Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MarCustomized

Minimum Wage

Recommended Posts

Honkey Kong    11
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.

All that and you still can't come up with an answer how the elimination of minimum wage will send china's GDP up, and not the fact that it's simply a much bigger manufacturing country of 1.3 billion and would have happened regardless of minimum wage or lack of.

It is also becoming quite evident that you either have no clue as to how a minimum wage is set in the first place, or just too stubborn to aknowlege this fact. Minimum wage is not some random number they pull out of their ass, but do it on a few determining factor, which inflation rate is one of them.

look here

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

On the left, is the amount of money they made in that year. on the right is the value of that money in 1996(as a medium). basically, the minimum wage in 2007 was 5.85, which before inflation back in 1996, was only worth 4.41$. As you look at the recent years of the federal minimum wage, you will notice a distinct decline in the value of the minimum wage in 1996 to the corresponding year. So, my question to you is, how can you blame minimum wage causing inflation, when minimum wage itself has lost it's value and is behind the inflation rate? of all things, that right there should have slowed it down right there(minus the recessions in 1980 and 1990)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reces...e_United_States

but nope, it didn't make a dent either way.

So minimum wage causing inflation or even making dent in inflation=busted.

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.

Only for unsuccessful businesses, but if you are making a good amount of money, it shouldn't matter either way. it's not like minimum wage will be above the inflation rate anyways(even though it's below it now), so this arguement is absolutely useless.

Cool extreme case scenario bro

Tell that to our finance minister jim flaharity and the bank of Canada. I'm sure they would love to hear how if the loonie overshot the greenback it wouldn't hurt trade and canadian business.

Please rephrase

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

So you can't understand that if a money's value increases, it's worth more too? ok, then lets explain it this way. Lets say I own a business and pay each employee 10$ per hour. then, deflation happens and that 10$ becomes worth more. and because of that, prices drop and so does the amount of cash(not the value). If I continue paying my employees that same amount, I will be loosing more money unless I adjust it to where it should be or keep my prices the same(which will be a greater value than what it was before) So in other words, you will be costing businesses money unless the wages are dropped.

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.

I don't think I need to explain this one, unless you are dense about certain currencies being worth a certain value, too.

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.

And you think a crackdown wouldn't have the same result? maybe work better than dropping off minimum wage? As you pointed out, companies won't pay their employees shitty wages, but they still will do it to illegals. even you said it would happen with or without minimum wage, so therefore, dropping the minimum wage will not stop or even drop the illegals problem any more than a good crackdown could.

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?

So by slowing down the rate of inflation(which means goods are still going to rise) can lead to the drop of prices and not just slow the increase in prices? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh my god you are such a moron. You really have no clue as to what causes inflation, deflation, or even what disinflation is, don't you? Did you know that disinflation can also lead to deflation? (which is what i'm talking about). Seriously, learn about what causes inflation and deflation before you say such a stupid thing like this in the future. you're killing yourself here.

If you understand that, why do you think people can't and shouldn't be paid what they're actually worth?
I never said people shouldn't be paid what they're actually worth, but to put things into perspective...

Why are they not being paid by what they are actually worth now, and how is not having minimum wage going to solve that and not just make the problem worse?

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

The goal of minimum wage is to ensure that workers are paid what they actually are worth and not a penny less. it is helping the exact people it is there to protect, and that is the low skilled workers.

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?

Because that's not how it works.If you push the minimum wage above the inflation rate, then you just make everybody else poorer.

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?

This is like saying because crime rate is up, we should pull every police officer off the street because we're "damned if you do and damned if you don't". On the same note, if it "changes nothing" why the hell are you fighting to get it abolished?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769

Omittance does not turn this into a matter of attrition when it is I who have been omitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ DIN365

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.

All that and you still can't come up with an answer how the elimination of minimum wage will send china's GDP up, and not the fact that it's simply a much bigger manufacturing country of 1.3 billion and would have happened regardless of minimum wage or lack of.

No minimum wage » Increased employment » Increased consumer spending » Increased business profits » Expansion of business » Higher GDP

How can you blame minimum wage causing inflation, when minimum wage itself has lost it's value and is behind the inflation rate?

An increase of the minimum wage raises the cost of labor. You've already stated what happens when you raise the cost of labor:

Minimum wage is causing inflation, because businesses are raising their prices for goods and services to help pay for the labor.

So minimum wage causing inflation or even making dent in inflation=busted.

How does a list of American recessions prove the minimum wage doesn't cause a dent in inflation? What the fuck?

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.

Only for unsuccessful businesses, but if you are making a good amount of money, it shouldn't matter either way. it's not like minimum wage will be above the inflation rate anyways(even though it's below it now), so this arguement is absolutely useless.

The minimum wage does not have to be above the rate of inflation for an increase in costs to matter. An increase in costs is an increase in costs. If I am paying my workers $6 now, but will have to pay them $7 an hour next week, how does that 'not matter'?

The cost of labor should naturally inflate just like the cost of everything else. Just because milk and cheese went up 6% does not mean the cost of a new car also went up 6%. Those things have completely independent commodity values. You can't raise the cost of labor 6% just because the "national average rate of inflation" is 6%. When you raise the minimum wage, you're making assumptions as to what the cost of labor in the marketplace ACTUALLY is. Any increase in the minimum wage is an assumed value. Prove that it isn't then maybe you'll have an argument.

The national average is far to broad to properly calculate what the minimum wage should be, this is why so many individual states have a minimum wage completely out of line with what the federal government mandates. Evenstill, it remains an assumed value. The only way I see it working is if the minimum wage were calculated locally within every city in the U.S., but even then, it's not beneficial for anyone.

Cool extreme case scenario bro

Tell that to our finance minister jim flaharity and the bank of Canada. I'm sure they would love to hear how if the loonie overshot the greenback it wouldn't hurt trade and canadian business.

To be completely honest, I am unfamiliar with Canadian affairs, however your example is ridiculous. By your logic, every country with a currency that's valued less than the American dollar would be trading more than us [Americans]. That obviously isn't the case. Sure the value of a nations currency plays a part in trade negotiations, but not to a degree even close to what you presented.

