more than the greenback? fuck no! to keep money in our borders and to entice more trade.

Damn those chinese with their big, luxurious lifestyles, eh?

Businesses hire illegal immigrants because they can pay them under the table at a rate lower than the minimum wage. If you eliminate the minimum wage, you also eliminate the primary incentive to hiring illegal immigrants. Also, illegals don't pay an income tax, social security, etcetera, but American workers sure will. Illegal immigrants send their money back home, but American workers will surely spend it here.

So in other words, there is nothing to stop them to continue hiring illegals at reduced rates than a white american. Also, the other incentive that I never mentioned, is that businesses also hire illegals because they can work them like dogs, and the illegals can't do a thing about it without being deported. So, withg that being said, are you saying we can demolish all labor laws because illegals don't follow them anyways? Can we murder people because people do it anyways?

How does the minimum wage benefit those who receive it?

Already answered, but you are too busy nitpicking on the small things to see the big details.

but yeah, go ahead and make the fatcats rich, and in return, threy will not give a fuck if you are sick and dying on the streets, as long as you buy their shit.

Your logic is so fucking twisted that you believe businesses would drive wages low enough as to prohibit the consumption of the goods and services these same businesses actually produce. You think businesses have no problem decreasing the demand for their own products. If people can't buy shit because their wages are too low, the businesses must either reduce the prices of their goods or increase the wages of their workers, else they have no business.
So in other words, the minimum wage actually protects consumerism, because some crooked businessman can't do that to their employees.

But you know what? only 3% of the population makes minimum wage, so therefore as long as the other 97% is still buying their product, they don't give a flying fuck about the minor 3%. and as you would say, drop the price to compensate. After all, the majority of minimum wage workers are in the food service industry and retail stores, which the other 97% shop and eat at.

There will eventually be an equilibrium between supply and demand. It happens with every commodity. Labor is just as much of a commodity as gold and silver. For whatever reason, you don't seem to see that.

No, I get that quite well, seeing how I work out west where A&W grunts are making 12$ per hour, while the Ontarians are only making minimum wage.

You believe the government can and should legislate wealth into existance. If the minimum wage is so effective at bringing prosperity to the masses, why don't we just increase the minimum wage to $20/hr and stamp out poverty for good? The obvious answer is that it doesn't work that way. The minimum wage does not change the level of prosperity.

According to you, it drives prosperity down by raising costs of everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ DIN365

You're arguing that tax revenue will go down while the GDP goes up. I am in awe.

Actually, I never even mentioned GDP, but now that you mention it, lets take a look at it, shall we?

China, a country with no minimum wage and is a huge exporter of goods, with a larger population and industry, has a lower GDP than the united states, Japan and the combined EU(which have minimum wages), but to really give you a real good kick in the teeth

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/w...-exporters.html

So by your logic, China should be doing much better than it is on the world market because it has no minimum wage. So lower GDP than the smaller japan and united states, less export dollars in spite of having a bigger industry

Wow, trying to pull China out of your ass to argue that the elimination of a minimum wage in a capitalist system is ineffective. Your example in its entirety is complete bullshit, but you've actually proven me right.

China had a strict Communist centrally planned economy until the 1980's. That is why their GDP is currently lower than ours - they haven't had a capitalist free market system in place for as long as we have. The fact that China's economy will outpace ours in the future is an unarguable eventuality. They've had the fastest growing economy in the world for the past 30 years. Your example fails in its assumption that China's economy has ALWAYS been the same as ours. Following the current trend, you'll see that China's GDP WILL be higher than ours in the future, it's just of matter of how long. They are still evolving and developing.

Inflation and deflation alone is how the minimum wage affects the rest of us - it raises the price of goods and services

LMAO! do you really believe that minimum wage is driving up inflation, and that minimum wage isn't just adjusted to keep up with inflation? Let's take a look a zimbabwe to illustrate this point.

