Are some people really incapable of being educated?? [Archive]

BaiHu

08-29-2013, 10:01 AM

Or are 'we the people' giving up on trying to wrest control of the uninitiated from the Snake Oil/Race Oil/Minority Oil/Low Wage Oil salesmen??

I'm sure we've all seen the lead up to this: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/fast-food-strikes-hit-cities-across-country-8C11028643

However, the idea of a minimum wage is a bad idea for all: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_15_05_TS.html

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/02/thomas-sowell-on-the-tragedy-of-the-minimum-wage/

If you're lazy, just listen to the youtube version to get the quick bullet points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jv1Zae0sgo

So do you think anyone can teach these 'strikers' a) the concepts mentioned above, b) the fact that Obama's Affordable Care Act is what is reducing their hours and driving up costs on their employers and c) since the recession/depression the gov't has been increasing the taxes paid by employers in order to offset a moronic bunch of do-gooders that would rather steal from Peter Taxpayer to pay Paul Whiner than actually encourage/entice/motivate Paul to go out and make something of him/herself?

My most cringe worthy quote was this:
"One of my paychecks, I only got $71 on there. So I wasn't able to do much with that. My daughter needs stuff, I need to get stuff for my apartment," said Davis, who plans to take part in the strike Thursday.

One major fail of logic that highlights 2 major problems with this type of thinking seen in this statement:
1) She only got $71. As if she's given less for some inexplicable reason. No, she EARNED $71. It's her wage X her hours = $71. There's no mystery. And don't tell me that got/earned are the same things to people who don't speak uppity like me. It's a failure of language that is leading her to a life of failure, not an arbitrary minimum wage.

2) She wasn't able to do much with that. Again, the assumption is that she was given too little to 'do something' with that. If she knew she was 'earning' something, maybe she'd go try to 'earn' more by doing something else. And don't give me the 'you don't know what her opportunities are' argument. SHE obviously doesn't know where/what her opportunities are and that's the biggest problem.

RoyGBiv

08-29-2013, 10:11 AM

Obama's failure to address this head-on will go down in history as one of the greatest missed opportunities of all time.

David Armstrong

08-29-2013, 10:45 AM

BaiHu

08-29-2013, 11:10 AM

Pretty much anyone can be educated. The problem is that education does not lead to everyone coming to the same conclusion on various issues. This happens to be one of them. Plenty of well-educated and highly qualified folks feel that raising the minimum wage is good for the economy:
http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/resources/Minimum_Wage_petition_website.pdf

But in practice, if it was.....then we'd see historical evidence and we don't.

The last time blacks had lower unemployment than Whites was before the Davis-Bacon Act. A quote from the link I posted:

The first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, was passed in part explicitly to prevent black construction workers from "taking jobs" from white construction workers by working for lower wages. It was not meant to protect black workers from "exploitation" but to protect white workers from competition.

Even aside from a racial context, minimum wage laws in countries around the world protect higher-paid workers from the competition of lower paid workers.

Often the higher-paid workers are older, more experienced, more skilled or more unionized. But many goods and services can be produced with either many lower skilled workers or fewer higher skilled workers, as well as with more capital and less labor or vice-versa. Employers' choices depend on the relative costs.

The net economic effect of minimum wage laws is to make less skilled, less experienced, or otherwise less desired workers more expensive -- thereby pricing many of them out of jobs. Large disparities in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, the skilled and the unskilled, and between different racial groups have been common consequences of minimum wage laws.

That is their effect whether the particular minimum wage law applies to one sector of the economy like the Davis-Bacon Act, to the whole economy like the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 or to particular local communities like so-called "living wage" laws and policies today.

The full effect of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was postponed by the wartime inflation of the 1940s, which raised wages above the level specified in the Act. Amendments to raise the minimum wage began in 1950 -- and so did the widening racial differential in unemployment, especially for young black men.

Where minimum wage rates are higher and accompanied by other worker benefits mandated by government to be paid by employers, as in France, unemployment rates are higher and differences in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, or between different racial or ethnic groups, are greater.

ETA: Not that I agree with a minimum wage, but $10.50 isn't even being argued here. It's $15, which is essentially 50% over what these generous economists are discussing.

Chuck Haggard

08-29-2013, 11:23 AM

At one point in my life was 19 years old, out of my apartment, living in my '72 Nova, lost my job and was kind of kittened up due to a workplace injury that they refused to do any work-comp on. I was living off of odd jobs and surviving on 8 for a dollar ramen noodles and such.

Just my perspective when I talk about people getting a freaking job and taking care of themselves. I get being poor, I also get doing something about it besides whining and begging.

David Armstrong

08-29-2013, 11:57 AM

But in practice, if it was.....then we'd see historical evidence and we don't.
Again, plenty of folks disagree with that opinion. It all depends on what you want to look at and what parameters you want to use.

The last time blacks had lower unemployment than Whites was before the Davis-Bacon Act. A quote from the link I posted:

If you think the unemployment rate of blacks is based to any significant degree on the minimum wage I would suggest you might want to review that idea.

Not that I agree with a minimum wage, but $10.50 isn't even being argued here. It's $15, which is essentially 50% over what these generous economists are discussing.
It seemed one of your points was: "However, the idea of a minimum wage is a bad idea for all". Many well-educated and highly qualified folks disagree with that idea.

BaiHu

08-29-2013, 12:30 PM

Again, plenty of folks disagree with that opinion. It all depends on what you want to look at and what parameters you want to use.

If you think the unemployment rate of blacks is based to any significant degree on the minimum wage I would suggest you might want to review that idea.

It seemed one of your points was: "However, the idea of a minimum wage is a bad idea for all". Many well-educated and highly qualified folks disagree with that idea.

David,

Many people may disagree with me, but you haven't shown me their historical proof. I've shown you historical proof given by those who have studied this. I even showed you other countries (France) through one of my links.

Pony up these experts so I can see where I'm wrong. In the meantime, I don't care who disagrees with me, w/o facts, they're just saying "No! You're wrong!" Which leads us nowhere.

Lastly, have any of these "well-educated and highly qualified folks" run a business before? And if so, how far up the food chain are they from managing their lowest skilled worker. For every Buffet you throw at me, I'll raise you a Steve Wynn, a Leon Cooperman and a Jack Welch.

David Armstrong

08-29-2013, 01:26 PM

David,

Many people may disagree with me, but you haven't shown me their historical proof. I've shown you historical proof given by those who have studied this. I even showed you other countries (France) through one of my links.

Pony up these experts so I can see where I'm wrong. In the meantime, I don't care who disagrees with me, w/o facts, they're just saying "No! You're wrong!" Which leads us nowhere.

Lastly, have any of these "well-educated and highly qualified folks" run a business before? And if so, how far up the food chain are they from managing their lowest skilled worker. For every Buffet you throw at me, I'll raise you a Steve Wynn, a Leon Cooperman and a Jack Welch.
IIRC, I posted a link to a site that listed many economists who have come to their conclusions based on the evidence provided by assorted research and historical analysis. That was mentioned in the text, such as "But the weight of evidence from the extensive professional literature has, for decades, consistently found that no significant effects on employment opportunities result when the minimum wage rises in reasonable increments." Also, in case you missed it: "(References for all data cited in this petition can be found here: http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/resources/minwage_notesjune19.pdf)." So rather than "No! You're wrong!" we have a nice little paper that addresses issues and provides data to support their position and even goes farther to point out where the references for the data can be found. And much like black unemployment, if you think the problems with France are primarily the result of minimum wage issues I'd certainly have to question that belief.
You seem to have the strange blindspot many others have which leads to "anytime anyone says anything that I agree with they are right no matter what and anytime anyone says anything that I disagree with they are wrong no matter what." Personally I find that a very poor way to understand and learn about things. Just as an example, why should an un-referenced article by one economist giving his opinion (Sowell) be considered as Gospel but another article signed on to by several dozen economists and reference not be given at least equal weight?

BaiHu

08-29-2013, 02:00 PM

Perhaps you should consider my source a bit more too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

Born June 30, 1930 (age 83)
Gastonia, North Carolina, U.S.
Nationality American
Institution Stanford University, Hoover Institution (1980–present)
UCLA (1970–1972, 1974–1980)
Urban Institute (1972–1974)
Brandeis University (1969–1970)
Cornell University (1965–1969)
Field Economics, Welfare economics, Education, Politics, History, Race relations, Child development
Alma mater Harvard University (B.A.) 1958
Columbia University (M.A.) 1959
University of Chicago (Ph.D.) 1969
Influenced Clarence Thomas, Milton Friedman, Steven Pinker, Walter E. Williams
Awards Francis Boyer Award, National Humanities Medal, Bradley Prize, get Abstract International Book Award

You have many on your list and some of them have nice accreditation and others are towing a line, but I'll grant you that Sowell tows his own line as well. However, there is a larger conversation about the time/place that 1968 was compared to 1982 and that will always have to be taken into consideration. Not to mention that I already said that these strikers are looking for 50% over your generous economists.

However, the most important points I can make are that the minimum wage is being suppressed by illegal aliens and technology. Minimum wage jobs are not designed for one to own a house, raise a family, etc. It's a bare minimum payment for bare minimum work and the higher that wage goes, the worse it becomes for society as a whole, b/c then everyone will want to flip burgers if they can own a house, car, raise a family, have a dog, a flat screen TV and generally live comfortably, right??

EMC

08-29-2013, 02:22 PM

David Armstrong

08-29-2013, 02:32 PM

Perhaps you should consider my source a bit more too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

You have many on your list and some of them have nice accreditation and others are towing a line, but I'll grant you that Sowell tows his own line as well.
That is my point. It seems more than a bit questionable to say "my economist is right and all those others a wrong" when they have just as good or better backgrounds and credits.

However, there is a larger conversation about the time/place that 1968 was compared to 1982 and that will always have to be taken into consideration. Not to mention that I already said that these strikers are looking for 50% over your generous economists.
But nobody has said why that (15.00 vs.10.50) would have to be a problem. Many economists think it should be much higher (Richard Kirsch, senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute for example). There are plenty of conflicting views on this issue (as with most) and to present only one side as valid is just wrong because there is a lot of debate and contradictory research.

However, the most important points I can make are that the minimum wage is being suppressed by illegal aliens and technology. Minimum wage jobs are not designed for one to own a house, raise a family, etc. It's a bare minimum payment for bare minimum work and the higher that wage goes, the worse it becomes for society as a whole, b/c then everyone will want to flip burgers if they can own a house, car, raise a family, have a dog, a flat screen TV and generally live comfortably, right??
That seems to be a heck of a claim without much to support it. Many argue that a minimum wage SHOULD be sufficient to raise a family, for instance, and the claim that the higher the minimum wage the worse for society is certainly challenged by many. As for everyone flipping burgers, would YOU go flip burgers 8 hours a day if it paid the same as your current job? I know I wouldn't, and I doubt there would be a sudden mass migration to fast-food employment from other careers if the wages went up.

The world is not nearly as black and white as you seem to want to portray it with many of your posts, and disagreement with the far right perspective does not automatically equal stupidity or ignorance. I tend to be somewhat conservative myself but I recognize and respect the point of view of those who have a different perspective. As pointed out here, lots of folks that disagree with your position on this are not only capable of being educated, I'd hazard a guess they are better educated than you or myself.

David Armstrong

08-29-2013, 02:41 PM

What happened to the concept that minimum wage jobs are only stepping stones in life that lead to better opportunity? I had a few of them early on and then moved on, never expecting to live off that wage forever.
That concept wasn't part of the original idea behind the minimum wage, IIRC. But what is wrong with having that minimum wage be sufficient to support a family at a low level while one is trying to get that better opportunity? I personally would rather see the minimum wage at a level where we didn't have to also provide assorted other family supports (welfare) instead of having people work full-time and still get food stamps, housing support, EIC and associated other taxpayer funded payments. That's what many forget. We are going to pay anyway. I'd rather see someone earn the money by working than to just be given the stuff.

Suvorov

08-29-2013, 02:52 PM

I'm flying planeloads of folks out to the oil/gas fields of North Dakota every week. Those places can not find enough people to fill the needs. The money for a roughneck is more than most of the pilots to fly them out to those places make. And it isn't only roughnecks that are needed, every job out there from whore to cop to janitor to construction worker to aircraft mechanics and teachers are needed to support the economy up there. Walmart is hiring at $20 an hour and the wages go up from there.

My point is that we all have to make our way in the world. Most of our forefathers all left where they had been raised to find a better life. They left Europe, they headed West, they did what they had to to feed their families. Even the former slaves moved North. The fact is that even in the economy today, there is nothing preventing an able bodied person with a basic desire to improve their situation from doing so.

Increasing the minimum wage and unionizing fast food workers is going to do nothing to improve these people's lots in life.

BaiHu

08-29-2013, 03:15 PM

A But nobody has said why that (15.00 vs.10.50) would have to be a problem. Many economists think it should be much higher (Richard Kirsch, senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute for example). There are plenty of conflicting views on this issue (as with most) and to present only one side as valid is just wrong because there is a lot of debate and contradictory research.

B That seems to be a heck of a claim without much to support it. Many argue that a minimum wage SHOULD be sufficient to raise a family, for instance, and the claim that the higher the minimum wage the worse for society is certainly challenged by many. As for everyone flipping burgers, would YOU go flip burgers 8 hours a day if it paid the same as your current job? I know I wouldn't, and I doubt there would be a sudden mass migration to fast-food employment from other careers if the wages went up.

C The world is not nearly as black and white as you seem to want to portray it with many of your posts, and disagreement with the far right perspective does not automatically equal stupidity or ignorance. I tend to be somewhat conservative myself but I recognize and respect the point of view of those who have a different perspective. As pointed out here, lots of folks that disagree with your position on this are not only capable of being educated, I'd hazard a guess they are better educated than you or myself.

D That concept wasn't part of the original idea behind the minimum wage, IIRC. But what is wrong with having that minimum wage be sufficient to support a family at a low level while one is trying to get that better opportunity? I personally would rather see the minimum wage at a level where we didn't have to also provide assorted other family supports (welfare) instead of having people work full-time and still get food stamps, housing support, EIC and associated other taxpayer funded payments. That's what many forget. We are going to pay anyway. I'd rather see someone earn the money by working than to just be given the stuff.

A: Where do you think this money comes from?? (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/fast-food-chains-aren-t-rich-protesters-think-192549497.html) And I quote:

But keep this in mind: Pay at most restaurants is determined by the franchise owner and not the corporate parent, which often owns a very small percentage of the restaurants under their brand. McDonald's, for example, owns just 11% of their restaurants in the U.S., so it may make more sense for the protesters to be picketing local owners rather than focusing their venom on the corporate entity.
Either way, the restaurant industry overall is a low-margin business that doesn’t have much spare cash in the till. The average profit margin for the whole industry is just 2.4%, according to Capital IQ, and that’s down from 3.2% in 2009, which is when the recession ended. Here are the latest annual profits and margins for the 10 largest publicly held dining chains:

Now it does go on to show the margins of each brand, but don't tell me that 20% is too much margin for a company and they should spread it around. They already make the cheapest burgers around, and as Suvorov already said, what is the point of a minimum wage job?? It's not to own a home, that's for sure. Which brings me to B.

B: From Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/minimum_wage.asp

Investopedia explains 'Minimum Wage'
The minimum wage attempts to protect employees from exploitation, allowing them to afford the basic necessities of life. The minimum wage rate fluctuates between countries, and sometimes between states or provinces.

Minimum wages have drawn strong criticism from many economists, since it establishes a price floor on wages. Price floors can lead to a dead weight loss in the economy, which means that inefficiencies exist. In this case, the minimum wage might force companies to hire fewer employees, thus increasing unemployment.

As of July 2008, the U.S. federal minimum wage rate was $6.55/hour. However, in states where the state minimum wage is higher than the U.S. federal minimum wage, workers must be paid the higher minimum wage.

C: My arguments are based on the best logic and factual backup I can muster and I agree that you do the same, but in the case of minimum wage, by Investopedia's own definition and the historical purpose/use of a minimum wage, it is more detrimental to society.