Please rephrase

So yeah, on paper it may appear cheaper, ... []

So you can't understand that if a money's value increases, it's worth more too? ok, then lets explain it this way. Lets say I own a business and pay each employee 10$ per hour. then, deflation happens and that 10$ becomes worth more. and because of that, prices drop and so does the amount of cash(not the value). If I continue paying my employees that same amount, I will be loosing more money unless I adjust it to where it should be or keep my prices the same(which will be a greater value than what it was before) So in other words, you will be costing businesses money unless the wages are dropped.

Not necessarily. When the value of money goes up prices WILL fall, but the consumption of goods and services will increase. You haven't taken that into account. Your statement declaring "if I continue paying my employees the same amount, I would be losing more money" is false. In an instance where people have more money, it's your job as a businessman to increase your volume of sales. Deflation is only a bad thing when the markets are unable to capitalize on the increased consumer purchasing power, thus resulting in an overall decrease in demand and production. Disinflation as I mentioned can result in increased consumer purchasing power while reducing the potential of a deflationary spiral. That distinction between the two is very important.

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.

Addressed this in a prior quote. [To be completely honest, I am...]

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.

And you think a crackdown wouldn't have the same result? maybe work better than dropping off minimum wage? As you pointed out, companies won't pay their employees shitty wages, but they still will do it to illegals. even you said it would happen with or without minimum wage, so therefore, dropping the minimum wage will not stop or even drop the illegals problem any more than a good crackdown could.

Fair point. It's tough to know which could provide the superior outcome. The incentive is still there if all you do is a crackdown while keeping minimum wage in place. Would you support annual crackdowns? Is it better to punish the dog for drinking the toilet water, or to put the toilet seat down?

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?

So by slowing down the rate of inflation(which means goods are still going to rise) can lead to the drop of prices and not just slow the increase in prices? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh my god you are such a moron. You really have no clue as to what causes inflation, deflation, or even what disinflation is, don't you? Did you know that disinflation can also lead to deflation? (which is what i'm talking about). Seriously, learn about what causes inflation and deflation before you say such a stupid thing like this in the future. you're killing yourself here.

Fail.

In an economic sense, slowing down the increase of prices IS a drop in prices. If the cost of bread annually rises by 5 cents, but this year it only went up 2 cents, you just saved money. You now have 3 cents to apply to another purchase. Of course, the cost of bread is a very small example, but you get the picture. Disinflation, in most cases, is good for the consumer and for businesses because people can buy more shit than before. Deflation can be good for a while, but long term deflation is horrible.

If you understand that, why do you think people can't and shouldn't be paid what they're actually worth?
I never said people shouldn't be paid what they're actually worth, but to put things into perspective...

Why are they not being paid by what they are actually worth now...

There is a price floor on the cost of labor.

[] how is not having minimum wage going to solve [the problem of people being paid what their worth] and not just make the problem worse?

I've already explained how it won't make the problem worse. You've been trying to argue how it will, and have failed miserably. Eliminating the minimum wage will allow standard market forces to be applied to the cost of labor. It will increase the employability of low skill workers, and eliminate a major barrier of entry into the workforce, increasing employment.

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

The goal of minimum wage is to ensure that workers are paid what they actually are worth and not a penny less. it is helping the exact people it is there to protect, and that is the low skilled workers.

No, the minimum wage does not protect low skilled workers. I've already explained 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.

If you can't refute that, you have no basis for claiming the minimum wage "helps the exact people it's there to protect." The minimum wage does NOT protect low skilled workers.

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?

Because that's not how it works.If you push the minimum wage above the inflation rate, then you just make everybody else poorer.

Ahh yes, here is where your entire position falls apart like a poorly constructed LEGO megazord. If you don't put the minimum wage at a level above the inflation rate, how does it help anyone? Either the minimum wage will stay below the inflaton rate, effectively keeping wages the same while making it harder for low skilled workers to acquire jobs, or, the minimum wage is above the inflation rate and fucks everyone. Good luck trying to explain your way out of that conundrum.

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?

This is like saying because crime rate is up, we should pull every police officer off the street because we're "damned if you do and damned if you don't". On the same note, if it "changes nothing" why the hell are you fighting to get it abolished?

It doesn't need to be there if all it does is fuck shit up. It changes nothing for the people it's supposed to help, and fucks everyone else.

Shit you missed:

1. 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.

2. How does the minimum wage benefit those who receive it?

Remember, feel free to re-ask me anything of yours I failed to address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Pharaoh Atem

Sorry Atem. Everytime I got to drafting a response for you, other shit came up. I wanted to argue Plato, but I just didn't have the mind to do it. Meh, here you go.

-----

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.

This is simply one of our idealogical differences, which can't really be argued in the context of this debate. Well, it can be argued, but I don't see it leading us anywhere. If I were to chart how I feel about the world right now using your scale, it would look something like this [notch represents where we are now]:

BAD <----------|--------------------> GOOD

I'm positive yours looks something more like this:

BAD <--------------------|----------> GOOD

You assume the worst in people while hoping for the best, which must really fuck up your overall world view - witnessing daily that which is the opposite of what you hoped for.

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...

This is a toughie. I honestly can't answer it. Maybe something one of us says later with help me answer this. NOTED.

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.

I agree. One thing I'll note is that I'm arguing to reduce the amount of starving people.

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

American's are the most charitable people on earth. Of course we could always give more, but that fact shouldn't be ignored.

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.

Fair enough. I'm arguing that the elimination of the minimum wage would do more to solve the problems of homelessness and starvation than the pro-minimum wage position. So, in response to your position:

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

The ethical concerns are primarily denoted to those at the bottom, so I shall argue for them. The minimum wage does not meet the needs of those amoung us who most require a job. It limits the hireability of the lowest skilled leading these people to a position of sad unfulfilled ambition if not complete homelessness and/or starvation and death. Eliminating the minimum wage would open up new doors for these workers that were otherwise hammered shut. Despite their lack of skills, they would be employable. It's better to have a job with a low wage than to have no job at all.