People were bringing home wheel barrows full of money not because they were absolutely rich, but because of hyperinflation. they were making tens and thousands of dollars because inflation pushed the value of money so low, that you could practically hand it out. You know what the funny part about this is? minimum wage had no part in it. it was their stupid president's fault for printing off money to the point of it being practically worthless.

Yet again, you pull out the most extreme example you can think of to try and discredit me. It's practically impossible to calculate exactly how much the minimum wage affected Zimbabwe's economy because there were so many things to try and take into account. You haven't actually proven that the minimum wage didn't cause more inflation, you've just assumed so. The most economically logical assumption is that the minimum wage DID cause addition inflation and/or relieve workers of their jobs.

Do you honestly believe that stopping minimum wage will magically lower the price of your coffee? no, because inflation would have made it that price anyways, and minimum wage is only keeping up with inflation.

Why don't you prove inflation would have made it that price anyways? Stop just making statements with no backing.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entr...shots_20051221/

Here is some nice reading for you on that case, but I did admit I was being a jerk by leading you on to believe I believed it, caused you to type out a long-winded lecture about how businesses will profit and save money(which is the same arguement the libtards are using to instate HST), when all of this time, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference, because inflation would be the same regardless of there being a minimum wage or not.

I like how you're trying to change your tune to not agreeing with me before thinking you have an argument now. Sure, you were leading me on. Hilarious.

How does that website refute my point? You haven't proven that "inflation would be the same regardless of minimum wage or not."

And again, you have yet to explain how it will increase labor, when in spite of the fact that I have already explained to you several times(which you constantly ignored) that businesses are not going to hire more people than they need. What's to stop businesses to just hiring people at half the rate and pocketing the rest? And again, what's to stop successful businesses from hiring more people now?

The goal of business is to expand as much as possible. To expand, you need more workers. The hiring of more workers is difficult when you set artificial price floors on the cost of labor. It's price fixing.

That is all quite hilarious. I'm literally laughing out loud at your poorly rendered argument, obvious falsehoods and contradictory bullshit. You account for the reduced wages of low class workers while not accounting for the increased profits of big business. The funniest part about this is, you actually acknowledged the fact that businesses would make more money in the same post, while excluding them from what you probably think is infallible math. Congrats on failing at applying your own knowledge. You're arguing that tax revenue will go down while the GDP goes up. I am in awe.

We've already established the fact that the reduction of wages at the lowest level reduces the cost of goods and services. When the cost of goods and services is reduced, the cost of things the government requires is also reduced. Because of this, the government will then require less money to afford the things government pays for.

Small example: the cost of producing lumber goes down reducing the cost of building materials, thus reducing the cost to build schools and hospitals.

In the end, decreased tax revenue wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but a logical outcome. Of course, I'm arguing that tax revenue will go up with the increasing economic output, something you didn't account for. If anything, in a climate which sets no minimum wage, the current tax levels should be reduced to equalize with the new wage standard. This also tells us that any additional wealth that the government acquires through an increase of the minimum wage is completely artificial. So much for your shitty argument. Next.

The only way the above would happen is if the dollar goes into deflation, which which the abolishment of minimum wage will not do.

False, it can also happen via disinflation. When are you going to start proving what you say with logic rather than just saying something won't happen?

But, just seeing how you like unintended consequences, when you deflate the dollar, everybody at the top looses the amount of money too, because their dollar is worth more and therefore gets less of it because of that. When that happens, other countries loose interest in trade with you and trade with a country with a lesser currency, thus getting goods cheaper, and then when you loose trading partners, and ample supply(just piggybacking off your explanation) you have to drop your prices in order to entice other countries to buy off you, thus making you less money, and basically screws you over in the long run when money leaves the country and not getting as much back.

Cool extreme case scenario bro.

But of course, unlike a retail store, you can't drop the price on lumber because it's governed by the world trade organization, so you still loose.

I didn't know that, do you want me to provide an alternative example? Wouldn't the WTO only have jurisdiction towards the international/imported price of lumber, not the domestic price?