D: Again, where do you see this money coming from? As the old argument goes, why not make 100k minimum wage? Lastly, quite frankly, I work 60+ hours a week with 2 jobs and if I could make the same money for a 40 hour work week flipping burgers, having more stability, then I'd hand my resignations in pronto and do those two jobs on the side for fun, b/c I love them and I'd still work 60 hours a week with less stress.

tremiles

08-29-2013, 03:21 PM

BaiHu

08-29-2013, 03:46 PM

Ding! Ding! Ding! Tre.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Joe in PNG

08-29-2013, 03:52 PM

Man, if someone is still on minimum wage at a job after their first few months, truth is, they must just plain suck at that job. And having worked with, observed, and supervising a number of people at entry level minimum wages jobs, 'sucks' is being kind.

And then, if it is a pain in the neck to hire someone and difficult to fire them, then a business isn't going to be in too much of a hurry to hire people.

Regarding the various economic experts- how many of them were extolling the virtues of the USSR/Japan Inc/Eurozone/China's economic practises? How many are basically quote whores for political parties?

BaiHu

08-29-2013, 04:12 PM

Well nailed Joe.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

David Armstrong

08-29-2013, 07:28 PM

from Baihu:
A: Where do you think this money comes from??
Same place pretty much everybody's money comes from. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion, however. There is just as much evidence that increasing the minimum wage helps improve the economy as there is that it hurts the economy. That is my main point, the far-right talking points aside this is a very complicated issue with plenty of smart folks on both sides looking at very different positions.

B: From Investopedia:
Don't see anything there that supports the claims that "the minimum wage is being suppressed by illegal aliens and technology...and the higher that wage goes, the worse it becomes for society as a whole, b/c then everyone will want to flip burgers...."

C: My arguments are based on the best logic and factual backup I can muster and I agree that you do the same, but in the case of minimum wage, by Investopedia's own definition and the historical purpose/use of a minimum wage, it is more detrimental to society.
It does not say that. It says it has drawn criticism from many economists, which is true but many do not criticize it and instead support it. It says it CAN lead to a dead weight loss, not that it always does or that it always will. It says it MIGHT increase unemployment, although research doesn't seem to show that actually happening, at least in the U.S. with our wage issues. Again, you seem to be somewhat selective in your evidence only recognizing that which you think is supportive of a position you have already developed rather than looking at the picture with an unbiased eye.

D: Again, where do you see this money coming from? As the old argument goes, why not make 100k minimum wage? Lastly, quite frankly, I work 60+ hours a week with 2 jobs and if I could make the same money for a 40 hour work week flipping burgers,
Again, the money comes from the same place all money comes form. People work, they earn money, prices are set by product and labor cost so people product procuct, taxes are figured in, and so on. Working for wages is working for wages, the money comes from the same place whether the wage is $2.00/hr or $20.00/hr or $200/hr. As for making the minimum wage $100K, when somebody seriously suggests that we can talk about it. Until then it is just a rather weak bit of distraction from the actual issue. And quite frankly I know very few folks who have worked in the fast food industry who would give up their non-fast food industry job and go back for the same wages. Maybe you would, but I'd hazard a guess that you would be a very distinct minority.

Just as a FWIW, we've doubled the minimum wage before and things didn't fall apart. In fact, it ushered in one of the great growth spurts in economic history. It was back in 1949.....leading into that golden age of the 1950s.

David Armstrong

08-29-2013, 07:29 PM

Raising the minimum wage is still a form of social welfare as the cost of goods produced by minimum ease workers will increase, reducing the ability of minimum wage workers to purchase minimum wage produced goods. Or manufacturers will hire fewer minimum wage workers to keep costs of minimum wage produced goods the same.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4
Unfortunately it seems the research on this doesn't seem to clearly support either of those ideas.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

David Armstrong

08-29-2013, 07:30 PM

Regarding the various economic experts- how many of them were extolling the virtues of the USSR/Japan Inc/Eurozone/China's economic practises? How many are basically quote whores for political parties?
Are you referring to Dr. Sowell?:D

David Armstrong

08-29-2013, 07:34 PM

tremiles

08-29-2013, 07:59 PM

Unfortunately it seems the research on this doesn't seem to support either of those ideas.

If there's research that suggests that increasing per worker labor cost without a proportional increase in productivity or proportional decrease in non labor cost does anything other than A) raise cost of finished goods or B) decrease profits or C) reduce workforce, I'd love to see it.

Of course, if minimum wage workers self motivated to increase their productivity, they wouldn't remain minimum wage workers very long.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

BaiHu

08-29-2013, 08:51 PM

Hmmm, you mean there are fast food joints paying workers over $15/hr and they are managing to keep the doors open, make a profit, and all that other stuff? The economy hasn't tanked? Gee, seems to contradict what some claim.

David,
You cherry pick pieces of people's arguments and then disprove a sliver claiming victory.
His point about FF joints paying over $15/hr is that the market drove that wage, not a feel good politician buying votes.
That's my point as well. If the market drove $100k a year burger flippers, then I'd be all for it, but that's not the case with these strikers.
As many have said, if these workers were so motivated to deserve a better wage, then someone would recognize their aptitude.
If you read my Sowell piece, you'd see the historical use of a minimum wage and find the real racism and motivation behind its genesis. A fact you have yet to address.

ETA: Don't forget that your doubling of that minimum wage was at a time when the rest of the world was destroyed from WW2 and citizens of the US didn't compete on a world stage for every job as we do today. We were in the golden age, because we had no competition.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

David Armstrong

08-29-2013, 09:11 PM

If there's research that suggests that increasing per worker labor cost without a proportional increase in productivity or proportional decrease in non labor cost does anything other than A) raise cost of finished goods or B) decrease profits or C) reduce workforce, I'd love to see it.

Of course, if minimum wage workers self motivated to increase their productivity, they wouldn't remain minimum wage workers very long.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
Since the original comment was "the research on this doesn't seem to clearly support either of those ideas" was referenced to the following---

Raising the minimum wage is still a form of social welfare as the cost of goods produced by minimum ease workers will increase, reducing the ability of minimum wage workers to purchase minimum wage produced goods. Or manufacturers will hire fewer minimum wage workers to keep costs of minimum wage produced goods the same.

I'm not sure why the sudden change in content, particularly when the research is arbitrarily restricted. If you want to look at some of the research on the original issues go to the paper I already listed. Let's clarify the original issues as posted:
Minimum wage is a form of social welfare.
Raising the minimum wage will create an increase in the cost of the goods to the consumer.
Raising the wage would reduce the ability of minimum wage workers to purchase goods.
Manufacturers will hire fewer workers.

David Armstrong

08-29-2013, 09:29 PM

David,
You cherry pick pieces of people's arguments and then disprove a sliver claiming victory.
Seems you are the one who is cherrypicking, and nowhere have I claimed victory. In fact, I would suggest that given the parameters of internet discussion the concept of loss or victory is rather silly.

His point about FF joints paying over $15/hr is that the market drove that wage, not a feel good politician buying votes.
Irrelevant as I did not argue that point. My point is that businesses CAN pay well above the minimum wage for what many consider minimum wage jobs without suffering too much or failing or creating massive social disruptions and all the other things some have claimed.

That's my point as well. If the market drove $100k a year burger flippers, then I'd be all for it, but that's not the case with these strikers.
I'm not aware of any of the burger flippers suggesting they should be paid $100K.

As many have said, if these workers were so motivated to deserve a better wage, then someone would recognize their aptitude.[Thatte]
That is a pretty big assumption without much to support it. I'm pretty familiar with the minimum wage world given the number of students I have that work in it, including my daughter over the years.
[quote]If you read my Sowell piece, you'd see the historical use of a minimum wage and find the real racism and motivation behind its genesis. A fact you have yet to address.
What is there to address? Are you contending that the reasoning behind the minimum wage these days is racism? It's a nice historical point but I fail to see any applicability to the issue today.

ETA: Don't forget that your doubling of that minimum wage was at a time when the rest of the world was destroyed from WW2 and citizens of the US didn't compete on a world stage for every job as we do today. We were in the golden age, because we had no competition.
Again a pretty big claim that is certainly open to debate. FWIW, when Roosevelt pushed for the doubling of the wage many of the same arguments you are using were presented against it at that time. But if you want to talk about a world stage and competition, many countries have a higher minimum wage than the U.S. and again we don't seem to see the problems some claim will happen.

Personally I think the minimum wage is rather silly and should be eliminated entirely. But my personal opinion doesn't change the fact that there is a strong argument to be made for providing a minimum wage that is sufficient to support a family or that there is plenty of evidence that raising the minimum wage does not have an overall adverse impact on the economy. As I said, I certainly think that would be better than a wage that is so low someone can work full time and still be eligible for all the taxpayer-provided freebies, which you have never addressed.

Joe in PNG

08-29-2013, 09:52 PM

Are you referring to Dr. Sowell?:D

I pretty much bin 'economist' with 'faith healers', 'pop psycologist', and 'movie reviewers'.

BaiHu

08-29-2013, 09:57 PM

Personally I think the minimum wage is rather silly and should be eliminated entirely. But my personal opinion doesn't change the fact that there is a strong argument to be made for providing a minimum wage that is sufficient to support a family or that there is plenty of evidence that raising the minimum wage does not have an overall adverse impact on the economy. As I said, I certainly think that would be better than a wage that is so low someone can work full time and still be eligible for all the taxpayer-provided freebies, which you have never addressed.

Ok, so if you and I both feel the minimum wage is silly, then why throw counterpoints?

Btw, the freebies will happen regardless of the minimum wage, because the money that goes to the wage will be added to the price of goods and services rendered by these low skill/high wage folks, so they'll still have the same problem, ergo, it's a dumb idea as I suggested and you agree with.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

BLR

08-30-2013, 06:11 AM

I thought this was going to be a thread about moronic students and dumber than ever kids. :( Oh, the stories I could tell.

I've had third year engineering students who thought that ice got warmer as it melted. Seriously. No fooling.

So, to answer the title of the thread question: A define yes. There are many, many people incapable of being educated.

Tamara

08-30-2013, 08:16 AM

"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell.

BaiHu

08-30-2013, 08:41 AM

"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell.

My man! Posted by the woman with the most intertoob wins. Well done and one of my favorite quotes of his.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

hufnagel

08-30-2013, 08:47 AM

from the CNN article the other day...

Shaniqua Davis, 20, lives in the Bronx with her boyfriend, who is unemployed, and their 1-year-old daughter. Davis has worked at a McDonald's a few blocks from her apartment for the past three months, earning $7.25 an hour. Her schedule varies, but she never gets close to 40 hours a week. "Forty? Never. They refuse to let you get to that (many) hours."
Her weekly paycheck is $150 or much lower. "One of my paychecks, I only got $71 on there. So I wasn't able to do much with that. My daughter needs stuff, I need to get stuff for my apartment," said Davis, who plans to take part in the strike Thursday.
She pays the rent with public assistance but struggles to afford food, diapers, subway and taxi fares, cable TV and other expenses with her paycheck.
"It's really hard," she said. "If I didn't have public assistance to help me out, I think I would have been out on the street already with the money I make at McDonald's."

The "problems" I see I the above...
knocked up by the age of 20
baby-daddy is a deadbeat
has/pays for cable tv
subway and taxi fares

if you're THAT poor, you don't get to have cable TV. you don't take the subway or taxis, you WALK. hell turning on the lights or running the heat (if you have to pay for them directly, I guess rent covers that?) should be considered a lavish luxury. it's as if people have forgotten how to live poor and pull themselves out of it.

this is not a person who has any understanding on how to manage their own life. and she has 3 reproductions she has to care for!

RoyGBiv

08-30-2013, 09:05 AM

it's as if people have forgotten how to live poor and pull themselves out of it.
Forgotten? No.

The current entitlement/no personal responsibility mentality took generations to reach this point.

Too bad Obama missed the opportunity to use his Bully Pulpit to start unwinding it. Well, maybe it's more correct to say he's done everything possible to perpetuate it.

Tamara

08-30-2013, 09:05 AM

Her schedule varies, but she never gets close to 40 hours a week. "Forty? Never. They refuse to let you get to that (many) hours."

Honey, McDonald's would LOVE for you to work forty or fifty hours a week, but in the process of trying to help you to death, the government has made that unprofitable. Believe me, there is not a retail/servicve industry manager in the world that wouldn't rather have ten full-timers on their schedule than twenty-five part-timers.

And when they raise the wage? You'll be the first to go. I can tell you that right now from your tone in the interview. If I gotta cut people to keep my bottom line intact, it's the whiners and slackers who'll be first out the door.

Hatchetman

08-30-2013, 09:38 AM

I've certainly been contending with my share of dire warnings out of HR making it clear that, due to Obamacare mandates we absotivley, posolutely may not schedule any non-classified staff for more than 29 hours per week lest the paperwork skies open and drown us in malfeasance forms.

As for some of the my expert contradicts your expert dialectics occurring here . . . I've no urge to wander into another internet political debate, though can't but help note that there is one sure thing to emerge whenever the economy gets legislated: perverse incentives (see above). Oh, and campaign donations. . . .

Tamara

08-30-2013, 09:55 AM

As for some of the my expert contradicts your expert dialectics occurring here . . . I've no urge to wander into another internet political debate, though can't but help note that there is one sure thing to emerge whenever the economy gets legislated: perverse incentives (see above). Oh, and campaign donations. . . .

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -P.J. O'Rourke

hufnagel

08-30-2013, 11:22 AM

I recall a friend of mine in high school. He worked at the local McDonalds and was pulling in $400+/week AFTER taxes. He worked nights. He worked weekends. He closed for them. He busted his butt, did well in school*, and was rewarded for it in the appropriate fashion. And this was in the early 90s. My point being, if you work hard and show you're worth more than minimum wage, chances are you WILL be rewarded... especially considering the large group of slackers most likely around you. It's sad to say but it sure seems like demonstrating you're worth notice (and advancement) takes no more than SHOWING UP and DOING A GOOD JOB. Being special or a stand out in the crowd used to be hard.

* at least until he discovered drugs and augered into the ground like an overloaded C5A from flight level 300 with 4 dead engines. But that's not germane to the conversation.

David Armstrong

08-30-2013, 01:56 PM

I pretty much bin 'economist' with 'faith healers', 'pop psycologist', and 'movie reviewers'.
That is fine as long as it is an equal opportunity bin. My complaint is with folks who try to argue their expert is right and other experts with similar qualifications but different views are wrong based simply on their views.

David Armstrong

08-30-2013, 01:59 PM

Ok, so if you and I both feel the minimum wage is silly, then why throw counterpoints?
As I understood it, the issue is not "should there be a minimum wage" the issue is "since there is a minimum wage how much should the minimum wage be."

Btw, the freebies will happen regardless of the minimum wage, because the money that goes to the wage will be added to the price of goods and services rendered by these low skill/high wage folks, so they'll still have the same problem, ergo, it's a dumb idea as I suggested and you agree with.
Don't think I agreed with that, and assuming the freeebies will happen is a nice guess but that is all, a guess.

BaiHu

08-30-2013, 03:05 PM

As I understood it, the issue is not "should there be a minimum wage" the issue is "since there is a minimum wage how much should the minimum wage be."

The article was about the minimum wage, but I argued that the minimum wage was detrimental to society or at the very least really bad for those fighting for a minimum wage raise, b/c they don't understand how it effects them over the long term/big picture.

Don't think I agreed with that, and assuming the freeebies will happen is a nice guess but that is all, a guess.

I think my guess is awesome, mainly b/c I'm a Self-Made Expert :-P and we have a minimum wage and freebies right now, so....how's that awesome sauce working out for those people striking, working P/T for minimum wage and still living off of taxpayers??

Joe in PNG

08-30-2013, 05:07 PM

One could liken economic policy to physical fitness. The basic concept isn't hard: "eat less and exercise".
But, exercise is hard, greasy food is yummy, and real results take a long, long time to show up.
Thus, you get a lot of panceas- fad diets, lo-cal foods, and exercise junk. And of course people who jump from one thing to another, week to week, without ever seeing anything happen.

Likewise, proper economic policy isn't that hard either- keep government out of the way as much as possible and allow people to do business. But bad things happen, and people want the government to do something right away... and then you get fad economic fiddling. It doesn't work. See also Detriot, California, the Soviet Block, Japan Inc, Great Britian...