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.

<3

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.

In a no-min-wage system their power over you is permitted only by your own refusal and/or inability to educate yourself. An overhauling of the welfare system could fix this problem.

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.

Again, these instances will occur with or without the minimum wage. However, if you eliminate the minimum wage, you could use the increased tax revenue to fund better welfare.

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.

Businesses are in most cases hiring and paying these people an amount which correlates with their abilites. The problem is when you have people with extremely low abilities, and you are unable to pay them an appropriate amount because the government states how low you can go.

"This guy here can only do $2 worth of work, sadly, we can only hire those able to do $7.25 worth of work. We aren't allowed to pay people $2."

"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 []

This isn't economically or even rationally feasible. Lets say I do go ahead and hire the guy who can only mop floors for the full $7.25. What then does the drive-thru lady/cashier receive; $7.50, $8? If you also pay the cashier an amount around $7.25, you're devaluing her work and experience. You're making what she does less important than the guy who just mops. You're making her work harder to receive the same wage that the "lazy guy" makes. Unless you pay her $15, $20, you've effectively made her a slave, and everyone else above her as well. Of course, if you pay her $20, everything stays the same.

[] 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.

Then you should definitely support my position.

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

Did you mistakenly omit something here?

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.

The economic system is what's in the center of the ethical vs. unethical venn diagram. You and I both would like to see it completely encapsulated under the ethical banner, but the nature of economics makes that arrangement an impossibility. The economic system is driven by the unregulated selfish desires of money grubbing assholes who scoff at the thought of a tax increase used to clothe the homeless. The guides by which most people on this earth live their lives, religions, are ones that both directly and indirectly support a selfish worldview. The only way to change that perspective is through education, not enforcement.

Your idea of how people should live their lives is very Platonic if not completely utopian. You realize that people are inherently self-centered assholes who want to be left to their own devices while at the same time believing government should legislate the whole of their lives for the greater good. Humanity simply won't adhere to that kind of doctrine, regardless of how "socially righteous" it may be. As you said:

[] Variables, such as folks' drive to hold extravagance even as others starve, come to mind. [] Insofar as that drive, no law can fix it, bar folks consenting to public review of private spending and earning.

You realize that it won't work, but in the end, that's what you are arguing for. What do I do here? Hiring unemployed low skilled people and making society buy things which lead to greater employment oppurtunites is awfully rightous and noble, but not in any way realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honkey Kong    11
No minimum wage » Increased employment » Increased consumer spending » Increased business profits » Expansion of business » Higher GDP

So in that case, china should be higher in GDP than it is right now if that were true. You have failed to prove either case aside from your assumption that businesses won't pocket the extra money and not hire anybody else, which is something we both know damn well is what will happen.

So instead of spewing some mantra that is just growing tired, try proving your stance once in a while and maybe I'll take you seriously when you claim no minimum wage will increase employment.

An increase of the minimum wage raises the cost of labor. You've already stated what happens when you raise the cost of labor

Minimum wage is causing inflation, because businesses are raising their prices for goods and services to help pay for the labor.

That's what I said, but after reveiwing the facts on inflation and looking at inflation vs minimum wage, I can say with confidence that I was actually wrong. With that being said, how can minimum wage cause inflation, when the value of minimum wage has decreased, but the inflation rate has stayed he same?

How does a list of American recessions prove the minimum wage doesn't cause a dent in inflation? What the fuck?

So here we go with the invention of arguements,seeing how you have yet to explain the decrease in value of minimum wage, and the inflation rate staying the same. try again.

The minimum wage does not have to be above the rate of inflation for an increase in costs to matter.

But that's the thing, if minimum wage is below the rate of inflation, your costs are actually going down.

An increase in costs is an increase in costs. If I am paying my workers $6 now, but will have to pay them $7 an hour next week, how does that 'not matter'?

Because the value of 6$ from the previous week, will be the same as the value of 7$ the next week, and could possibly be less.

The cost of labor should naturally inflate just like the cost of everything else.

And it has.

Just because milk and cheese went up 6% does not mean the cost of a new car also went up 6%. Those things have completely independent commodity values.

And yet, you see stock boys working for minimum wages, and car salesmen that don't.

You can't raise the cost of labor 6% just because the "national average rate of inflation" is 6%.

Sure you can, because the amount of money you make is now 6% more worthless. I'm starting to think you have no clue what inflation even is. you're just assuming it's making everything more "expensive". I have a feeling I am going to have to give you a basic economics lesson on inflation when I'm done here because you are obviously not getting it.

When you raise the minimum wage, you're making assumptions as to what the cost of labor in the marketplace ACTUALLY is.

only in 3% of it, which fails to explain the other 97% making more than minimum wage. Are you saying that the other 97% are actually undeserving of the wages they are getting now?

Any increase in the minimum wage is an assumed value.

An undercutted value at that.

Prove to me that some fat fuck at a desk deserves 20$ an hour more than some joe blow making minimum wage working his or her ass off to keep a bunch of pissed off, hungry customers happy at a rate lower than what he or she could be making.

The national average is far to broad to properly calculate what the minimum wage should be, this is why so many individual states have a minimum wage completely out of line with what the federal government mandates. Evenstill, it remains an assumed value. The only way I see it working is if the minimum wage were calculated locally within every city in the U.S., but even then, it's not beneficial for anyone
you think no minimum wage would be beneficial?

To be completely honest, I am unfamiliar with Canadian affairs, however your example is ridiculous. By your logic, every country with a currency that's valued less than the American dollar would be trading more than us [Americans]. That obviously isn't the case. Sure the value of a nations currency plays a part in trade negotiations, but not to a degree even close to what you presented.

Actually, by my logic, every country with a cheaper commodity via weaker dollar would be outrading in that feild.

Better yet, lets do some reading on NAFTA and how trade across the border affects it, shall we?

the Canadian dollar rose sharply in value against the US currency, making Canadian manufactured goods much more expensive for Americans to buy, and making American manufactured goods much cheaper for Canadians, who no longer had to pay high duties on them

the Canadian dollar fell to record lows in value to against the U.S. dollar. Cheaper Canadian primary products such as lumber and oil could be bought tariff-free by Americans

So in other words, Americans could buy more off Canadians because it was cheaper. In this case, Americans were able to buy lumber and oil off us for a low price.