So yeah, on paper it may appear cheaper, but if you are charging 50$ per hour to build a house before deflation, and charging 50$ after deflation, you just just made everything alot more expensive unless you droped it to what it would be after deflation, which in that case, would not save you a single penny, but just fuck your country over in terms of trade. Why the hell did you think Canada tried to keep it's loonie from going to parity with the united states? Because they want their dollar inflated more than the greenback? fuck no! to keep money in our borders and to entice more trade.

Please rephrase.

Businesses hire illegal immigrants because they can pay them under the table at a rate lower than the minimum wage. If you eliminate the minimum wage, you also eliminate the primary incentive to hiring illegal immigrants. Also, illegals don't pay an income tax, social security, etcetera, but American workers sure will. Illegal immigrants send their money back home, but American workers will surely spend it here.

So in other words, there is nothing to stop them to continue hiring illegals at reduced rates than a white american.

I'm arguing that the hiring of illegal immigrants will be reduced, not completely eliminated. It's obvious some will remain. Roughly 10 million illegal immigrants work in the United States, if you reduce that by even 10%, 1 million new jobs open up.

Also, the other incentive that I never mentioned, is that businesses also hire illegals because they can work them like dogs, and the illegals can't do a thing about it without being deported. So, withg that being said, are you saying we can demolish all labor laws because illegals don't follow them anyways? Can we murder people because people do it anyways?

No.

How does the minimum wage benefit those who receive it?

Already answered, but you are too busy nitpicking on the small things to see the big details.

Then restate your position in a clear concise manner. It should be easy considering you've already said it.

Your logic is so fucking twisted that you believe businesses would drive wages low enough as to prohibit the consumption of the goods and services these same businesses actually produce. You think businesses have no problem decreasing the demand for their own products. If people can't buy shit because their wages are too low, the businesses must either reduce the prices of their goods or increase the wages of their workers, else they have no business.
So in other words, the minimum wage actually protects consumerism, because some crooked businessman can't do that to their employees.

What the fuck? Explain how the minimum wage protects consumerism. Explain why businesses would drive wages so low as to prohibit the consumption of the goods and services they produce - why it's rational for businesses to run themselves out of business.

There will eventually be an equilibrium between supply and demand. It happens with every commodity. Labor is just as much of a commodity as gold and silver. For whatever reason, you don't seem to see that.

No, I get that quite well, seeing how I work out west where A&W grunts are making 12$ per hour, while elsewhere they're making minimum wage.

If you understand that, why do you think people can't and shouldn't be paid what they're actually worth?

You believe the government can and should legislate wealth into existance. If the minimum wage is so effective at bringing prosperity to the masses, why don't we just increase the minimum wage to $20/hr and stamp out poverty for good? The obvious answer is that it doesn't work that way. The minimum wage does not change the level of prosperity.

According to you, it drives prosperity down by raising costs of everything.

Yes, and you have failed to refute that argument.

Unanswered Questions:

1. What is the goal of the minimum wage and who are you helping by supporting it?

2. If the minimum wage is so effective at bringing prosperity to the masses, why don't we just increase the minimum wage to $20/hr and stamp out poverty for good?

3. If you agree with the fact that it's "damned if you do and damned if you don't" what then is the point of supporting the minimum wage? Are you saying you support the minimum wage even though it changes nothing?

Feel free to point out any questions you've asked that I haven't answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I answered this question in support of MarCustomized and also because the answer is obvious.

2. If the minimum wage is so effective at bringing prosperity to the masses, why don't we just increase the minimum wage to $20/hr and stamp out poverty for good?

If the minimum wage went up to 20 dollars companies would have to pay their employees more to work as the cost to create a product has just increased. This increase in cost, in turn, will be either dealt with in the form of staff/product cuts or using inferior goods or (more likely) the cost will be passed right along to the consumer. This makes the minimum wage increase pointless. If I get an extra 40 dollars a week in pay (1 dollar an hour increase) but end up spending nearly all of that in increased costs there was no point to raise the wage in the first place. IF ANYTHING, increasing the minimum wage hurts the middle class, which is not guaranteed a wage increase and sees their dollar buying less and less as minimum increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×