David Armstrong

08-30-2013, 07:06 PM

The article was about the minimum wage, but I argued that the minimum wage was detrimental to society or at the very least really bad for those fighting for a minimum wage raise, b/c they don't understand how it effects them over the long term/big picture.
Again, two completely different issues....should there be a minimum wage being one issue and how much should a minimum wage be as the second. If you are going to have a minimum wage it is not unreasonable to expect to be able to stay above the poverty line with that wage. The second seems to be the main point if the discussion and the research and literature offers mixed conclusions at best.

Ithink my guess is awesome, mainly b/c I'm a Self-Made Expert :-P and we have a minimum wage and freebies right now, so....how's that awesome sauce working out for those people striking, working P/T for minimum wage and still living off of taxpayers??
And that is the problem, the current minimum is so low they get the freebies. If it were higher they would not get the freebies. The freebies kick in at certain points based on income in relation to the poverty line, so if the minimum was above the poverty line those freebies would not kick in. I personally would prefer to have the minimum be a sufficent amount that it actually would give some incentive to work rather than not work and collect the taxpayer provided freebies.
ETA: To paraphrase the Cato Institute, working full time should be worth more than not working.

Tamara

08-30-2013, 07:16 PM

To paraphrase P.J. again, they should raise the minimum wage to a million dollars an hour. Sure, unemployment would go through the roof, but everybody would only need to work an hour or two to retire!

From a post a while back (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2006/02/politics-bill-gates-pizza.html)...

For starters, drop the minimum wage hand-wringing, okay? Minimum wage doesn't apply anymore to anything but the most menial of jobs; jobs intended to be filled by schoolkids and by retirees looking to supplement their fixed incomes. If you're an adult parent of two and making minimum wage, you have made some pretty serious career errors in your life. Even such entry-level gigs as cashiering at the local convenience store or asking McDonald's patrons if they'd "like fries with that" are hiring at $8/hr these days, and merely showing up on time and displaying a minimum aptitude for completing all your assigned tasks at those jobs for six or eight months straight pretty much guarantees being awarded the polyester clip-on tie of an Assistant Manager. As Greg Swann wrote, you have got to be a pretty exotic flavor of stupid to starve to death in the land of milk and honey.

David Armstrong

08-30-2013, 07:23 PM

BaiHu

08-30-2013, 07:44 PM

I personally would prefer to have the minimum be a sufficent amount that it actually would give some incentive to work rather than not work and collect the taxpayer provided freebies.

Again, where do you think the money comes from? If you raise the minimum wage, ie beyond what someone is worth to provide the products/services of the employer, then you MUST raise the prices of the goods and services to pay for this new wage.

When every business does this, then the salary, that YOU believe they should have, becomes the new lowest common denominator wage and therfore there is NO ONE poorer than they are...it's called a MINIMUM wage.

And no politician would leave that opportunity on the table. There will always be the disenfranchised group to reward with tax dollars if you vote for them to give you the freebies.

Do you see that expensive downward spiral? Nothing changes. This is just like the government printing money, they didn't solve anything, they just postponed the payment of debt. Same here; you haven't improved their lives, you've made the number on their paycheck different and simultaneously raised all of their costs.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Hatchetman

08-30-2013, 07:57 PM

Tamara

08-30-2013, 10:40 PM

BaiHu

08-30-2013, 11:14 PM

See the "wages and prices" Sowell quote. ;)

Oh, I know and I complimented you on it, but apparently it bears repeating ad absurdum and in a circumlocutious manner ;)

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

David Armstrong

08-31-2013, 08:37 AM

Again, where do you think the money comes from? If you raise the minimum wage, ie beyond what someone is worth to provide the products/services of the employer, then you MUST raise the prices of the goods and services to pay for this new wage.
Again, the research indicates that is not necessarily the case, with numerous examples of where that has not occurred. And again I think it better for them to get the money as the result of work than as the result of freebies from the taxpayer.

When every business does this, then the salary, that YOU believe they should have, becomes the new lowest common denominator wage and therfore there is NO ONE poorer than they are...it's called a MINIMUM wage.

And no politician would leave that opportunity on the table. There will always be the disenfranchised group to reward with tax dollars if you vote for them to give you the freebies.
And again you make an assumption without evidence. There have been several examples of welfare reform where freebies were restricted.

Do you see that expensive downward spiral? Nothing changes. This is just like the government printing money, they didn't solve anything, they just postponed the payment of debt. Same here; you haven't improved their lives, you've made the number on their paycheck different and simultaneously raised all of their costs.
Strange that recent history does not reflect that. The neoclassical model (simple supply and demand) has been challenged on several fronts over the years and seems to not be accurate in the modern marketplace.

David Armstrong

08-31-2013, 08:44 AM

A Cato piece states:

The academic evidence on this point is pretty clear. A comprehensive review of more than 100 studies on the minimum wage by David Neumark and William Wascher for the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 85 percent of the studies they reviewed found negative employment effects. Newmark and Wascher concluded, “the preponderance of the evidence points to disemployment effects… [and] studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.”

Full article here: http://www.cato.org/blog/raising-minimum-wage-not-answer
Thus my point that the research is not at all clear on this and that trying to present this as one-sided is not really accurate:
"Estimated minimum wage effects on employment from a meta-study of 64 other studies showed insignificant employment effect (both practically and statistically) from minimum-wage raises."
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

"Opponents of minimum wage increases frequently argue that such measures will mean fewer employ-ment opportunities for low-wage workers because businesses will be less willing to hire workers at the increased wage level. But the weight of evidence from the extensive professional literature has, for decades, consistently found that no significant effects on employment opportunities result when the minimum wage rises in reasonable increments. This is because the increases in overall business costs resulting from a minimum wage increase are modest."
http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/resources/Minimum_Wage_petition_website.pdf

BaiHu

08-31-2013, 09:15 AM

Perfect example is where we find ourselves as a global economy right now. Technology is phasing out the low skilled worker for millenia and that same technology is making it easier for foreigners from thousands of miles away, who normally live on less money, have less amenities in their home country and/or pay more taxes, are willing to pick up and leave and take a lower wage for the same job an American had or simply outperform an American because they're hungrier. In short global competition is fiercer than ever.

Then that same technology is also making it easier to outsource while our government makes it more expensive to hire with mandates like Obamacare, higher corporate taxes (which, like the minimum wage increases prices and no corporation pays taxes, consumers do), printing of money, which raises taxes on everyone via inflation and higher food/gas costs (which are horrifically regressive taxes) and then add to that a higher minimum wage and you've done nothing more than add another form of inflation, thereby.....increasing prices for everyone.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

David Armstrong

08-31-2013, 07:00 PM

Yep, but the basic problem with all that is that there are numerous examples of where increasing the minimum wage (by fiat or de facto) didn't create all these problems that some want to claim. The minimum wage has been effectively over $11.00 before with dollar value adjusting, it has double before without any real problems, prices have gone down or remained the same when minimum wage has gone up, plenty of countries have higher minimums wage levels than the U.S. without the claimed problems, and so on. So to get back to the basic thrust of the thread, support or lack of support for minimum wage seems to have nothing to do with education capability.

BaiHu

08-31-2013, 11:12 PM

I'll just leave this here:

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

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

David Armstrong

09-02-2013, 02:02 PM

Fair enough. I'll leave this and we'll call it a day:
The minimum wage of $1.60 an hour in 1968 would be $10.56 today when adjusted for inflation [see the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index inflation calculator.]
http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/02/14/minimum-wage-history/

BaiHu

09-02-2013, 02:50 PM

09-02-2013, 05:17 PM

I know that my sausage gravy and biscuits at McDonalds is more expensive since they raised the minimum wage a few years ago.

BaiHu

09-02-2013, 05:27 PM

I know that my sausage gravy and biscuits at McDonalds is more expensive since they raised the minimum wage a few years ago.

That's IMPOSSIBIBBLE!

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

cclaxton

09-02-2013, 06:03 PM

There are two kinds of people in the world: Those that believe and those that learn. Those that believe seem incapable of learning because their belief overrules their ability to learn. In order to learn, one must set aside belief and feelings and see things as they are, not how we believe they are, or believe they should be, or believe it can't be or just go all the way to blind faith.

To learn means to evaluate each thing in the light of facts, independent observation, consistency, and cause and effect.

Some famous beliefs and the facts that refute them:
- The world was made in six days vs fossil evidence clearly shows the earth is hundreds of millions of years old;
- Bloodletting will cure a patient or prevent disease vs scientific proof about the nature of disease and bloodletting is actually inviting infection...the opposite effect;
- Obama was not born in Hawaii vs clear and convincing evidence that he was;

My point is that no believer ever let the facts get in the way.
Once an individual has gone all the way to blind faith, I am not convinced they can ever be brought back to reality.

And this cuts on both sides of the political and ideological aisle...

CC

Tamara

09-03-2013, 07:53 AM

David Armstrong

09-03-2013, 12:17 PM

I understand what you're saying, but in 1968 we didn't have the technology and global competition that we have today.

Increasing the minimum wage creates an idea of "protectionism" that seems to benefit the low wage earner, but instead, IMO, it will lead to wage slavery where the low wage earner is more likely to seek a continued pay raise rather than seek ways to raise their education, skill level and position.

If you could bargain your wage up every couple of years and not increase your skills or responsibility, wouldn't you? Isn't this what happens to many industries when weak management and strong unions are combined? It ends up as an epic failure.

Like I said in a previous post, if I could make what I make now, but work only 40 hours as a burger flipper, I'd be there and have even more free time to enjoy shooting :p

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Well, most people I know that have actually had to work for a while flipping burgers say they wouldn't do it again even if it paid more than what they were making. That beside the point it seems there are lots of "maybes" and "what ifs" and "this could happen" type of issues, but they seem to be effectively countered by pretty much all the modern studies that I've seen. As has been pointed out we do have varying minimum wages around the country (as well as the world) be they fiat or de facto, and we just don't see these problems coming up.

Again, we are going to pay these folks one way or another. I'd rather see them work for their money than get freebies from the taxpayer. Just as a philosophical position I think anyone who works a full work week should be able to provide for their family at a basic level and not be eligible for all the welfare benefits they can get now.

David Armstrong

09-03-2013, 12:33 PM

I know that my sausage gravy and biscuits at McDonalds is more expensive since they raised the minimum wage a few years ago.
Are you sure that the raise in the minimum wage caused that, however? The minimum wage has gone up but many prices have remained the same, and some have even gone down after wages have risen. The biggest factor in increased food costs since the last minimum bump has not been wage related, it has been fuel-related, with the higher price for fuel AND the increased use of corn for ethanol playing the major role according to many. At McDonalds, for example, salary and benefits only take up 17% of the revenue. That is not just the minimum wage workers, BTW, that includes the CEO and others making lots of money.

ToddG

09-03-2013, 12:44 PM

I'd rather see them work for their money than get freebies from the taxpayer. Just as a philosophical position I think anyone who works a full work week should be able to provide for their family at a basic level and not be eligible for all the welfare benefits they can get now.

That's a false dichotomy.

I'd rather the job market dictate what workers are paid, and I'd rather welfare programs dry up and disappear. If that means some people don't make enough money for a modern "living wage" which tends to include a number of niceties like smart phones, computers, cable tv, cars, etc. then so be it. There is no constitutional right to have an income sufficient to make you happy.

Telling people they can get $25k a year for any job just further demotivates people from trying to better themselves and achieve something meaningful. A couple who live together and both work the lunch shift at the local McArby King would be making the current median US household annual income. Go ahead and tell me that makes sense.

Tamara

09-03-2013, 01:04 PM

A couple who live together and both work the lunch shift at the local McArby King would be making the current median US household annual income. Go ahead and tell me that makes sense.

Jimmy Carter said that we will not rest until all Americans have above-average incomes. This is worth fighting for, or at least to a depressingly large chunk of the electorate, it is.

Chuck Haggard

09-03-2013, 01:32 PM

Jimmy Carter said that we will not rest until all Americans have above-average incomes. This is worth fighting for, or at least to a depressingly large chunk of the electorate, it is.

But wait, if you have everyone above average then.......

TCinVA

09-03-2013, 01:46 PM

But wait, if you have everyone above average then.......

Politicians never did have a really good grasp on math.

09-03-2013, 01:57 PM

Are you sure that the raise in the minimum wage caused that, however?

This has been a few years ago. The minimum wage went up. I was talking to the lady at the drive through window and said that my gravy and biscuits would be going up soon. Within a few weeks they went up. That's all I know.

I don't believe minimum wage is a good idea.

David Armstrong

09-05-2013, 12:48 PM

That's a false dichotomy.
No, it is a philosophy, which pretty much by definition cannot be false.

I'd rather the job market dictate what workers are paid, and I'd rather welfare programs dry up and disappear. If that means some people don't make enough money for a modern "living wage" which tends to include a number of niceties like smart phones, computers, cable tv, cars, etc. then so be it. There is no constitutional right to have an income sufficient to make you happy.
And that is a strawman given that nobody has suggested a "make you happy" wage. While I agree the market should dictate that is simply not the case these days, the government dictates. And if the government is going to artificially set a floor IMO the floor should be sufficient to provide for the basic needs of the family.

Telling people they can get $25k a year for any job just further demotivates people from trying to better themselves and achieve something meaningful.
I would categorically reject that idea. I'd hazard a guess that a number of folks on this forum make $50,00 a year yet they are still trying to improve themselves, get higher wages, better themselves, etc.

A couple who live together and both work the lunch shift at the local McArby King would be making the current median US household annual income. Go ahead and tell me that makes sense.
Well, let's see now. Current median income is approximately $52,000. Current minimum wage, assuming 40 hour work wekk and 50 weeks per year employment gives us $14,500 per person per year before deductions. So a couple would have $29,000 between them, again before deductions. Even upping it to $10.50 would give us $21,000 each or $42,000 for the couple. However the fact is that a high percentage of minimum wage earners are NOT part of a couple, they are single parents. So we are asking a single mom to raise her family on $14,500 a year and then we gripe because she gets all kinds of taxpayer-funded assistance. Go ahead and tell me that makes sense.

David Armstrong

09-05-2013, 12:57 PM

This has been a few years ago. The minimum wage went up. I was talking to the lady at the drive through window and said that my gravy and biscuits would be going up soon. Within a few weeks they went up. That's all I know.
Right, and that is my point. Most of us DON'T know why a product goes up or down in price because it is rarely the result of a single item. Wage increases rarely make much of an impact across an industry. For example, following Hurrican Rita in my area the labor shortage created a jump of 1/3 in the de facto minimum wage. Yet prices for product did not go up 1/3, in most areas they didn't go up at all. Look at Wal Mart. Many of their products now sell for LESS than they sold for when the minimum wage was lower than it is now.

I don't believe minimum wage is a good idea.
I don't either. But if we are going to have it I believe we should have one that makes some kind of rational economic sense.

MDS

09-05-2013, 01:05 PM

I agree the market should dictate that is simply not the case these days, the government dictates. And if the government is going to artificially set a floor IMO the floor should be sufficient to provide for the basic needs of the family.

(TL;DR: minimum wage is welfare, and welfare was always about the purchase of votes.)

You postulate that the market should dictate the cost of labor. It follows that:

1. Since the government dictate is fundamentally screwed, everything built on top of that dictation (I'm trying really hard not to use the -orship form of dictate) is also fundamentally screwed. Any attempt to truly fix the edifice built on that shoddy foundation is a waste of time.

2. Since everyone has a different definition of "basic needs" you'll never get any agreement on what should be provided. In a purely subjective context like that, nothing objective can ever drive decisions. So you end up with posters that say "Freedom == freedom from hunger" and similar hogwash.

1+2 = 3. The minimum wage can only be an attempt to manipulate the subjective reality that drives electorate decisions.

But if we are going to have [a minimum wage] I believe we should have one that makes some kind of rational economic sense.

I'm confused. If you think we shouldn't have a minimum wage, then you must agree that having a minimum wage is fundamentally irrational. How can we configure something that is fundamentally irrational so that it makes some kind of rational sense? Once you remove rationality from a course of action, how do you inject it back in, without reversing the irrational action in the first place?