When the value of money goes up prices WILL fall, but the consumption of goods and services will increase.You haven't taken that into account. Your statement declaring "if I continue paying my employees the same amount, I would be losing more money" is false. In an instance where people have more money, it's your job as a businessman to increase your volume of sales. Deflation is only a bad thing when the markets are unable to capitalize on the increased consumer purchasing power, thus resulting in an overall decrease in demand and production. Disinflation as I mentioned can result in increased consumer purchasing power while reducing the potential of a deflationary spiral. That distinction between the two is very important.

So in other words, businesses will have to sell more shit to make up for the loss in money being dished out in employees, which is how you justify downplaying businesses taking a slight hit in profit(overall). So to simply put, the consumers are getting the benefits, businesses are taking the hit overall. thanks for proving my point.

In an economic sense, slowing down the increase of prices IS a drop in prices. If the cost of bread annually rises by 5 cents, but this year it only went up 2 cents, you just saved money. You now have 3 cents to apply to another purchase.

Not if your wages don't increase, which in this case, you will have 2 cents less to apply to another purchase. So sorry, but as you say "an increase is an increase"

There is a price floor on the cost of labor.

Nice dodge and edit out of "Why are they not being paid by what they are actually worth now". You still haven't explained to me what a mcdonalds employee "is worth". I can tell you that they are worth every penny they are getting now, because they have to put up with alot more shit and do more work than than some other jobs I can think of that pay more than minimum wage. just one example of someone making more than "their worth" is a telemarketer. those bastards make 11$ per hour just to sit on their ass all day to sell people shit over the phone in an air conditioned office, while a mcdonalds employee is making les than that in a boiling hot kitchen, flipping burgers, making fries, mopping floors, and basically multitasking sometimes on busy nights, and you are basically sitting right here, saying they don't deserve it and companies should cut their pay "to save money". I seriously want you to get off your ass, get a job at one of these places, work there for a while, come back, and try to tell me that they don't deserve it. I've done it, and I knowq for a fact that the 8$ per hour I made while doing it was every penny earned and that was four years ago.

1. 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.

How can they run themself out of business when there's 97% of the population to make a quick buck off of? they don't give a shit about the 3%, except to use them as cheap labor. that's all the rationale a business needs and won't hurt "consumerism" in the smallest way possible, while maximizing profit.

Ahh yes, here is where your entire position falls apart like a poorly constructed LEGO megazord. If you don't put the minimum wage at a level above the inflation rate, how does it help anyone? Either the minimum wage will stay below the inflaton rate, effectively keeping wages the same while making it harder for low skilled workers to acquire jobs, or, the minimum wage is above the inflation rate and fucks everyone. Good luck trying to explain your way out of that conundrum.

Then can you explain why there are plenty of low-skilled workers working out here in Alberta right now, even with the rate of labor above minimum wage? The only way "low skilled" workers even get fucked in the first place, is due to job scarcity. As a matter of fact, alot of low-skiled workers now days are minimum wage earners, so therefore, it is protecting them from being low-balled than they already are. so much for you unescapeable paradox.

2. How does the minimum wage benefit those who receive it?

simple. it at least provides enough income to at least pay for a roof over your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769
@ Pharaoh Atem

Sorry Atem. Everytime I got to drafting a response for you, other shit came up. I wanted to argue Plato, but I just didn't have the mind to do it. Meh, here you go.

I see others as no more than Thrasymachus, and in seeing this in others I find explanation to all the troubles of the world.

Plato with me is inadvisable.

-----

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.

This is simply one of our idealogical differences, which can't really be argued in the context of this debate. Well, it can be argued, but I don't see it leading us anywhere. If I were to chart how I feel about the world right now using your scale, it would look something like this [notch represents where we are now]:

BAD <----------|--------------------> GOOD

I'm positive yours looks something more like this:

BAD <--------------------|----------> GOOD

You assume the worst in people while hoping for the best, which must really fuck up your overall world view - witnessing daily that which is the opposite of what you hoped for.

Precisely, my boy. The reason I am twenty-one with the attitude and mannerisms I have is because I have seen too often the evil inherent in those who work for the few rather than the many, and directly dealt with the repercussions.

All that lofty economic talk, compared to the things I and others like me have lived, is nothing. By far the greatest flaw to the anti-minwage position is its existence in a near-vacuum in most cases - and how it was undesirably shitty in all circumstances where it wasn't in a vacuum.

Although, it may be arguable that the shittiness is not endemic so much to that position, but to capitalism as a whole - at least, to capitalism that seeks to reap profit from the elements that dictate human health. Essentially, in civilized areas, having those necessities available at any beck and call is to be inescapable; a proper capitalism exists to distribute extravagance, not the things that DECIDE IF YOU EXIST IN THE FUTURE.

I can understand investing more time and effort to get something that is more valuable; but just as there should be a baseline wage, there should be baseline food that doesn't disgust proper sensibilities (i.e., nutritious as needed for the body of the person in question, and pleasing to said person's palate, sight, and/or smell, so that there is no revulsion in eating it), baseline clothing that doesn't do the same (i.e., protects from the elements that one wants stopped at the time, while also pleasing to the senses such that there is no revulsion in stopping those elements), and baseline shelter that doesn't do the same (i.e., does the same stuff as clothing, it's just bigger and able to store what you accrue in a non-nomadic life).

The baseline wage should be able to afford this.

Now, then, the baseline wage doesn't afford this for most; I find this not a problem with the wage, because of the wage serving as a way to do with one's life what he or she wants based upon time traded for that wage... but with the prices set for everything else!

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...

This is a toughie. I honestly can't answer it. Maybe something one of us says later with help me answer this. NOTED.

No one can answer it, because no one has the data. I reccomend you surrender the cop example and try something else to counter my point.