TCinVA

09-05-2013, 01:24 PM

An artificially set "minimum wage" is an inherently economically irrational concept. It would be very difficult, then, to come up with a formulation for one that made rational sense.

BaiHu

09-05-2013, 02:33 PM

Ok, so if you and I both feel the minimum wage is silly, then why throw counterpoints?

Btw, the freebies will happen regardless of the minimum wage, because the money that goes to the wage will be added to the price of goods and services rendered by these low skill/high wage folks, so they'll still have the same problem, ergo, it's a dumb idea as I suggested and you agree with.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I'm confused. If you think we shouldn't have a minimum wage, then you must agree that having a minimum wage is fundamentally irrational. How can we configure something that is fundamentally irrational so that it makes some kind of rational sense? Once you remove rationality from a course of action, how do you inject it back in, without reversing the irrational action in the first place?

An artificially set "minimum wage" is an inherently economically irrational concept. It would be very difficult, then, to come up with a formulation for one that made rational sense.

And this is something I said all the way back on page 3....

Damnit!!! :mad: Tam wins the intertoobz again, by default with her 'page rule'. And I paraphrase poorly: (professorial glasses on and sloped to the edge of my nose appropriately accompanied by a voice clearing *ahem*) By page 6 (or was it 3 :confused: ) all threads should be closed :p

David Armstrong

09-06-2013, 01:39 PM

(TL;DR: minimum wage is welfare, and welfare was always about the purchase of votes.)
An assumption I categorically reject.

You postulate that the market should dictate the cost of labor. It follows that:
And I fail to see that "it follows that:" In fact, #2 and #3 have no relationship to the basic postulate.

I'm confused. If you think we shouldn't have a minimum wage, then you must agree that having a minimum wage is fundamentally irrational. How can we configure something that is fundamentally irrational so that it makes some kind of rational sense? Once you remove rationality from a course of action, how do you inject it back in, without reversing the irrational action in the first place?
Again, an invalid assumption. I don't think we should have a minimum wage. I do NOT agree that having a minimum wage is fundamentally irrational. The two are not necessarily related.

MDS

09-07-2013, 02:00 AM

I do NOT agree that having a minimum wage is fundamentally irrational.

Interesting. If we don't agree about this, then we won't agree about much else on this topic. Fair enough!

BLR

09-07-2013, 06:57 AM

Interesting. If we don't agree about this, then we won't agree about much else on this topic. Fair enough!

That's because the assumptions that DA is making in his argument seem illogical to us, and ours illogical to him.

I could be a wage slave engineer somewhere, bringing in, let's say $120k/yr. Yet I decided I would forgo the vacations, spring break debauchery, drunken frat parties, nice new cars, etc for the TEN years it took to get my business/technology to where it is now. Never once did liberal 1 say "dude, you're working too hard for no pay, not benefits, nothing." Yet, when it starts to be successful, guess who has their greedy little hands out. Then I'm told "You didn't build that."

At least, for the time being, anyone can do that in the US. That doesn't mean everyone will succeed. That doesn't mean you will come up with a good idea. I was massively in debt during this time. Not a single Dem/Lib offered me help. But the minute I make good, I'm not paying "my fair share" or I was "lucky to be in this situation" or "I didn't build that."

Nothing makes my blood boil like thinking about this. You don't like what you are making? Cool. Start your own business. Or make yourself more valuable. I'll pay you as little as I can. But if you are an asset to me, I'll make sure you stay. Raise minimum wage, and I'll raise the cost of my goods. Raise my taxes, I'll raise the cost of my goods. Piss me off more, I'll start automating production more aggressively.

Kyle Reese

09-07-2013, 07:00 AM

That's because the assumptions that DA is making in his argument seem illogical to us, and ours illogical to him.

I could be a wage slave engineer somewhere, bringing in, let's say $120k/yr. Yet I decided I would forgo the vacations, spring break debauchery, drunken frat parties, nice new cars, etc for the TEN years it took to get my business/technology to where it is now. Never once did liberal 1 say "dude, you're working too hard for no pay, not benefits, nothing." Yet, when it starts to be successful, guess who has their greedy little hands out. Then I'm told "You didn't build that."

At least, for the time being, anyone can do that in the US. That doesn't mean everyone will succeed. That doesn't mean you will come up with a good idea. I was massively in debt during this time. Not a single Dem/Lib offered me help. But the minute I make good, I'm not paying "my fair share" or I was "lucky to be in this situation" or "I didn't build that."

Nothing makes my blood boil like thinking about this. You don't like what you are making? Cool. Start your own business. Or make yourself more valuable. I'll pay you as little as I can. But if you are an asset to me, I'll make sure you stay. Raise minimum wage, and I'll raise the cost of my goods. Raise my taxes, I'll raise the cost of my goods. Piss me off more, I'll start automating production more aggressively.

Bill,
I believe this point from Mr.Churchill brings is all home.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

-- Winston Churchill

BLR

09-07-2013, 07:19 AM

Kyle Reese

09-07-2013, 07:27 AM

Thatcher has another good quote about that too.

I remember when BarryO-care was being debated. One of my people said something to the effect of "I paid $XX,XXX to have my last kid. That's too much. This is the only way to bring the cost down."

What didn't dawn on the little fool was this: the world doesn't need your little litter. We don't need more entitled, bratty kids. I really don't want to subsidize your little family.

But, more importantly, you shouldn't be asking me to. Out of pride, out of self respect, out of a sense of right and wrong. You shouldn't be voting yourself my money. Don't like what you are being paid or your benefits package? Quit. Go somewhere else. Start your own business.

Unfortunately it's very easy to be "generous" with other people's money in today's entitlement minded society. I've always asked leftists about solid figures when they toss out terms like "fair share", as in give me a dollar amount that the "rich" should have to pay.

In the end, it's just a club that the left uses to beat productive and entrepreneurial citizens over the head with and to get the low information types to rally behind them.

BLR

09-07-2013, 07:37 AM

My favorite taunt/agitation is to ask: "Ok. What am I getting for my investment into Obama Phone Lady? If I subsidize your whatever, what is my ROI?"

If I raise your wage from $10 to $15/hr, what are you going to give me in return? Will you be a 50% better employee?

Leftists have no concept of what generates money, or its value. If you can't tell me what Mr or Mrs Free Stuff is going to contribute to society, with a mechanism to ensure that contribution, you have no business asking for (or taking by force via the IRS) my property. Doing so is the most despicable form of robbery possible. And the fact that there are so many (the leftists) willing to do so and feel morally superior in doing so, is an indication of the moral decay of society.

Tamara

09-07-2013, 07:39 AM

"I paid $XX,XXX to have my last kid. That's too much. This is the only way to bring the cost down."

The person in question can go out behind the barn and have their next one like the entire human race did for the last umpty-eleventy thousand years (and still do in most of the world.)

It's amazing the contortions people come up with to justify reaching into other people's pockets.

Kyle Reese

09-07-2013, 07:43 AM

The person in question can go out behind the barn and have their next one like the entire human race did for the last umpty-eleventy thousand years (and still do in most of the world.)

It's amazing the contortions people come up with to justify reaching into other people's pockets.

Yep, and their vote counts as much as yours or mine.

BaiHu

09-07-2013, 07:46 AM

Bill,
I'm totally man crushing you on those last 3 posts.
I'm guessing this thread is pretty much done, but if you're gonna keep posting like this, I'm gonna have to get me some popcorn and a hanky.
Beautifully said.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Tamara

09-07-2013, 07:52 AM

The example given by Bill above just lights my fuse. Does this person realize that Jimmy Carter was the first US president born in a hospital?

People talk about the ballooning costs of having a baby... Look, everybody has the right to engage in babymaking and then be left undisturbed with the results. Everything else that has sprung up around that, from the fertility industry to the NICU, is a luxury good that may be purchased if one has the dough. Society doesn't owe it to anybody.

NETim

09-07-2013, 09:15 AM

The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson. - Thomas Sowell

BaiHu

09-07-2013, 11:59 AM

There's that guy again, Thomas Sowell....Mmm he pops up often in these conversations, I wonder if he's a smart guy :rolleyes:

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

BLR

09-07-2013, 02:02 PM

Society doesn't owe it to anybody.

QFT

Society doesn't owe anybody anything other than to stay the $&!@ out of my business.

I have an absolute contempt for people who feel it's ok and justified to rob me by popular vote.

If you aren't paying taxes, why should you get a say on how revenue is spent? Why the %$#! should you get a say if you don't have skin in the game? Want a vote? Pay taxes. I'm so absolutely sick of "progressives" trying to guilt me, all while sticking their largely non productive noses in my business and their thieving hands in my pockets.

Because if you aren't giving me something in return for the tax dollars you took from me at IRS gunpoint, you are simply stealing from me. No matter how morally superior you think you are.

NETim

09-07-2013, 02:19 PM

Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from. – Thomas Sowell

David Armstrong

09-07-2013, 03:02 PM

That's because the assumptions that DA is making in his argument seem illogical to us, and ours illogical to him.
Da always wishes folks would check with him before that start making claims about how he thinks, what he believes, and so on. That way one is less likely to make a claim for DA that is not correct. DA happens to find both positions can be supported logically depending on various underlying economic assumptions and moral values. In fact, DA is usually pretty good about being able to see both sides of an argument and wishes more people would do the same.

BLR

09-07-2013, 03:43 PM

I read all your posts. I know what you were arguing for. You said the wage increase wasn't necessarily the cause of the increase in price of biscuits and gravy. Is that not correct?

I'm telling you, as a multiple business owner that raising wages will necessarily, without exception, increase the cost to the consumer. I'm not paying for a wage increase as the owner. You are as the customer.

If the fry cook makes 2x as much tomorrow, where is the money coming from? Out of the shareholders pockets? It has to come from somewhere.

Fact of the matter is this: businesses exist to make the share holders money. Not to employ people. Not to ensure you can make a family supporting career out of flipping burgers.

This is just like some of my students. I've heard "I'm the customer" from one too many of them. No. They are the product. The businesses hiring them are the customer. If GE/Copeland/McDs/et al. start buying substandard product (students), then value goes down of the degree. I start out my senior/grad level classes like this:
Me: Who do you think you will compete against when you graduate?
Students: Look at each other, thinking that is the answer.
Me: No. You compete against me. I wake up at 5:30 every day. I work till 7, every day. I have never stopped going to school. I am never "off the clock."

BaiHu

09-07-2013, 05:11 PM

Me: No. You compete against me. I wake up at 5:30 every day. I work till 7, every day. I have never stopped going to school. I am never "off the clock."

Bingo! That's what no one gets. They think you were magically gifted your business and that they deserve...strike that....YOU OWE them an equal share of your success/profit with each employee, despite the fact that you took the personal and financial risk, not them.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Tamara

09-07-2013, 05:18 PM

I'm telling you, as a multiple business owner that raising wages will necessarily, without exception, increase the cost to the consumer. I'm not paying for a wage increase as the owner. You are as the customer.

That's the exact same mindset that causes the economically illiterate to call for taxes on corporations instead of individuals, which is silly, because corporations can't pay taxes (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2009/05/follow-money.html), only their customers can.

The only entity that can pay taxes, ultimately, is the individual consumer. "Corporate Taxes" are a myth. If the government wants to raise a million dollars to buy diapers for needy babies, and charges the Great Big Diaper Co. a $1,000,000 tax for the purpose, then Great Big Diaper Co. is going to have to lay off $500,000 worth of employees and raise diaper prices by $500,000. (Unlike the government, GBDC can't just print money.)

Now you have more needy babies and diapers are more expensive. Good job, government!

Like corporate taxes, a minimum wage increase is just a regressive tax* that doesn't hurt liberals at the ballot box.

*Because minimum wage earners will be paying more taxes now! Huzzah!

Shellback

09-08-2013, 12:46 PM

Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment. When the cost of hiring low-skilled workers increases, jobs go away (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams052610.php3#.Uiy3ZxbvwzY). When minimum wages are pressed further upward than companies seek to automate or go offshore for their production. From the link:

"Minimum Wage Cruelty" was my column about the unemployment effects of Congress' 2007 minimum wage increase on the canning industry in American Samoa, a U.S. territory in the far Pacific Ocean. The 2007 legislation mandated 50 cents annual increases in Samoan minimum wages until it reached the U.S. mainland's hourly minimum of $7.25.

In response, Chicken of the Sea International moved its operation from Samoa to a highly automated cannery plant in Lyons, Ga. That resulted in roughly 2,000 jobs lost in Samoa and a gain of 200 jobs in Georgia. Prior to minimum wage increases, Samoan wages were about $3.25 an hour. With the legislated increases, Samoa's minimum wage is $5.25. So the question is: Which is preferable for the Samoan worker — being employed at $3.25 an hour or being unemployed at $5.25? Which buys more of life's essentials?

The Samoa News (April 10, 2010) reported that American Samoa's Gov. Togiola Tulafono warned Congress more than once that American Samoa is "destined for very serious economic difficulties" if nothing is done to change provisions of federal law which mandate annual minimum wage increases.

On May 14th, the governor's warnings bore distasteful fruit. StarKist, the island's remaining cannery, announced that between 600 and 800 people will be laid off over the next six months, reducing the company's Samoan workforce from a high of more than 3,000 in 2008 to less than 1,200 workers. StarKist CEO Don Binotto said it's difficult to compete when Samoan workers' wages are nearly 10 times those of its competitors in Thailand and other countries.

David Armstrong

09-08-2013, 12:57 PM

I read all your posts. I know what you were arguing for. You said the wage increase wasn't necessarily the cause of the increase in price of biscuits and gravy. Is that not correct?
What I argue for or against may or may not have anything to do with what I consider logical or illogical or how I view others arguments, which was your claim. And yes, wage increase does not necessarily cause increase in product price. Amny items at Wal Mart, for example, are cheaper now than they were back when the minimum wage was less than now. Following Hurrican Rita, when the de-facto minimum here became $9/hr (approx 50% increase) prices at Popeye's, McDonalds, Sonic, etc. did not increase.

I'm telling you, as a multiple business owner that raising wages will necessarily, without exception, increase the cost to the consumer. I'm not paying for a wage increase as the owner. You are as the customer.
That is certainly your choice. I'm telling you that research and history show us that such a result is not necessarily and/or automatically going to occur. See above. Do you raise prices every time you give an employee a raise? I doubt it.

If the fry cook makes 2x as much tomorrow, where is the money coming from? Out of the shareholders pockets? It has to come from somewhere.
Perhaps. But again, "somewhere" does not necessarily equate to "increase price for consumer."

Fact of the matter is this: businesses exist to make the share holders money. Not to employ people. Not to ensure you can make a family supporting career out of flipping burgers.

This is just like some of my students. I've heard "I'm the customer" from one too many of them. No. They are the product. The businesses hiring them are the customer. If GE/Copeland/McDs/et al. start buying substandard product (students), then value goes down of the degree. I start out my senior/grad level classes like this:
Me: Who do you think you will compete against when you graduate?
Students: Look at each other, thinking that is the answer.
Me: No. You compete against me. I wake up at 5:30 every day. I work till 7, every day. I have never stopped going to school. I am never "off the clock."

OK, still don't see what any of that has to do with the philosophy that it is better that a person work for an adequate base salary rather than be given the equivalent as a freebie from the taxpayer. It seems many are arguing that keeping people dependent on handouts from the government is a good thing. I disagree with that position.

Tamara

09-08-2013, 01:06 PM

Perhaps. But again, "somewhere" does not necessarily equate to "increase price for consumer."

What alternate source would you suggest? Unlike the government, private corporations can't just whip up more money whenever they feel like it, they have to take it from other people, who we call "consumers".
If you are aware of some alternate source of income for McDonalds that they can tap to get more money other than, you know, selling hamburgers to consumers, I'm sure they'd be interested in hearing all about it.

David Armstrong

09-08-2013, 01:10 PM

Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment.
Again folks, please don't let the fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples where this statement has been shown to be false get in the way of tossing around cliches. Recent published research overwhelmingly supports the idea that an increase in the minimum wage does not mean a mandatory rise in unemployment or a significant rise in consumer prices.

David Armstrong

09-08-2013, 01:17 PM

What alternate source would you suggest? Unlike the government, private corporations can't just whip up more money whenever they feel like it, they have to take it from other people, who we call "consumers".
If you are aware of some alternate source of income for McDonalds that they can tap to get more money other than, you know, selling hamburgers to consumers, I'm sure they'd be interested in hearing all about it.
Apparently there are several alternatives, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/14/why-economists-are-so-puzzled-by-the-minimum-wage/)as we have seen over and over that an increase in wages does not automatically lead to an increase in price for the consumer. It really isn't the responsibility of those arguing against the idea to explain how to do it, IMO, it is the responsibility of those claiming it must happen to explain why it has not happened so many times previously. Also see http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
Let me pose a question: If, as some are arguing, there is a direct causation effect here, if the minimum wage went DOWN to $6/hr how many think that prices would go down by a comparable amount??

Shellback

09-08-2013, 01:17 PM

Again folks, please don't let the fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples where this statement has been shown to be false get in the way of tossing around cliches. Recent published research overwhelmingly supports the idea that an increase in the minimum wage does not mean a mandatory rise in unemployment or a significant rise in consumer prices.
I realize you may not agree but the people's opinions I read and trust are very sought out for their expertise in the matters. Please read this excerpt from a Walter E. Williams article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/02/walter-e-williams/higher-minimum-wages/).

University of California, Irvine economist David Neumark has examined more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage. He states that the White House claim “grossly misstates the weight of the evidence.” About 85 percent of the studies “find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers.” A 1976 American Economic Association survey found that 90 percent of its members agreed that increasing the minimum wage raises unemployment among young and unskilled workers. A 1990 survey found that 80 percent of economists agreed with the statement that increases in the minimum wage cause unemployment among the youth and low-skilled. If you’re looking for a consensus in most fields of study, examine the introductory and intermediate college textbooks in the field. Economics textbooks that mention the minimum wage say that it increases unemployment for the least skilled worker.

As detailed in my recent book Race and Economics (2012), during times of gross racial discrimination, black unemployment was lower than white unemployment and blacks were more active in the labor market. For example, in 1948, black teen unemployment was less than white teen unemployment, and black teens were more active in the labor market. Today black teen unemployment is about 40 percent; for whites, it is about 20 percent. The minimum wage law weighs heavily in this devastating picture. Supporters of higher minimum wages want to index it to inflation so as to avoid its periodic examination.

Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University

David Armstrong

09-08-2013, 01:28 PM

I realize you may not agree but the people's opinions I read and trust are very sought out for their expertise in the matters. Please read this excerpt from a Walter E. Williams article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/02/walter-e-williams/higher-minimum-wages/).
Yep, that is what Williams said. Let's look at others:
In 1995, David Card and Alan Krueger published their now classic book, Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage, on the topic in which they consistently found that minimum wage increases did not lower employment by any discernible amount and, if anything, appeared to slightly raise employment.
Neumark and Wascher 2000 on the minimum wage-employment question find either no significant employment effects or only small negative effects.
Economist Richard Freeman, Harvard University summarized the by saying, there was no longer a question that there are no large negative effects to increasing the minimum wage. The only quesiton is of ther eis NO effect or if the effect is insignificant.
A series of studies that find no employment effects from minimum wage increases (e.g., Dube, Lester, and Reich 2010 and Allegretto, Dube, and Reich 2011).
A 2013 paper by Allegretto, Dube, Reich and Zipperer carefully supports the techniques used in Dube, Lester and Reich (2010) and Allegretto, Dube and Reich (2011), and reaffirms the previous results that there is no effect on employment based on an increase in the minimum wage.

A 1990 survey found that 80 percent of economists agreed with the statement that increases in the minimum wage cause unemployment among the youth and low-skilled.
FWIW, by 2000 agreement with that statement was down to 46%, and in 2013 it is down to 34% agree and 32% disagree.

Shellback

09-08-2013, 01:37 PM

Yep, that is what Williams said. Let's look at others:
In 1995, David Card and Alan Krueger published their now classic book, Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage, on the topic in which they consistently found that minimum wage increases did not lower employment by any discernible amount and, if anything, appeared to slightly raise employment.
Neumark and Wascher 2000 on the minimum wage-employment question find either no significant employment effects or only small negative effects.
Economist Richard Freeman, Harvard University summarized the by saying, there was no longer a question that there are no large negative effects to increasing the minimum wage. The only quesiton is of ther eis NO effect or if the effect is insignificant.
A series of studies that find no employment effects from minimum wage increases (e.g., Dube, Lester, and Reich 2010 and Allegretto, Dube, and Reich 2011).
A 2013 paper by Allegretto, Dube, Reich and Zipperer carefully supports the techniques used in Dube, Lester and Reich (2010) and Allegretto, Dube and Reich (2011), and reaffirms the previous results that there is no effect on employment based on an increase in the minimum wage.
Easy day, then make the minimum wage $100 an hour and everyone will be happy.

ETA - My previous post showed an economist studying over 100 major academic studies of the minimum wage. Personally I think that carries a bit more weight versus what you're posting in terms of evidence supporting your position. If you don't agree I'm cool with that.

David Armstrong

09-08-2013, 01:43 PM

Easy day, then make the minimum wage to $100 an hour and everyone will be happy.
Again, if you can find any reputable source that has suggested doing that we can discuss it. Until then, however, it as a rather sad and irrelevant attempt to distract from the actual issues and to me suggests either an inability or an unwillingness to discuss the actual issues in an reasonable manner.

ETA - My previous post showed an economist studying over 100 major academic studies of the minimum wage. Personally I think that carries a bit more weight versus what you're posting in terms of evidence supporting your position. If you don't agree I'm cool with that.
And if you will go back in the posts you will see where I had an economist reporting on 68 recent studies of the minimum wage where the meta-analysis was that 64 of the articles concluded there was no negative effect. I think that carries quite a bit of weight. BTW, both support my position, which is that there are conflicting studies and the issue is not particularly clear cut, although the current weight is in favor of no or minimal effect. If you don't agree I'm cool with that also.

Shellback

09-08-2013, 01:45 PM

Another consequence that is often ignored. Snipped from Murray Rothbard's, Making Economic Sense.

In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.

All demand curves are falling, and the demand for hiring labor is no exception. Hence, laws that prohibit employment at any wage that is relevant to the market (a minimum wage of 10 cents an hour would have little or no impact) must result in outlawing employment and hence causing unemployment.

If the minimum wage is, in short, raised from $3.35 to $4.55 an hour, the consequence is to disemploy, permanently, those who would have been hired at rates in between these two rates. Since the demand curve for any sort of labor (as for any factor of production) is set by the perceived marginal productivity of that labor, this means that the people who will be disemployed and devastated by this prohibition will be precisely the "marginal" (lowest wage) workers, e.g. blacks and teenagers, the very workers whom the advocates of the minimum wage are claiming to foster and protect.

Shellback

09-08-2013, 01:50 PM

Again, if you can find any reputable source that has suggested doing that we can discuss it. Until then, however, it as a rather sad and irrelevant attempt to distract from the actual issues and to me suggests either an inability or an unwillingness to discuss the actual issues in an reasonable manner.

Why isn't it reasonable? If you follow the same train of thought and logic that states raising the minimum wage will do no harm, like what you posted, than $100 an hour would apply in the same way.

The problem is, raising the minimum wage, definitely impacts things in a negative manner. If it didn't then you could raise the minimum wage to any numerical value, say $1000/hr, and should expect no negative consequences. If you follow the reasoning that raising the minimum wage will do no harm.

Shellback

09-08-2013, 01:53 PM

Watch this quick video for an easy explanation.

http://youtu.be/siW0YAAfX6I

BaiHu

09-08-2013, 04:24 PM

Nice viddy Irish.

2 things:

1. Often, when you see prices going down, "b/c the minimum wage went up", it's because you no longer are using the same number of humans to provide your service.

Like the example Irish gave about the Samoans. Tuna probably got cheaper (or stayed the same), but because the government forced the hand of Starkist and now they have less employees and more technology which equals to the same or better pricing. Notice what they said about their Thai competition?

2. Just b/c someone got a raise during hurricane Rita, doesn't mean the prices are going up. Just like in the Dakotas, if workers are scarce, then the higher wage will needed workers. However, once there are enough workers, I bet the business owner offers less and less of a wage with each subsequent hire. The senior guy keeps his higher wage, because he came first and has the most experience and maybe he's management now, but no owner would be foolish enough to give the last guy the same wage as the first guy unless.....his business was doing so well that he's as relatively desperate as he was with his first hire.

Last question to David: If you had a business where you were forced to pay your employees more and possibly make your business less competitive and possibly lose market share and/or make less money, would you a) throw caution to the wind and just pay them all more, b) try to sell your business and let someone else deal with this problem, c) close your business and be done with it or d) find a way to trim your costs by automating more and only fire a few so that you could pay for others forced wage increase?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

BLR

09-08-2013, 05:50 PM

What I argue for or against may or may not have anything to do with what I consider logical or illogical or how I view others arguments, which was your claim. And yes, wage increase does not necessarily cause increase in product price. Amny items at Wal Mart, for example, are cheaper now than they were back when the minimum wage was less than now. Following Hurrican Rita, when the de-facto minimum here became $9/hr (approx 50% increase) prices at Popeye's, McDonalds, Sonic, etc. did not increase.

That is certainly your choice. I'm telling you that research and history show us that such a result is not necessarily and/or automatically going to occur. See above. Do you raise prices every time you give an employee a raise? I doubt it.

Perhaps. But again, "somewhere" does not necessarily equate to "increase price for consumer."

OK, still don't see what any of that has to do with the philosophy that it is better that a person work for an adequate base salary rather than be given the equivalent as a freebie from the taxpayer. It seems many are arguing that keeping people dependent on handouts from the government is a good thing. I disagree with that position.

So you are arguing for the sake of arguing? I just want to be clear.

Something to consider - If an extra $5/hr goes into the pocket of Joe FryCook, it necessarily comes from our pocket unless money is somehow spontaneously generated. It comes from you and I, the consumer, in the form of: price increases, quality decreases, lower stock prices, and so on.

So that I am clear, where are you suggesting the money comes from? What exactly are you arguing? Because in reading your posts, you have me (and it seems Tam, Bali, Mario, and some others) convinced that you believe an increase in minimum wage won't affect prices. And I'm telling you that it has to - unless the managers are going to take a corresponding pay cut, quality goes down, shareholders get screwed, or services are reduced.

Hatchetman

09-08-2013, 08:14 PM

Hmm, yes circumlocutions paying homage to some mythical middle ground claimed with a high moral dander seem a pastime in some quarters. I prefer conversations that illuminate rather than obfuscate and hence tend to bow out when productive exchange doesn't appear to be a shared value. Certainly plenty of people equivocating on the internet; I've better things to do than deconstruct the resulting convolutions.

Having said that, there is a CEPR piece that has been cited a couple times as evidence that minimum wage hikes don't impact low wage employes that ought to be read a bit more closely. Perhaps it doesn't effect some people, but there are impacts mentioned in the piece's conclusion (emphasis added):

Economists have conducted hundreds of studies of the employment impact of the minimum wage. Summarizing those studies is a daunting task, but two recent meta-studies analyzing the research conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers.

The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers. In the traditional discussion of the minimum wage, economists have focused on how these costs affect employment outcomes, but employers have many other channels of adjustment. Employers can reduce hours, non-wage benefits, or training. Employers can also shift the composition toward higher skilled workers, cut pay to more highly paid workers, take action to increase worker productivity (from reorganizing production to increasing training), increase prices to consumers, or simply accept a smaller profit margin. Workers may also respond to the higher wage by working harder on the job. But, probably the most important channel of adjustment is through reductions in labor turnover, which yield significant cost savings to employers. (Schmitt, 24-25)

Reducing hours, benefits, the availability of training, shifting compositions toward higher skilled workers (a statement which seems contrary to Schmitt's thesis), cutting pay of existing workers, increasing productivity, or raising prices all constitute economic impacts. Some of them, like forgoing training or cutting benefits, are likely to harm those who need bennies and training the most. Of course the author of the piece uses some weasel words at the end to mitigate the impact of the previous stark sentences such as "may also respond," and "[b]ut, probably the most," however his conclusion doesn't support a claim of no impact, and it's hard to imagine how the consequences he does cop to don't impact lower wage workers unless they are only defined as such until the time of hire, at which point they become a member of a new class with reduced benefits, training, et al.

BaiHu

09-08-2013, 09:10 PM

Nice infographic of how the US minimum wage compares to other countries in regards to purchasing power: http://feedly.com/k/17K2fvu

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

David Armstrong

09-09-2013, 03:27 PM

Why isn't it reasonable?
If you really need an answer to that, it explains a big part of the problem. Suggesting a minimum wage that is higher than the median wage is not reasonable. That is really all that needs to be said.
[/quote] If you follow the same train of thought and logic that states raising the minimum wage will do no harm, like what you posted, than $100 an hour would apply in the same way.[/quote]
No, it won't. A minimum wage that is higher than a median wage really doesn't meet the traditional economic and/or historic concept of a minimum wage.

The problem is, raising the minimum wage, definitely impacts things in a negative manner. If it didn't then you could raise the minimum wage to any numerical value, say $1000/hr, and should expect no negative consequences. If you follow the reasoning that raising the minimum wage will do no harm.
Strange that so much of that research out there does not show raising the minimum wage has impacted things in a negative manner. Basically what you are saying is that since drinking a glass of water every day does not impact the body in a negative manner then drinking 100 gallons of water every day would not have a negative impact. Doesn't work that way.

David Armstrong

09-09-2013, 03:31 PM

Nice viddy Irish.

2 things:
OK then, apparently you do agree that raising the minimum wage does not autoamatically mean an increase in cost to consumer or an increase in unemployment. That si my point.

Last question to David: If you had a business where you were forced to pay your employees more and possibly make your business less competitive and possibly lose market share and/or make less money, would you a) throw caution to the wind and just pay them all more, b) try to sell your business and let someone else deal with this problem, c) close your business and be done with it or d) find a way to trim your costs by automating more and only fire a few so that you could pay for others forced wage increase?
Don't know. Lots of variables there that are not available that I would need to guide the decision, and I'm not sure those would be the only alternatives available to me.

Shellback

09-09-2013, 03:39 PM

Basically what you are saying is that since drinking a glass of water every day does not impact the body in a negative manner then drinking 100 gallons of water every day would not have a negative impact. Doesn't work that way.

I'm running out the door in a minute so this has to be quick... Comparing the economic impact of artificially inflating the minimum wage by government mandate versus human physiology in response to too much H2O isn't really feasible in my opinion. Maybe I'm off base but the two really aren't compatible in terms of a comparison.

David Armstrong

09-09-2013, 03:41 PM

So you are arguing for the sake of arguing? I just want to be clear.
No more so than many others here, I would suggest. I am arguing that there are many issues and informational items that relate to this topic, it is not one-sided as some would suggest.

Something to consider - If an extra $5/hr goes into the pocket of Joe FryCook, it necessarily comes from our pocket unless money is somehow spontaneously generated. It comes from you and I, the consumer, in the form of: price increases, quality decreases, lower stock prices, and so on.
Again, it seems much of the research disagrees with that conclusion.

So that I am clear, where are you suggesting the money comes from? What exactly are you arguing? Because in reading your posts, you have me (and it seems Tam, Bali, Mario, and some others) convinced that you believe an increase in minimum wage won't affect prices. And I'm telling you that it has to - unless the managers are going to take a corresponding pay cut, quality goes down, shareholders get screwed, or services are reduced.
That is the problem I have alluded to before. It always helps if folks will discuss what is actually said instead of making up positions for others that may or may not be accurate. I beleive based on the research available and my personal experiences that a raise in the minimum wage does not automatically or necessarily create an increase in unemployment, an increase in consumer cost, or assorted other negative outcomes as has been evidenced repeatedly throughout history. It certainly might in some cases, but it has not in a large number of cases and has even proven beneficial in the long run in some instances. I further believe that as a philosophy it is better that a person work for a living wage than have taxpayer freebies support the person.