Then again, I doubt that no one can answer it with any other example, either; all I said originally was "we've no proof that folks aren't going to fuck up some time in the future, because we've no proof that humans aren't a lousy lot - we only have explanations that are incomplete and fall short."

This is more or less fact.

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.

I agree. One thing I'll note is that I'm arguing to reduce the amount of starving people.

Reduction isn't good enough; reduction to minimum is all that matters. Every victory is a waste of our time until we get to the final victory against that beast.

I will not let anyone except myself starve again, if given the chance within my power to avert it. It happened to me once - not starving to death, just starving in general - and now I know the true value of food. How dare folks consider profit superior to charity in this case, without proving once and for all that our suffering is necessary?

And how dare anyone - anyone at all - treat the downtrodden with anything but the utmost respect and gratitude? By being in the world's LOWEST stations, they OCCUPY those stations in the system in place, the system that CREATED the good things you enjoy. THEIR role is by far the least enjoyable, and we dare treat them like mere chattel. A hearty "fuck CEOs" might fit here.

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

American's are the most charitable people on earth. Of course we could always give more, but that fact shouldn't be ignored.

Get more sources verifying this. It's possible but I don't like to take just one entity's word for any claim that proclaims "we're the best" when we ourselves are part of the "we" being lauded.

Be it true or false, the only use this fact has is that it should make us cognizant that someone's outdoing everyone else; this is fine in case of someone giving more profit because they made more profit, and giving based on attitudes is fine, but the simple nature of the situation is that this should make the losers feel compelled to beat the winners.

In this case, it's BAD to be the winner because for all our superior giving, shit's still bad, so we are NOT the cool guy who has everything going on.

As for religion and low taxes being the reason why, well, guess what? PEOPLE ARE STILL STARVING, so it's obviously not working, either here or anywhere else.

This is generally why the concept of not taking everyone on the damn planet, finding out their wants and NEEDS, and then HANDLING ALL THE NEEDS before any fucking thing else seems such a stupid one to me. In permitting anyone to handle wants and needs simultaneously, in letting anyone give in to the weakwilled decision of saying "I can't abstain from that unneeded desire, so either I or someone else am going to have to suffer for it"

you invite all the problems in the world.

High taxes for typical liberalist programs simply serve to enforce greater local giving. The need for charity in the third world was born of capitalistic, imperialistic, religious, racist, and all other manner of terrible desires running that third world roughshod. Our nations owe a fucking debt to those puny little tribes we ran over in all sorts of places, so forgive me if I can't see our mentioning "Americans give the most" as some cry-me-a-river trek to achieve absolution for those past crimes. Fuck absolution, folks are dying so it's obviously not here yet.

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.

Fair enough. I'm arguing that the elimination of the minimum wage would do more to solve the problems of homelessness and starvation than the pro-minimum wage position. So, in response to your position:

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

The ethical concerns are primarily denoted to those at the bottom, so I shall argue for them. The minimum wage does not meet the needs of those amoung us who most require a job. It limits the hireability of the lowest skilled leading these people to a position of sad unfulfilled ambition if not complete homelessness and/or starvation and death. Eliminating the minimum wage would open up new doors for these workers that were otherwise hammered shut. Despite their lack of skills, they would be employable. It's better to have a job with a low wage than to have no job at all.

That's better.

The concept of the minimum wage limiting the desirability of the lowest-skilled is tied to the idea of folks thinking that people don't deserve the minimums - in essence, to come to that conclusion folks HAVE TO ASSUME THAT someone doesn't deserve it.

Why, you say? Probably because they can't afford to pay that much.

Why can't they afford it though? If there's any luxury, any extravagance, in the hands of the person who is doing the hiring, they're a fucking LIAR about being unable to pay. Only when without extravagance can we say we cannot pay and not lie to others about it. Not willing to part with necessity = one's own life; not willing to part with extravagance = telling others to give up their life for something smaller than your own life.

I think that people, possibly myself included, are so into extravagance that we are mentally ill, hence why capitalism STICKS so well even as folks die in the crossfire.

Now, you could argue for lowering the minimum wage and also lowering the cost of basic necessities. That argument may work a little better to satisfy all angles.

There're just a lot of little necessities I can think of for civilized life that go outside of the basic 3 for simple human life; for civil, we need communicative means easily accessed at all times for personal and public purposes, and transportative means easily accessed at all times for the same (Most of us have a limited form of that in walking; but we can't get across the world in a timely manner easily, now can we?) That's where the challenge lies; I for one know my family would fret to death if they couldn't contact me every week or two, or see me whenever something big happens.

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.

In a no-min-wage system their power over you is permitted only by your own refusal and/or inability to educate yourself. An overhauling of the welfare system could fix this problem.

Welfare I see as an inextricable minimum wage of sorts, such that a proper welfare would bring all parties up to the poverty line dependent upon how short they fall based upon their occupational wage. Suffice it to say that the minimum doesn't quite work to get you above that line in all cities.

Now, the conception I have of today's welfare is that you get X amount of help regardless of how far short you fall. I'm not too keen on this, so I hope it's wrong.

Regardless, the two systems are wedded by how the entire heart of the minwage line is that of social welfare at the expense of profit. It is essentially a form of murder to choose extravagance over the life of another already-existing person; how we change the wage is up for debate, but when one argues to destroy it, they don't realize that the only logical conclusion reachable in saying to "destroy" a safety net is to destroy all of them. Any change that results in us still having a net enforced by infallible law... is not "removal" nor "destruction" nor "elimination". It is "modification".

Your position is thus not a position of removing minimum wage, but changing it. The outlook is much rosier. I reccomend you FIX this in your statements.

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.

Again, these instances will occur with or without the minimum wage. However, if you eliminate the minimum wage, you could use the increased tax revenue to fund better welfare.

Find how this takes burden away from those that don't need it, and places it on those who do.

You also assume that we will profit from this - that in dropping a minimum wage and changing other matters we will somehow have more money to spend on the needy. I find this to make no sense without assuming that businesses as a whole will all reap greater individual profit.