David Armstrong

09-09-2013, 03:42 PM

double tap

David Armstrong

09-09-2013, 03:49 PM

. I prefer conversations that illuminate rather than obfuscate and hence tend to bow out when productive exchange doesn't appear to be a shared value.
Thus the importance of making sure that valid research on both sides of an issue be presented rather than allowing a one-sided presentation, particularly of rather complicated topics.

BLR

09-09-2013, 04:56 PM

No more so than many others here, I would suggest. I am arguing that there are many issues and informational items that relate to this topic, it is not one-sided as some would suggest.

Again, it seems much of the research disagrees with that conclusion.

That is the problem I have alluded to before. It always helps if folks will discuss what is actually said instead of making up positions for others that may or may not be accurate. I beleive based on the research available and my personal experiences that a raise in the minimum wage does not automatically or necessarily create an increase in unemployment, an increase in consumer cost, or assorted other negative outcomes as has been evidenced repeatedly throughout history. It certainly might in some cases, but it has not in a large number of cases and has even proven beneficial in the long run in some instances. I further believe that as a philosophy it is better that a person work for a living wage than have taxpayer freebies support the person.

Please enlighten me then. Where, specifically, does the money come from?

This seems obvious to me. Unless quality suffers, someone else takes a pay cut, the shareholders take a hit, someone else is laid off, where does the money come from.

At the risk of offending economists, that is hardly a hard science. Hence the disagreement and lack of definitive proof of anything. If the daily operating cost of your local McDs goes up $1000, where does the money come from?

BaiHu

09-09-2013, 07:04 PM

OK then, apparently you do agree that raising the minimum wage does not autoamatically mean an increase in cost to consumer or an increase in unemployment. That si my point.

Nope. It means that the outliers you chose fit your argument and I showed you why they fit your argument by showing you where the money would go or where it came from.

The vast majority here are arguing over the "price" of minimum wage has a greater "cost" and I believe you are mistakenly fixated on the "price" to the exclusion of the "cost". Although this article highlights taxes, I believe the article is still relevant to a minimum wage increase and I think you'll see why: http://m.townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/04/17/price-versus-cost-n1568054/page/full

And a good quote:

"If taxes only concealed hidden costs of what we buy, we'd be lucky, but taxes are destructive in another hidden way. Suppose I want to hire you to repair my computer. Having the work done is worth $200 to me, and performing the work is worth $200 to you. The transaction occurs because we have a meeting of the minds. Suppose Congress imposes a 30 percent income tax on you. That means that if you repaired my computer, you would receive not $200, what it was worth to you to do the job, but instead $140 after taxes. You might say the heck with repairing my computer; spending time with your family is worth more than $140.You might then offer that you'd do the job if I paid you $283. That way, your after-tax earnings would be $200 -- what doing the job is worth to you. There's a problem. The repair job was worth $200 to me, not $283. So it's my turn to say the heck with it."

This is how taxes or a minimum wage increase effects the cost to the consumer. You might say it's only a small wage increase that keeps them off the dole, but to the employer and the consumer, it changes the equation drastically. Now the employer has to decide whether he wants to hire any humans or just automate and the consumer may just do without your service or go somewhere else. As for you, the "winner" of a better wage, you're now a "loser", because you're now unemployed.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

BaiHu

09-10-2013, 08:40 AM

How costs, have a price :p

A Grand Rapids, Michigan report on a company that had to lay off over 1,000 people due to the Obamacare medical device tax:
...."There's a new 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers. According to some reports, Kalamazoo based Stryker has laid off more than a thousand people because of it--and owes the federal government upwards of $100 million dollars this year alone. Late last week a Stryker spokesperson told me that Obamacare will cost the company fully 20 percent of its total research and development investments.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-medical-device-tax-causes-one-company-lay-over-1000-people_753721.html

If the gov't raises taxes and this happens, don't you think if it raises the minimum wage things like this will happen as well??

Hatchetman

09-10-2013, 09:50 AM

Thus the importance of making sure that valid research on both sides of an issue be presented rather than allowing a one-sided presentation, particularly of rather complicated topics.

Ah valid research from the CEPR. Take a look at the bios of their "progressive" economist experts found here:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/experts/

. . . and tell me if you think any of them would still be employed by the CEPR were they to publish a paper stating a higher minimum wage did more harm than good.

The piece cited in the CATO article I posted, on the other hand, found here:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf

. . . was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, whose "about" page:

http://www.nber.org/info.html

. . . certainly has a more non-partisan flavor. Indeed the disclosure information required by the NBER, found here:

http://www.nber.org/researchdisclosurepolicy.html

. . . suggests they are far more concerned about perceived conflicts of interests than the CEPR is. Check out also the NBER's Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBER

. . . and contrast to that of the CEPR's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Economic_and_Policy_Research

. . . then tell me who holds the Nobel Prize gravitas high ground in that contest?

I'm flailing on this point as it speaks to one of the things I find most galling about internet discussions: in these days of Google informed debate has been replaced by an add water and stir link pasting ethic where citing some random source that may or may not be rigorous, congruent, authoritative, et al is considered effort enough. Anyone seeking to further engage in discussion is then required to sift through the link, weigh the bona fides, construct a response, etc. all of which requires far more effort than the original link paste. Indeed, I suspect it's a tactic of some to respond to well formed arguments by dropping a tangential link of questionable veracity and then wearing the other side down as it is far less time consuming to paste a link than it is to craft a reasoned response, while the person crafting the response then has to back his words, while the one pasting the link can always claim "I don't really believe this stuff, I'm only doing this for reasons of fairness and balance." If reasoned discourse is the shared goal, then I think link dropping is a tactic that runs contrary to that end. If this is about some sort of ego-bound gamesmanship instead . . . well than the discussion is hardly worth partaking of in the first place.

As that may be, the meat of my last response was that the very conclusion of the CEPR piece in fact owned up to the fact there are likely negative impacts to raising the minimum wage. Do you take issue with the characterization? Perhaps there is a link to another petition you can post by way of response.

Oh, and did you see this piece in the NYT over the weekend:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/business/a-dearth-of-investment-in-young-workers.html?ref=business&_r=1&

It states that only 36 percent of Americans between 16 and 24 who are not in school are employed full time. Think a drop in the minimum wage might up that number a wee bit? Perhaps the perverse incentives legislators tend to spin off have something to do with this dearth, eh what?

BaiHu

09-10-2013, 10:06 AM

Amen H-man.

David Armstrong

09-10-2013, 03:07 PM

Please enlighten me then. Where, specifically, does the money come from?
This is such a strange question. The money will come from the same place it came from when the minimum wage was $3, or $6. or any other wage. If an emplyee is given a raise based on merit where does the money come from? Same place money came from when he was getting the previous salary.

David Armstrong

09-10-2013, 03:12 PM

Nope. It means that the outliers you chose fit your argument and I showed you why they fit your argument by showing you where the money would go or where it came from.
In other words, raising the minimum wage does not automatically mean an increase in cost to consumer or an increase in unemployment.

The vast majority here are arguing over the "price" of minimum wage has a greater "cost" and I believe you are mistakenly fixated on the "price" to the exclusion of the "cost".
Nope, I'm quite aware of the potential cost. I see the problem as many here being so fixated on the possible cost they are unable or unwilling to see the benefits or recognize the large number of times the cost has not lead to negative outcomes.

Although this article highlights taxes, I believe the article is still relevant to a minimum wage increase and I think you'll see why: http://m.townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/04/17/price-versus-cost-n1568054/page/full

And a good quote:
I believe I've posted enough articles and quotes that take show the opposite that there isn't much need in posting more of them. We have a difference of philosophy. I think I've based mine on looking at both sides of the issue, I question whether others can say the same.

BLR

09-10-2013, 03:30 PM

This is such a strange question. The money will come from the same place it came from when the minimum wage was $3, or $6. or any other wage. If an emplyee is given a raise based on merit where does the money come from? Same place money came from when he was getting the previous salary.

Ah, from sales.

Good, that means that prices need to go up! Unless the stockholders are going to eat a loss.

David Armstrong

09-10-2013, 03:34 PM

Ah valid research from the CEPR. Take a look at the bios of their "progressive" economist experts found here:
Ahh yes, the ever popular "my experts and sources are all perfect and beyond reproach because they agree with my position, but your experts are worthless even though they have the same qualifications (or better)" argument. Sort of hard to have a reasoned discussion with that. And while I know it won't matter to you the CEPR study is only one of several resources I've used.

I'm flailing on this point as it speaks to one of the things I find most galling about internet discussions: in these days of Google informed debate has been replaced by an add water and stir link pasting ethic where citing some random source that may or may not be rigorous, congruent, authoritative, et al
Right:rolleyes:. That is why the work of Thomas Sowell is held up by some while at the same time they ignore the work of Paul Krugman.:confused:

As that may be, the meat of my last response was that the very conclusion of the CEPR piece in fact owned up to the fact there are likely negative impacts to raising the minimum wage. Do you take issue with the characterization? Perhaps there is a link to another petition you can post by way of response.
And the meat of my response has been that yes, there certainly MAY be some negative impacts, just as there certainly MAY be some positive impacts, and the the majority of the recent literature indicates no negative impacts. Again, I don't restrict myself to one single source for information.

Oh, and did you see this piece in the NYT over the weekend:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/business/a-dearth-of-investment-in-young-workers.html?ref=business&_r=1&

It states that only 36 percent of Americans between 16 and 24 who are not in school are employed full time. Think a drop in the minimum wage might up that number a wee bit? Perhaps the perverse incentives legislators tend to spin off have something to do with this dearth, eh what?
I doubt that lowering the minimum wage would increase the number of 16-24 year olds employed by any significant number. As mentioned before, anyone who thinks the main factor in employment is the minimum wage probably doesn't have a firm grasp on the issue. African Americans have a high rate of unemployment. Think lowering the minimum wage would result in an increase in employment among them?

As always, theory is nice but when we have factual realities that are there to look at it sort of puts the theory in perspective. Many states and cities already have a higher minimum wage without any clear negative impact. The de facto minimum wage has gone up in several areas, again with no noticeable negative impact. The minimum wage has been the equivalent to over $10 before with no negative impact. The minimum wage has been doubled without an overall negative impact. So it is pretty clear that it can be done.

David Armstrong

09-10-2013, 03:38 PM

Ah, from sales.

Good, that means that prices need to go up! Unless the stockholders are going to eat a loss.
Again, an assumption that seems to be contradicted by reality. As mentioned many times (and AFAIK nobody has managed to explain) wages have gone up without negative impact on a regular basis.

BLR

09-10-2013, 03:41 PM

Again, an assumption that seems to be contradicted by reality. As mentioned many times (and AFAIK nobody has managed to explain) wages have gone up without negative impact on a regular basis.

Then please, so that I don't make assumptions on what you believe and think, tell me exactly where the extra money is coming from.

Joe in PNG

09-10-2013, 03:45 PM

Again, an assumption that seems to be contradicted by reality. As mentioned many times (and AFAIK nobody has managed to explain) wages have gone up without negative impact on a regular basis.

Which, in view of the Fall of Detroit, outsourcing, and the whole "Rust Belt" thing, is maybe not an accurate accessment of the state of American manufacturing industry.

Joe in PNG

09-10-2013, 03:50 PM

Another point to ponder. Is a brand spanking new Smith and Wesson Model 27 the exact same in fit, finish, and small parts quality as a new Model 27 would have been right off the factory line in 1963?

Shellback

09-10-2013, 05:23 PM

African Americans have a high rate of unemployment. Think lowering the minimum wage would result in an increase in employment among them?

Yes. I'll use examples from 2 of my favorite economists who just happen to be black and don't suffer from liberal white guilt & angst.

Funny stuff (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/04/walter-e-williams/the-1st-kenyan-american-president/) from Walter E. Williams.

Liberals deny that raising labor cost through minimum wages reduces incentives to hire. But if you asked a liberal for advice on how to stop rich people from shirking their tax obligations, they’d say raise the penalty. Ask low-information Harvard University doctors what should be done to stem gun violence and they answer that government should institute “a new, substantial national tax on all firearms and ammunition.” Ask Illinois’ Cook County Board of Commissioners President Toni Preckwinkle how to reduce purchases of bullets and guns. She’d say levy a nickel tax on each bullet and a $25 tax on each gun. Liberals demonstrate they understand the law of demand – that raising the cost of something lessens the amount taken – but they deny that it applies to labor. That’s as ludicrous as suggesting that the law of gravity applies to everything in the universe except cute creatures, such as pandas and puppies.

One piece (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/thomas-sowell/when-teenage-thugs-are-troubled-youths/) from Thomas Sowell. ;)

There was a minimum wage law, but this was 1949 and the wages set by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 had been rendered meaningless by years of inflation. In the absence of an effective minimum wage law, unemployment among black teenagers in the recession year of 1949 was a fraction of what it would be in even the most prosperous years of the 1960s and beyond.

As the morally anointed busybodies raised the minimum wage rate, beginning in the 1950s, black teenage unemployment skyrocketed. We have now become so used to tragically high rates of unemployment among this group that many people have no idea that things were not always like that, much less that policies of the busybody left had such catastrophic consequences.

A piece (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/05/walter-e-williams/the-minimum-wage-is-anti-black/) from Walter E. Williams.

Why do young black males suffer unequal harm from minimum wage increases? Even and Macpherson say that they’re more likely to be employed in low-skilled jobs in eating and drinking establishments. These are businesses with narrow profit margins and are more adversely affected by increases in minimum wage increases. For 16-to-24-year-old men without a high school diploma, 25 percent of whites and 31 percent of blacks work at an eating and drinking establishment. Compounding the discriminatory burden of minimum wages, not discussed by the authors, are the significant educational achievement differences between blacks and whites.

The best way to sabotage chances for upward mobility of a youngster from a single-parent household, who resides in a violent slum and has attended poor-quality schools is to make it unprofitable for any employer to hire him. The way to accomplish that is to mandate an employer to pay such a person a wage that exceeds his skill level.

And another (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/08/walter-e-williams/race-and-economics/) from W.E.W.

Chapter 3 of “Race and Economics,” my most recent book, starts out, “Some might find it puzzling that during times of gross racial discrimination, black unemployment was lower and blacks were more active in the labor force than they are today.” Up until the late 1950s, the labor force participation rate of black teens and adults was equal to or greater than their white counterparts. In fact, in 1910, 71 percent of black males older than 9 were employed, compared with 51 percent for whites. As early as 1890, the duration of unemployment among blacks was shorter than it was among whites, whereas today unemployment is both higher and longer-lasting among blacks than among whites.....

During the 1930s, there were a number of federal government interventions that changed the black employment picture. The first was the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, which mandated minimum wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects. During the bill’s legislative debate, the racial objectives were clear. Rep. John Cochran, D-Mo., said he had “received numerous complaints … about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South.” Rep. Clayton Allgood, D-Ala., complained: “Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. … That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country.” Rep. William Upshaw, D-Ga., spoke of the “superabundance or large aggregation of Negro labor.” American Federation of Labor President William Green said, “Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates.” For decades after Davis-Bacon enactment, black workers on federally financed or assisted construction projects virtually disappeared. The Davis-Bacon Act is still on the books, and tragically today’s black congressmen, doing the bidding of their labor union allies, vote against any effort to modify or eliminate its restrictions.

The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 broadened the number of workers covered by minimum wages, with negative consequences for black employment across a much wider range of industries. Good intentions motivate most Americans in their support for minimum wage laws, but for compassionate public policy, one should examine the laws’ effect.

09-10-2013, 06:12 PM

Another thing. I don't get as much gravy as I used to and the biscuits are smaller. :)

BaiHu

09-10-2013, 06:28 PM

But Irish, didn't they feel better about the minimum wage increase? :p

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Shellback

09-10-2013, 06:34 PM

But Irish, didn't they feel better about the minimum wage increase? :p

Reading those guys stuff is a huge wake up call for a lot of people. No excuses, no BS and the facts on "being black" rather than making excuses. Plus, they're 2 smart dudes on economics as well! :cool:

BLR

09-10-2013, 07:00 PM

Again, an assumption that seems to be contradicted by reality. As mentioned many times (and AFAIK nobody has managed to explain) wages have gone up without negative impact on a regular basis.

Please, for me cause I'm simple minded, explain to me where this money comes from then. That's all I ask. I've asked it multiple times now, and you just keep saying the same thing.

BaiHu

09-10-2013, 07:05 PM

Reading those guys stuff is a huge wake up call for a lot of people. No excuses, no BS and the facts on "being black" rather than making excuses. Plus, they're 2 smart dudes on economics as well! :cool:

Between those two and Milton Friedman, they've got it all covered ;)

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

David Armstrong

09-11-2013, 05:30 PM

Then please, so that I don't make assumptions on what you believe and think, tell me exactly where the extra money is coming from.
Exactly where ANY money comes from. I suppose I could be snarky and give a brief report on how the Mint makes bills and how they then get into circulation, etc. but money comes from the same place if the minimum wage is $3, or if the wage is $6, or if the wage is $9, etc. Wages do not determine where money comes from. IF I am paid $6 to flip burgers the money for the $1 value burger comes from the same place as the money for the $1 value burger when I am getting paid $9.

David Armstrong

09-11-2013, 05:31 PM

Which, in view of the Fall of Detroit, outsourcing, and the whole "Rust Belt" thing, is maybe not an accurate accessment of the state of American manufacturing industry.
I think it would be quite a stretch to argue the fall of Detroit was the result of minimum wage issues.

David Armstrong

09-11-2013, 05:34 PM

Yes. I'll use examples from 2 of my favorite economists who just happen to be black and don't suffer from liberal white guilt & angst.
Then you would be wrong. Again, I've posted enough that you apparently haven't read, no need to post more.

tremiles

09-11-2013, 06:27 PM

In my business, I give merit raises or bonuses based on productivity/quality/sales increases or cost cutting. But if my cost goes up artificially and I can't find somewhere else to cut, it absolutely will end up either out of my pocket (market won't bear increases) or out of my customer's pocket.

This is obviously not economic data and a sample size of one business owner based on my own personal experience.

Without an appropriate productivity/quality increase, the market will either bear the price hike from a minimum wage increase in low skilled fast food service, because it affects all fast food service, or folks will look elsewhere, sales will decrease and folks will lose their jobs.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

Joe in PNG

09-11-2013, 08:57 PM

I think it would be quite a stretch to argue the fall of Detroit was the result of minimum wage issues.

Not at all. You artificially increase the cost of labor, and people look elsewhere for laborers.

BLR

09-12-2013, 07:25 AM

Exactly where ANY money comes from. I suppose I could be snarky and give a brief report on how the Mint makes bills and how they then get into circulation, etc. but money comes from the same place if the minimum wage is $3, or if the wage is $6, or if the wage is $9, etc. Wages do not determine where money comes from. IF I am paid $6 to flip burgers the money for the $1 value burger comes from the same place as the money for the $1 value burger when I am getting paid $9.

If you really think money comes from the gov't, then I won't waste any more time on this. I would suggest you "check your premise" though.

I will mention your first response to me where you took exception to the "what you believe" bit - if you believe what I just quoted, I'd say my statement holds true. If you think the gov't is the source of money, what you believe is illogical to me. The dollar bill is nothing but a convenient source of exchange of goods and/or services. And if you believe that, then, by exclusion, you cannot believe that the private sector produces money. And there in lies the trouble with libertarians and progressives - the difference in the belief of the role of the government. The government is not a "source." It is a re-distribution entity. The government does not create wealth, it can only re-distribute it.

Also, generally speaking, I do my best not to be "snarky." The last snarky response I received was promptly emailed to 4 "real" firearms engineers (I'm just a consultant in this little world), and we are still laughing at the individuals lack of reading comprehension, vocabulary and non existent grasp of the fundamentals of physics. Snarky only works when you are 100% right, and have all the evidence supporting your side. And even then, you look like a d-bag for behaving unprofessionally. Just my $0.02.

David Armstrong

09-12-2013, 10:53 AM

Not at all. You artificially increase the cost of labor, and people look elsewhere for laborers.
Again, if you think Detroit's problems are the result of increasing the minimum wage you have missed something fairly important IMO.

David Armstrong

09-12-2013, 11:05 AM

If you really think money comes from the gov't, then I won't waste any more time on this. I would suggest you "check your premise" though.

I will mention your first response to me where you took exception to the "what you believe" bit - if you believe what I just quoted, I'd say my statement holds true. If you think the gov't is the source of money, what you believe is illogical to me. The dollar bill is nothing but a convenient source of exchange of goods and/or services. And if you believe that, then, by exclusion, you cannot believe that the private sector produces money. And there in lies the trouble with libertarians and progressives - the difference in the belief of the role of the government. The government is not a "source." It is a re-distribution entity. The government does not create wealth, it can only re-distribute it.

Also, generally speaking, I do my best not to be "snarky." The last snarky response I received was promptly emailed to 4 "real" firearms engineers (I'm just a consultant in this little world), and we are still laughing at the individuals lack of reading comprehension, vocabulary and non existent grasp of the fundamentals of physics. Snarky only works when you are 100% right, and have all the evidence supporting your side. And even then, you look like a d-bag for behaving unprofessionally. Just my $0.02.
I suppose I could give a big treatise on how money actually has been created by the government for decades and the value of that money is based in large part on the govenment support of that money, but I doubt it would mean much here. Yes, the dollar bill is a convenient means of exchange, but it is a convenient means of exchange specifically because the government prints it, stands behind it, and supports it to varying degrees. So the question of "where does the money come from" is still a rather silly question I contend. The money comes from the same place no matter what the minimum wage. Money doesn't change just because an employ gets a raise. Money comes from the government. You may be confusing money with wealth or value. I have over 10 billion Zimbabwe dollars, cash money. The source of that money is was the Zimbabwean government. The value of that money is very small even though it is a lot of money.

David Armstrong

09-12-2013, 11:15 AM

Please, for me cause I'm simple minded, explain to me where this money comes from then. That's all I ask. I've asked it multiple times now, and you just keep saying the same thing.
If you ask the same thing you should expect the same answer. Again, the source of money does not change based on wage. The money comes from the same place whether the employee is making $3, $6, or $9. A business is more than wages, the cost of business is more than just wages. I believe I've already mentioned that as just one example McDonalds wages comprise on only 17% of their costs and that is including all the corporate folks that are making millions of dollars. Some folks seem to have this blind spot that only wages determine cost. That is false, which is why when one puts aside theory and looks at reality one can find numerous examples of raising wages not having any negative impact on employment or cost to consumer.

BaiHu

09-12-2013, 12:26 PM

Here's a perfect example as to how cost increases, not brought on by natural market forces, destroy jobs, wealth and therefore consumption.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w_9HIp6P7uY

Of course public entities aren't bound by bud-gets? How do you pronounce b-u-d-g-e-t?? Whatever that word is, apparently it's important to private entities.

On the topic of 'where does the money come from', I believe you are answering with: "this is where the money is" David. You've described where the money is (present tense) when someone is paid a wage (I agree that this is not the only cost, however wages are less 'fixed' than the building you own and the widgets you sell for many reasons that could be a whole other conversation/topic), but you are not answering where the money will (future tense) come from if you raise that wage. I believe the video affixed above answers that quite clearly regardless of what new costs a business encounters.

ETA: Just found this relevant tidbit about the Walmart DC forced wage issue and look what the mayor said (no, he's not an Republican-big shock, I know)....

Mayor Vincent Gray vetoed a bill Thursday that would force Wal-Mart and other large retailers to pay their employees at least $12.50 an hour, calling it a "job killer" that would not advance the goal of a living wage for District of Columbia workers.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/12/DC-MAYOR-VETOES-WAGE-BILL-AFFECTING-WAL-MART

Joe in PNG

09-12-2013, 02:46 PM

Again, if you think Detroit's problems are the result of increasing the minimum wage you have missed something fairly important IMO.

Nope- I said that the loss of American manufacturing was due to artifically increased wages.

Ponder this. Let's say you own a company with a dozen wage workers. 4 at minimum, 4 at $15 per hour, and 4 at $20 per hour. If you're forced to up minimum wage to $12.50, what does that do to the wages of your 8 guys who basically just got a pay cut?
And what do you do, as an employer, with your 8 guys who are very valuable but now will be wanting more money?

BLR

09-12-2013, 03:06 PM

Money doesn't change just because an employ gets a raise. Money comes from the government. You may be confusing money with wealth or value. I have over 10 billion Zimbabwe dollars, cash money. The source of that money is was the Zimbabwean government. The value of that money is very small even though it is a lot of money.

So, let me get this straight - you are contending that because a gov't prints "money," then that is where the money for a raise comes from?

I've learned my lesson.

Bigguy

09-13-2013, 10:55 AM

Just an observation. It seems as though some are confusing money and currency. The government prints currency to be used as a form of money. But the amount of money in the world, or available to a country, is a changing value determined by several factors. Generally, in a good economy, there will be more money available than in a bad economy.
It's been almost 30 years since my last "Principals of Bank class," so my example may be a little rusty, but the general principal should still be correct:
If you have a dollar bill in your hand that was printed by the government, then that dollar bill is currency. It represents a value of your money. In this case, one dollar. When you take that bill to the bank and deposit it, you no longer have that currency on hand, but you still possess the monetary value of one dollar in your banking account. But the bank now also has an additional one dollar on deposit, available for loans. The total of monetary value of the system has increased by one dollar.
The bank now loans that dollar out to a customer. This customer now has access to a dollar of monetary value. As it is still a receivable, owed to the bank, it is still represents a dollar of value to the bank. And of course, the original depositor still has the value of that dollar in his bank account. From that one dollar of currency, commerce has now increased the monetary value of the system to three dollars. Obviously there is a difference in the way each of these forms of money or specie affects the economy. They are generally labeled as S1, S2, and S3. Again, it's been many years, but I do know that each dollar of currency will eventually represent many dollars of money. I believe the ratio was up to 20 to 1.
But the main point taught in the Principals of Bank class was that the amount of money available in a system is determined by the amount of commerce taking place. If there is no commerce taking place, then the amount of money available is equal to the amount of currency that has been printed. And since it is all simply setting in a bank collecting dust, there is no commerce, nobody has a job or money to buy anything and we all starve.
So, the answer to "where does the money come from?" is: From an active economy, generating money from the available currency.

BaiHu

09-13-2013, 11:28 AM

Great points Bigguy and I'd gather that higher wages in a lagging economy is a real fast way to reduce the activity or flow of money. Thereby, at this moment in time, raising the minimum wage is a bad idea and I think the data supports my thesis.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

David Armstrong

09-14-2013, 08:55 AM

Nope- I said that the loss of American manufacturing was due to artifically increased wages.
Which is somewhat irrelevant to the issue being discussed, IMO, that of increasing the minimum wage, which is what I said.

Ponder this. Let's say you own a company with a dozen wage workers. 4 at minimum, 4 at $15 per hour, and 4 at $20 per hour. If you're forced to up minimum wage to $12.50, what does that do to the wages of your 8 guys who basically just got a pay cut?
And what do you do, as an employer, with your 8 guys who are very valuable but now will be wanting more money?
Don't see any reason that any of the employees would be required to have a pay cut. Raising the wage of one does not mean that the wage of another is cut. If that were true then every time someone got a merit based increase everyone else would be getting a pay cut, and that just is not correct.

David Armstrong

09-14-2013, 09:11 AM

from Baihu:
On the topic of 'where does the money come from', I believe you are answering with: "this is where the money is" David. You've described where the money is (present tense) when someone is paid a wage (I agree that this is not the only cost, however wages are less 'fixed' than the building you own and the widgets you sell for many reasons that could be a whole other conversation/topic), but you are not answering where the money will (future tense) come from if you raise that wage
No, I'm answering "where does the money come from." It comes from the same place it always does no matter what the wages. I don't see why this is hard to understand. Let's call the consumer the source of the money (questionable, but I think that is what some are arguing). The consumer has no way of knowing what the salary is of the person who is taking his order, or making his product, or anything else. He just knows what the price of the item is and if he is willing to pay the price for that item. If I give half the employees a merit based raise the money still comes from the same place as if I were forced to increase the minimum wage for those employees. And yes, as I've said many times wages are only one part of the cost and often a fairly small part of the cost. And even then increase in cost to the business does not automatically mean an increase in cost to the consumer. Beef has gone about 10% over the last year. And yet prices at McDonalds have not gone up 10%. In fact, the $1 menu is still pretty much the same as it was last year. Where has the money come from for the 10% increase in product cost? Same place it came from when beef was 10% less than it is now.

David Armstrong

09-14-2013, 09:26 AM

So, let me get this straight - you are contending that because a gov't prints "money," then that is where the money for a raise comes from?

I've learned my lesson.
No, you didn't ask where money for a raise comes from. That is a different question than the broader "where does money come from. Yes, governments print money. That is where money comes from...in this case (U.S.) it is printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Then it heads to the central bank (Federal Reserve) which through other banks puts the money into circulation. Someone (generally the government) declares an object to have a certain value and then the public accepts or rejects that object as representative of a value. It can be precious metals, paper, cowrie shells, pretty glass beads, stones, or whatever. That is what money is and where it comes from.

Money for a raise comes from the money taken in by an organization as part of its regular doing business. Thus money for a raise comes from the same place money for any other expense comes from.

David Armstrong

09-14-2013, 09:46 AM

So, the answer to "where does the money come from?" is: From an active economy, generating money from the available currency.
In part. If I understand you correctly you are describing what is known as "number money", that money that has no actual physical conterpart and is strictly related to numbers in an account. An example would be the value of a stock. We talk about a stock being worth 10, but then it doublesin value and is worth $20, but then drops to $15 and we say we have lost money. In reality we haven't gained or lost anything other than an arbitrary amount of value. If I have 10 $1 bills and some gives me another 10 dollar bills I have $20 of real money (cash money) as opposed to "number money." It is this sort of use that allows a bank to say it has 10 million dollars, but if you checked they would only have 1 million dollars they could physically lay their hands on. So as I understand it "number money" is simply a declaration of what is potentially "real money" should everyone actually provide an amount of cash to equal the claimed "number money." It is a claim of potential money rather than actual money.

Bigguy

09-14-2013, 11:49 AM

In part. If I understand you correctly you are describing what is known as "number money", that money that has no actual physical conterpart and is strictly related to numbers in an account. An example would be the value of a stock. We talk about a stock being worth 10, but then it doublesin value and is worth $20, but then drops to $15 and we say we have lost money. In reality we haven't gained or lost anything other than an arbitrary amount of value. If I have 10 $1 bills and some gives me another 10 dollar bills I have $20 of real money (cash money) as opposed to "number money." It is this sort of use that allows a bank to say it has 10 million dollars, but if you checked they would only have 1 million dollars they could physically lay their hands on. So as I understand it "number money" is simply a declaration of what is potentially "real money" should everyone actually provide an amount of cash to equal the claimed "number money." It is a claim of potential money rather than actual money.
Dave, That's not correct. That actual money that you can "lay your hand on," is just some form of agreed upon physical symbol representing purchasing power. There is really no such thing as "actual money," that supersedes or excludes other forms. Specie, whether it be paper or coin is merely a representation of value, and has no more actual worth than the balance in your bank account. A pile of printed paper is worthless unless somebody is willing to trade you something for it, be it a product, time, labor, or a skill. For that matter a pile of gold is equally worthless if you're hungry, unless there is somebody willing to exchange food for some of it. Real money is purchasing power, and takes many forms. And this purchasing power is generated by commerce, people producing something that somebody else will willing to exchange something of value for.

BLR

09-14-2013, 02:45 PM

David, please point out where, exactly, I inquired about where money was printed. I reviewed my posts. I don't believe I was ambiguous.

Also, the way I read your response to me, you are agreeing with me. Barring firing, stockholder hits, quality slipping, or someone else taking a pay cut, any raise means a price increase. Is that not the case? If no, please tell me EXACTLY where the money comes from. In clear, unambiguous terms where the pay raise will come from.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

joshs

09-14-2013, 04:43 PM

Beef has gone about 10% over the last year. And yet prices at McDonalds have not gone up 10%. In fact, the $1 menu is still pretty much the same as it was last year. Where has the money come from for the 10% increase in product cost? Same place it came from when beef was 10% less than it is now.