Such an assumption boils down to one thing - an assumption that the minimum wage and the perceived attitudes in relation to it do not motivate the workers in any special way. Regardless of whether a wage is minimum or not, $7.25 is still $7.25, and it is unlikely that the neediest of us have the time, energy, or education to think about the power of their wage in most ways other than how big that number actually is, rather than how it seems in relation to everything else.

Lowering the minimum wage simply to take money from folks in some other way for some other government welfare method is ultimately a pointless venture unless we can prove that the minimum wage and that higher tax revenue would not drain the same amount of wealth from those businesses.

If anything, I find that aiming for tax revenue as a way to fix this, rather than a minimum wage, is a way to cut the wealthy another break. Sure, we can write it off as "making it possible for them to hire weaker workers", but that's just us lying to ourselves; those people have extravagance in their lives, so they could always hire weaker workers. They're just not willing to - which makes them complicit in anything bad that happens to those weaker workers.

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.

Businesses are in most cases hiring and paying these people an amount which correlates with their abilites. The problem is when you have people with extremely low abilities, and you are unable to pay them an appropriate amount because the government states how low you can go.

"This guy here can only do $2 worth of work, sadly, we can only hire those able to do $7.25 worth of work. We aren't allowed to pay people $2."

That's the thing - there's an assumption that the business is the only entity that can judge the worth of a worker's ability.

The minimum wage policy is a direct challenge to that; there is, literally, no worker on American soil that does not deserve a federal minwage as long as he is actually able to fulfill the assignment given to him.

I admit that certain persons cannot fulfill any sort of assignment; these persons are unable to work as a result. But this is not because of a minimum wage, but a lack of ability in the person; welfare should remedy this lack if possible, and if not possible, probably because of a mental problem, then the person is to be placed in the care of either a private citizen or the state itself.

My point is that those who say "this guy can only do $2 worth of work" are not adopting a position that is against minimum wages; essentially, they adopt a position that the current minimum is simply too high to match what they feel is the true worth of the work that one's weakest worker can do.

Never we mind how the judgment of those persons is illegitimate when extravagance dirties their reasoning.

"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 []

This isn't economically or even rationally feasible. Lets say I do go ahead and hire the guy who can only mop floors for the full $7.25. What then does the drive-thru lady/cashier receive; $7.50, $8? If you also pay the cashier an amount around $7.25, you're devaluing her work and experience. You're making what she does less important than the guy who just mops. You're making her work harder to receive the same wage that the "lazy guy" makes. Unless you pay her $15, $20, you've effectively made her a slave, and everyone else above her as well. Of course, if you pay her $20, everything stays the same.

Good job proving to me that it is rationally and logically feasible - in two different ways.

Assuming that "only mopping the floors" is a job worthy of minimum, then the cashier deserves that much higher wage. It's only logical.

Assuming that "only mopping the floors" isn't worthy of what the minimum actually should be, guess what? That doesn't mean that there's a problem with the minimum wage. It means that there's a problem with thinking that "only mopping the floors" could ever be a job, even if the minimum were lower.

The minimum requires a minimum output; and I fear that simply mopping a small establishment doesn't meet that at all, regardless of how high or low the minimum wage is. If one cannot do that because of factors that they have no control over, it's regrettable in the sense that they can't do a minimum standard of work for a wage. (Volunteering for forms of work that aren't concerned with profit, though, exists as a very easy remedy to this matter; if they want to do something with themselves to help others, we're not stopping them - their needs for wages and necessities should be taken care of regardless.)

[] 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.

Then you should definitely support my position.

You're bad with words sometimes, as we all are - your position claims to be a removal of the minimum, whereas it has since been revealed to be a change of the minimum. A change, an improvement, is always welcome, so don't act like folks don't support improvement - you just need to give a more rigorous proof.

The issue is with the MO of that improvement, and feared repercussions - oh, and when you say you're going to destroy the minimum, you (again) lead directly to the logical conclusion of "pulling the bottom out from under us".

Simply put, some if not all of those not hired are hireable and not hired because of folks choosing extravagance over helping others.

It is possible that others might simply not be hireable in any proper conditions. These people are needy of something, sure; but of jobs, they are not. They are needy of proper use of their time, something to occupy them so that they don't go stircrazy; but of jobs, they are not.

This does not show a problem with the minimum wage so much as a problem with choosing one's own extravagance over the necessity of others. (Peter Singer again.)

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

Did you mistakenly omit something here?

I sometimes forget to finish my sentences.

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.

The economic system is what's in the center of the ethical vs. unethical venn diagram. You and I both would like to see it completely encapsulated under the ethical banner, but the nature of economics makes that arrangement an impossibility. The economic system is driven by the unregulated selfish desires of money grubbing assholes who scoff at the thought of a tax increase used to clothe the homeless. The guides by which most people on this earth live their lives, religions, are ones that both directly and indirectly support a selfish worldview. The only way to change that perspective is through education, not enforcement.

Education is a form of enforcement in this country - re: truancy - and enforcement has its own educational properties - re: if I do X, people will do Y to me in response, and that's bad, so either I stop doing X or I stop them from doing Y.

Simply put, you argue it impossible; I argue it impossible only insofar as we choose not to do it. Economics are unethical because some plurality doesn't want it to be, either as a team working together, or as a bunch of chaotic individual agents. This is nothing more than the tyrrany of the majority feared in the Federalist.

As the utmost final educative resort, how about we force people to be poor, to struggle, some of the time, maybe once a year? And I mean everyone. If it takes folks having to go through pain to understand pain, that's the price that must be paid for us to be ethical - folks need to know what it's like to deeply fear for their lives to truly be citizens worth respecting.

I am unwilling to draw the line and say "if we have to go really far to be ethical, then I don't want to be ethical." Such thought is tantamount to absurdity, and more or less serves as a rhetoric of "I'm not listening lalalalalala" against ethical argument. Ethics either exist or don't exist; but saying "I don't want to go that far to find out" is nothing more than folks choosing to ignore the question and do whatever the fuck they want.

If the only way to change this is through education and time, that's of course perfectly fine; do not think me the type to need the change to happen twenty minutes ago, because thinking that sort of thing is to think me to be a child in mind and emotion. It's quite clear that I'm an old man in regard to a lot of this.

You point out that ethics aren't perfectly compatible with economics: if so, economics' portions that aren't compatible are to be modified or destroyed such that it becomes perfectly ethical. The consequences of this in regards to things other than ethics do not matter; all that ever matters, period, in terms of justice is whether or not what is "right" is done, and only ethics can guide that. Nothing else can, not even adherence to vague political principles; of course, adherence to them may be guided by ethics, but only ethics sits at the top as the infallible shit.

Beside all that, you claim impossibility when you have no knowledge of the future, but instead mere expectations. Unlike my claim about humans lapsing, which is a claim about our lack of knowledge, your claim is a claim that requires knowledge - thus it falls terribly short. Your claim presumes first off that people suck, and secondly that people will always suck. It's more pessimistic than I've ever been in this whole thread, and I'm a darkminded son of a bitch. It's wholly defeatist, and has no business here, because of how it lets that defeatism run logic roughshod - logic's forecast is always "wait and see". I know you're better than that, so don't write humans off moreso than logic calls for.

(As for what I said earlier, the only reason I get away with it is because we truly DON'T KNOW if folks will lapse or not, so we can't be too optimistic either. Logic agrees, ergo I'm not hammered for the remark.)

Your idea of how people should live their lives is very Platonic if not completely utopian.

It's a forecast of "the way things ought to be", just like your initial position. The only difference of note between it and your initial position, aside from the components of economics each position would support, would be how complete the positions are; whereas yours started with economics alone, mine starts with the human condition alone, and says "fuck anything that doesn't fix all these things in the human condition."

You realize that people are inherently self-centered assholes who want to be left to their own devices while at the same time believing government should legislate the whole of their lives for the greater good. Humanity simply won't adhere to that kind of doctrine, regardless of how "socially righteous" it may be. As you said:

[] Variables, such as folks' drive to hold extravagance even as others starve, come to mind. [] Insofar as that drive, no law can fix it, bar folks consenting to public review of private spending and earning.

You realize that it won't work, but in the end, that's what you are arguing for.

You conjoin "realizing it won't work" with "arguing that it should work", and act like this is a problem.

This is the pattern endemic with ALL "way it ought to be" stances, including yours.

You assume "humanity won't adhere"; this forecast of yours requires humanity to remain constant in a position against my rhetoric. Humanity is not constant in many things except its societal change - hence why it's so easy for me to say "we could lapse at any time". We truly could. We might even "lapse" right into my hands.

Further, the passage of mine you quote says "bar folks consenting to public review". This is precisely how it would work; you assume folks will never consent to it, and I've illustrated the problem with that forecast.

What do I do here? Hiring unemployed low skilled people and making society buy things which lead to greater employment oppurtunites is awfully rightous and noble, but not in any way realistic.

Ultimately, you beg the question; in deriding something as unrealistic, you go further than calling it difficult or unlikely; you assume it impossible.

It boils down to "people suck" being both one of your premises AND your conclusion.

Sure, people suck right now. The education and time necessary may last centuries. It might even be very bloody. But it's worth it to simply find out whether it even exists or not.

You say "what do I do here". This isn't a problem solely with you, but with everyone; that sort of focus, focus only on you, may be part of the problem. Still, it's a perfectly valid question

So, what do we all do? We humans able to communicate and adhere to logic review our lives and decide what each human being truly deserves during this calendar year as necessities. It is to be provided, no questions asked, available at any time.

The prerequisites for this would be the communicative, transportative, nourishing, protective elements I mentioned before.

Everything else is fair game for the market - a capitalism of pure extravagance.

And as for those without the ability to communicate with others and adhere to logic, they are to be educated relentlessly; we can never know if someone is without the ability to learn those prerequisites for civilized life, so we who have the power to do those two things are obligated most strongly to relentlessly educate those without that power.

But what are you to do right now?

Why, be as generous as your own existence lets you, and rid yourself of what extravagances you can. In essence, commit to the effort in total, not in part; it is possible to be part of both the problem and the solution; convert parts of yourself from problem to solution.

What does that mean in terms of actual actions you yourself can do?

I don't know the details of your life, so I can only guess. Even you can only guess, because you don't know the details of others' lives.

A fully shared mind would be pretty fucking useful for humanity. It'd really facilitate this shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomalous    2

I think it's pretty obvious minimum wage is not only a good thing, but a necessary thing. The primary sector has to come with some set of regulations for employers, otherwise, we're all virtually enslaved with no reasonable means for upward mobility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honkey Kong    11

http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/10/...e-minimum-wage/

Just a break down here of who makes minimum wage. As marc stated, you're not going to magically see a doctor work for minimum wage, and a majority of minimum wage earners are people who don't even have college degrees.

So teenagers with little to no experience and undereducated adults work for minimum wage, so the real question remains, is what does marc consider "low-skilled"? From the statistics I am seeing, it does not get any lower-skilled than that.

So in short, the minimum wage earners ARE the low-skilled workers, because if they did have any skills, they would be making more than that. So, how can it hurt low skilled workers, if it's low-skilled workers that are taking them in the first place?

EDIT: http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-art...mentid=22619311

Look familiar?

Finance Minister Dwight Duncan told the legislature that blending the five per cent goods and services tax with the provincial tax will lower costs for businesses, allowing them to cut prices for consumers and hire more staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, been busy. I'll try to reply to everyone today; if not today, then tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HeyyQT    47
I just want to argue for the sake of arguing... like a woman.

Question: Should the federal minimum wage law be abolished?

Yes, the minimum wage law should be abolished.

The primary argument in support of a minimum wage is that it affords people a standard quality of life. Without a minimum wage, people would presumably be forced into living in shacks as businesses insist on reducing pay rates. The problem with that is minimum wage leads to inflation, so any benefits that it brings with regards to allowing people to sustain a specific quality of life are far-and-between if not completely irrelevant. Wages are also tied directly to the cost of goods and services, so in theory, the cost of those goods would decrease in parallel with wages resulting in no change at all. If the majority of workers only make one dollar per hour, McDonalds certainly won't charge you a dollar for a hamburger.

Eliminating the minimum wage creates jobs. Business would no longer have to ship jobs overseas as there would no longer be a high cap in pay that they would be forced to meet. It also makes American businesses more competitive on a global scale as it increases efficiency and productivity. It would also increase the employability of handicapped and low-skilled workers.

You're a fucking idiot with no knowledge of economics. That was the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34681
I just want to argue for the sake of arguing... like a woman.

Question: Should the federal minimum wage law be abolished?

Yes, the minimum wage law should be abolished.

The primary argument in support of a minimum wage is that it affords people a standard quality of life. Without a minimum wage, people would presumably be forced into living in shacks as businesses insist on reducing pay rates. The problem with that is minimum wage leads to inflation, so any benefits that it brings with regards to allowing people to sustain a specific quality of life are far-and-between if not completely irrelevant. Wages are also tied directly to the cost of goods and services, so in theory, the cost of those goods would decrease in parallel with wages resulting in no change at all. If the majority of workers only make one dollar per hour, McDonalds certainly won't charge you a dollar for a hamburger.

Eliminating the minimum wage creates jobs. Business would no longer have to ship jobs overseas as there would no longer be a high cap in pay that they would be forced to meet. It also makes American businesses more competitive on a global scale as it increases efficiency and productivity. It would also increase the employability of handicapped and low-skilled workers.

You're a fucking idiot with no knowledge of economics. That was the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Ignoring the fact that your assessment of his economic knowledge is completely accurate, you really do need to actually support your statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bazoo    5700

I think the people in this thread have failed to recognize the mathematics behind slow progression of the minimum wage. Scruffy made this post:

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.

This is kind of the heart behind Mar's argument. I don't really have enough time to read and pick apart every post, but here it goes.

Jumping the minimum wage up to that point will, yes, inflate the costs of everything. However, in a healthy economy, both the employees and employers will fight for their wage. Say, a person who wants a job at Blockbuster would demand $8.00 an hour (or else he'll just work somewhere else). If Blockbuster needs employees, it will have to hire him. Right now, even though our economy is unhealthy, people still generally demand above minimum wage (this is backed up by the idea that only 3% of workers actually work for minimum wage). This is a broad generalization but you can't really use anything else in this argument.

Okay, so now, there are -experts- making what the minimum wage is. They know the general workers' pays, and they also know the general standard of living--that is, how much one would need to live. Assuming the workers would work for less than minimum wage at an exorbitantly low $4.00, how is this equitable to them? They can not live on this. This happens in cases where the company can exploit the worker for that low pay due to workers being indispensable. When that happens, it is an efficient use of resources for the company, but not for the country. Those people are basically wasted spending potential, sacrificed for the sake of a company profit. No, they will not hire someone else, because they don't need to. I guess in some cases less costs will lead to expansion, but it's almost impossible to prove x company would not have failed if it weren't for minimum wage. Also, I find it unlikely minimum wage could outstrip the profit of a company that is bound for expansion anyway.

Inflation happens due to outside factors, and when there are mathematics behind minimum wage, these factors will definitely outpace anything minimum wage could do. This is why I said earlier that the notion that minimum wage would cause inflation is completely ridiculous. Maybe I should have added "when minimum wage is monitored." Minimum wage basically exists because of inflation, it does not -really- cause inflation. Inflation is a GENERAL rise in the cost of goods, and because, once again, only 3% of workers are paid this, it is incredibly unlikely that the cost of my milk and eggs will go up. This is due to competition. A grocery store can't charge a dollar extra for a gallon of milk due to one of its workers being paid an extra two dollars or whatever because the grocery store across the street probably won't do this. Also, people are definitely going to buy more than one milk in one hour of those min. wage workers working. The other factors in selling the milk are probably going to be irrelevant, as I doubt anyone else is willing to work for minimum wage in that process. Maybe the cost of a bean burrito from Taco Bell will go up, but this is not inflation on its own. I don't see how this can be argued at all. Minimum wage is so minimal (lol, get it?) compared to everything else in inflation that it does not matter.

From what I have read, D1N is using some terrible straw man arguments. But when he isn't, your rebuttals are completely retarded, Mar.

D1N: Statement, example backing it up

Marcustomized: THAT IS COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY AND STUPID LOL -statement ended-

Seriously, there has been some good discussion but it's been frustrating to see every post with some part of this in it. Once again, neither of you have really acknowledged the fact that minimum wage is set up according to the growth or shrink of the economy (then voted on, but it's a process). This is why increases happen slowly, so businesses (mostly small) are not overwhelmed by the change and will continue to hire workers as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769

MonsterRebornPG-JP-UR.jpg

I'm stickying this. This's been productive on all angles and is really what the forum should strive for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KOL40    1
sweatshops already effectively exist in Continental North America, just minimum wage keeps the broken financial settings they impose down a bit.

And them making less money HAPPENS already. I know the US hasnt had minimum wage changes in fucking ages but they happen in Canada more frequently and its only the bottom that ever changes.

They changed minimum wage last june/july. I agree with OP, as far as the inflation thing goes.

Back when i was working for this electrical company i made 9 an hour. They raised minimum wage, i think from like 6 something to 7 something. I didn't care, cause it didn't affect me...however many of my friends are HS/college kiddies. They are all excited cause they will be making more now. What i notice happening is that in the same two week span the minimum wage went up, so did the prices for EVERYTHING. The same thing i got for breakfast every morning rolling into work @ mcdonalds that was $3.78 now cost me $4.02. Movie tickets/concession rose (i also worked @ a movie theatre so i clearly remember this). Groceries went up.

Business were being required by law to increase their pay to many employees, thus decreasing their profits. Logically they just raised prices to even that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honkey Kong    11

It's funny how 3% of the population can have that effect on prices. don't you agree?

When the minimum wage goes up, only places with minimum wage workers raise their price is only an excuse to jack the price up slightly and make even more money. just sit down and think about this for one second and take notes on prices before and after the increases, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

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.

×