Wouldn't this also assume knowledge of McDonalds' beef contracts. If McDonalds hedged and bought the beef that it is currently selling in its restaurants at the market price before the current 10% increase, then you wouldn't necessarily see increased prices. Also, apparently some prices have gone up. See Tom's post above.

Do you think the board of McDonalds should be focused on something other than maximizing shareholder returns?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

09-14-2013, 06:24 PM

My grandkids got Happy Meals at McDonalds today. The french fry serving was about half what it was a couple of weeks ago.

Hatchetman

09-14-2013, 07:08 PM

Ahh yes, the ever popular "my experts and sources are all perfect and beyond reproach because they agree with my position, but your experts are worthless even though they have the same qualifications (or better)" argument. Sort of hard to have a reasoned discussion with that. And while I know it won't matter to you the CEPR study is only one of several resources I've used.

Well that was a feeble attempt at reductio ad absurdum. Alas, correctly stated the construct should be "one think tank demonstrates rigor and scholarship, the other polemics and partisanship." Guess which side you are on? Hint: the one you are are forever sactimoniously embracing. And yes, that was a fine petition you linked to. Want to see one folks signed seeking to ban hydrogen dioxide?

Clearly, moreover, you haven't noted that I'm only responding to the links you slapped up in reply to me: the CEPR link you didn't read and the inane petition. You feel I should be interjecting myself into your debates with others? Why? To further confuse the conversation, such as it is? Utterly par for the course.

Right:rolleyes:. That is why the work of Thomas Sowell is held up by some while at the same time they ignore the work of Paul Krugman.:confused:

If only you worked as hard on your explication as you do your eye roll. We won't even bother untangling the fact that I haven't cited Sowell; let's instead examine your favorite rhetorical device:

To wit, find some element of your opponent's argument you can identify as an extreme, postulate an argument or post a link (which it doesn't appear you read) that you claim demonstrates the opposite, imply the truth lies somewhere in between the two poles you've identified, argue in favor of the more leftist/collectivist/nanny state side, object vehemently when you are thought to have a leftward/collectivist/nanny state bent (claiming instead that others don't know what your true feelings are and hence shouldn't speculate), and then hyperextend your rhetorical elbow patting your own metaphorical back for being Renaissance Dude enough to not have a well defined position to defend, a tactic that also spares you the embarrassment of ever being pinned down on anything.

Yo David, here's a novel thought: state a coherent thesis, defend it with several salient facts from reputable sources, sum up your arguments while restating your thesis. Hit submit. Folks who seek to have sensible exchanges do so, while folks who prefer to create an amorphous situational mishmash of half formed arguments that devolve into sophist tail chases do what you do.

As for Krugman, at the time he won his Nobel he was using the tools of rigor and scholarship. Currently with the NYT he is using the tools of polemics and partisanship. Do you see a pattern emerging here? Anyone seeking to check out one of the better sources debunking Krugman's partisan polemics should eyeball this site: http://thecurmudgeonsattic.wordpress.com/category/krugman-watch/

And the meat of my response has been that yes, there certainly MAY be some negative impacts, just as there certainly MAY be some positive impacts, and the the majority of the recent literature indicates no negative impacts. Again, I don't restrict myself to one single source for information.

Jeepers, and the sun MAY rise in the west, and Obama MAY abolish the National Firearms Act, and you MAY participate in a discussion that doesn't turn into an ambiguous opera of self-righteous sophistry. We could speculate endlessly about what MAY be; most folks--and I use the word "most" as this clearly does not apply to you--prefer to discuss things a wee bit more concrete.

BTW, do you think anyone involved in this conversation restricts him/herself to a single source of information? Pretty hard to do so in this day and age so it hardly seems worth celebrating. What next, will you congratulate yourself for respirating?

I doubt that lowering the minimum wage would increase the number of 16-24 year olds employed by any significant number. As mentioned before, anyone who thinks the main factor in employment is the minimum wage probably doesn't have a firm grasp on the issue. African Americans have a high rate of unemployment. Think lowering the minimum wage would result in an increase in employment among them?

Hmm, do you doubt that only 36 percent of them are employed and that various federal policies--such as businesses waiting to glean the full impact of Obamacare--contribute to that dismal figure in a big way? I have no trouble making the logical leap that if something is cheaper more of it will be purchased, but then I've managed a lot of large organizations for many years, created uncounted profit and loss statements, know that labor as a percentage of sales in one of the largest controllable costs a business has to contend with, and understand full well that if I set my labor budget at 23 percent of sales and labor becomes more expensive I then have to meet my budget number by reducing the number of paid hours I offer my employees, which generally impacts the least skilled among them first. Perhaps on Planet Polemic things operate by a different set of rules.

As for blacks in particular--and yes I note the ever shifting sand where you throw in a variable not under discussion as though it trumps the argument that preceded--I think a long history of counterproductive policies and interventions are at the root of many of the problems to be found in the black community. I think the institution of slavery--which the Democratic party championed in the mid-1800s--stripped African Americans of their culture and identity. These days I think that machine politics--largely controlled by big city Democrats--teacher's unions--also controlled by Democrats--failed drug polices--which both parties embrace--and so on are major contributors to the plight of many African Americans. One that higher minimum wages aggravate rather than alleviate.

Case in point: Walmart is building several stores in Washington DC, a city where residents have to drive or take public transportation a long way to get to the few grocery stores in the city. A majority black city, Walmart will no doubt hire many DC residents who are in need of jobs. The (Democratic) city council, however, has passed a "living wage" law that would force Walmart and all major retailers to pay well over $12/hr to their employees. Walmart says it will stop construction if the "living wage" bill becomes law, and other retailers have threatened to move to the suburbs. The mayor has vetoed the bill, but the city council seeks to override it. If it does it will be a case in point: raising the minimum wage has negative consequences felt most by those on the lower income end of the spectrum. Or will be until you wrap your sophist maw around it.

As always, theory is nice but when we have factual realities that are there to look at it sort of puts the theory in perspective. Many states and cities already have a higher minimum wage without any clear negative impact. The de facto minimum wage has gone up in several areas, again with no noticeable negative impact. The minimum wage has been the equivalent to over $10 before with no negative impact. The minimum wage has been doubled without an overall negative impact. So it is pretty clear that it can be done.

I sure hope theory is nice as you champion so many of them. And "factual realities" sure sound preferable to unfactual ones. As for the clear negative effect I'd argue there should be a clear positive should the government intervene. Or do you think the only policy standard before passing legislation should be that it doesn't make things worse? What a high bar, the Founders would be so proud.

My suspicion is that the minimum wage is generally raised during times of economic growth, which results in slower growth that goes unnoticed as the economy is generally on the upswing. Well at least it goes unnoticed by all save those who did not get a job because what growth there is doesn't spread as far with a higher minimum wage mandated. I think the NBER piece I posted does a better job of teasing that signal out from the noise in that regard than the CEPR piece you pasted.

With all that said, I've asked if your goal is to illuminate or to obfuscate; our exchanges demonstrate full well it is the latter, which makes engaging you a waste of time. I commute two hours a day, work my day job, teach a college class one day a week, teach evening martial arts classes a couple times a week, and offer firearms classes most weekends or RSO at a large range complex. Deliberative keyboard time is hard to come by, in short, which causes long posts like this to take some time to create.

If the past is a predicate I expect your response will be to slap some ill-formed tail chase up that will require a couple more hours of deliberate keyboard time to take apart. As you can create convoluted arguments faster than I can untangle them, I don't intend to engage further, except insofar as I can point out deeply flawed rhetoric in the hope that others avoid engaging in it.

JV_

09-15-2013, 10:48 AM

Let's avoid the arguments which approach personal attacks, and keep this about the issues.

Thanks.

David Armstrong

09-15-2013, 01:01 PM

David, please point out where, exactly, I inquired about where money was printed. I reviewed my posts. I don't believe I was ambiguous.
You did not ask where it was printed, you asked where it came form. It comes from the printing office or the mint. Post #123:
"Then please, so that I don't make assumptions on what you believe and think, tell me exactly where the extra money is coming from. "

Also, the way I read your response to me, you are agreeing with me. Barring firing, stockholder hits, quality slipping, or someone else taking a pay cut, any raise means a price increase. Is that not the case? If no, please tell me EXACTLY where the money comes from. In clear, unambiguous terms where the pay raise will come from.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4
No, I am not agreeing with you and that is not the case. Why do you think if you continue to ask the same question that I will give you a different answer? I don't know where the pay raise will come form as there all a number of alternatives the business has, depending on the business and other factors. That has been shown repeatedly. That is the problem here, some folks are trying to argue that what has happened repeatedly over time cannot happen because of a theory.

TGS

09-15-2013, 01:06 PM

You did not ask where it was printed, you asked where it came form. It comes from the printing office or the mint. Post #123:
"Then please, so that I don't make assumptions on what you believe and think, tell me exactly where the extra money is coming from. "

You've got to be kidding.

It's amazing that you pass yourself off as a scholar and disparage the well-reasoned arguments of other people when you do stuff like this. ETA: What more amazing is that you continually get away with it on this site, even though one of the forum staff told me over dinner that you "post just to get a rise out of people," which is the textbook definition of a troll.

Unbelievably childish. What sort of personality disorder, shortcomings and/or frustrations in life do you have to feel the need to post this nonsense?

Tamara

09-15-2013, 01:16 PM

*notes page number*

Toldja so. ;)

David Armstrong

09-15-2013, 01:21 PM

Dave, That's not correct. That actual money that you can "lay your hand on," is just some form of agreed upon physical symbol representing purchasing power. There is really no such thing as "actual money," that supersedes or excludes other forms.
Whoa...I never said one form of money supersedes or excludes other forms. I said there is a difference in them. One is based strictly on belief, one is based on legal considerations. The question is if "number money" can be considered as a form of money as it represents nothing other than a belief in potential without any legal requirement. That is what differentiates it from "actual money." If the price of a stock goes up nobody is required to pay you that stock price. If someone gives you an IOU is that money? According to most if that IOU is on a government yes, it is money. Of course others disagree with even that concept.

Specie, whether it be paper or coin is merely a representation of value, and has no more actual worth than the balance in your bank account. A pile of printed paper is worthless unless somebody is willing to trade you something for it, be it a product, time, labor, or a skill. For that matter a pile of gold is equally worthless if you're hungry, unless there is somebody willing to exchange food for some of it. Real money is purchasing power, and takes many forms. And this purchasing power is generated by commerce, people producing something that somebody else will willing to exchange something of value for.
I'm sorry, that is patently incorrect IMO. A pile of money has a value under the law, and failing to accept that money as payment for a lawful debt is illegal. If I go to your store and offer you a $20 bill you cannot refuse it and say you will only take silver, or chickens, or anything else. A pile of gold is nworthiesess to a hungry man, the pile of gold has an actual worth. The worth may not be what the man wants at that time (food) but the gold has an actual value in and of itself. That is one reason gold has always been actual money throughout history and still serves as actual money today. You can buy a product the store values at $5 with a $5 gold coin. Might be rather silly to do so, but you can still do it.

David Armstrong

09-15-2013, 01:23 PM

I eat at McDonald's more then I probably should. I also only order off the $1 menu. Perhaps the $1 menu in your area is still the same and prices haven't increased, but here in NM the McD's $1 menu is very different than it was a year ago and the items I would buy for $0.99 now cost $1.19. So, at least here, some things are a little more than 20% more then they were last year.
Hmmm. You mean in your area prices have gone up 20% without an increase in the minimum wage, while in others they have not changed? Seems that the minimum wage may not have as much impact on price changes to consumers as some would try to argue.:D

David Armstrong

09-15-2013, 01:26 PM

My grandkids got Happy Meals at McDonalds today. The french fry serving was about half what it was a couple of weeks ago.
Hmmm. You mean that there has been a change in product in the last week at your store that has nothing to do with raising the minimum wage? Gee, I think that is exactly what I have been saying.:D

David Armstrong

09-15-2013, 01:28 PM

Wouldn't this also assume knowledge of McDonalds' beef contracts. If McDonalds hedged and bought the beef that it is currently selling in its restaurants at the market price before the current 10% increase, then you wouldn't necessarily see increased prices. Also, apparently some prices have gone up. See Tom's post above.

Do you think the board of McDonalds should be focused on something other than maximizing shareholder returns?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2
I don't think it assumes anything other than beef prices have gone up without a change in price to the consumer at McDonald's. And no, I think the board of any company should be focused on shareholder returns, but maximizing that return should not be the only focus.

BaiHu

09-15-2013, 01:42 PM

David Armstrong

09-15-2013, 01:52 PM

Well that was a feeble attempt at reductio ad absurdum. Alas, correctly stated the construct should be "one think tank demonstrates rigor and scholarship, the other polemics and partisanship." Guess which side you are on? Hint: the one you are are forever sactimoniously embracing. And yes, that was a fine petition you linked to. Want to see one folks signed seeking to ban hydrogen dioxide?
Thank you, you pretty well prove my point. Arguing only one side reflects rigor and sholarship while the other is only partisan demonstrates my point quite clearly.

Clearly, moreover, you haven't noted that I'm only responding to the links you slapped up in reply to me: the CEPR link you didn't read and the inane petition. You feel I should be interjecting myself into your debates with others? Why? To further confuse the conversation, such as it is? Utterly par for the course.
Excuse me, yes, I assume if you are entering the conversation you are entering into the entire conversation, not just some small part of it. And as I often point out, please do not make claims about what I do or don't without any proof. I read the CEPR link as well as many other items. As to is the petition inane or not, see above. The bias and partisanship is showing quite well. Why not just reference the petition without seeing a need to attach an arbitrary opinion about it. I'm sure hte economists that signed it don't think it was inane, and I have seen nothing that would lead one to believe that your opinion is any better than theirs.

If only you worked as hard on your explication as you do your eye roll. We won't even bother untangling the fact that I haven't cited Sowell; let's instead examine your favorite rhetorical device:
Now, now. Do you want to discuss the issue here or do you want to make this a personal fight against me? Until you decide to deal with the issue and not try to attack me personally I will see little need to respond to you.

To wit, find some element of your opponent's argument you can identify as an extreme, postulate an argument or post a link (which it doesn't appear you read) that you claim demonstrates the opposite, imply the truth lies somewhere in between the two poles you've identified, argue in favor of the more leftist/collectivist/nanny state side, object vehemently when you are thought to have a leftward/collectivist/nanny state bent (claiming instead that others don't know what your true feelings are and hence shouldn't speculate), and then hyperextend your rhetorical elbow patting your own metaphorical back for being Renaissance Dude enough to not have a well defined position to defend, a tactic that also spares you the embarrassment of ever being pinned down on anything.
Personal attack, please see above.

Yo David, here's a novel thought: state a coherent thesis, defend it with several salient facts from reputable sources, sum up your arguments while restating your thesis. Hit submit. Folks who seek to have sensible exchanges do so, while folks who prefer to create an amorphous situational mishmash of half formed arguments that devolve into sophist tail chases do what you do.
Personal attack, please see above.

As for Krugman, at the time he won his Nobel he was using the tools of rigor and scholarship. Currently with the NYT he is using the tools of polemics and partisanship. Do you see a pattern emerging here? Anyone seeking to check out one of the better sources debunking Krugman's partisan polemics should eyeball this site: http://thecurmudgeonsattic.wordpress.com/category/krugman-watch/

See first point regarding "my expert is good because I like what he says, yours is bad because I don't like what he says."

Jeepers, and the sun MAY rise in the west, and Obama MAY abolish the National Firearms Act, and you MAY participate in a discussion that doesn't turn into an ambiguous opera of self-righteous sophistry. We could speculate endlessly about what MAY be; most folks--and I use the word "most" as this clearly does not apply to you--prefer to discuss things a wee bit more concrete.
Yes, they do, which is the problem. Lot's of stuff wome want to discuss as concrete is actually about as concrete as quicksand. That has been the point of much of my discussion in this thread. There is a lot of grey in what some are cloaming is only black or white.

BTW, do you think anyone involved in this conversation restricts him/herself to a single source of information? Pretty hard to do so in this day and age so it hardly seems worth celebrating. What next, will you congratulate yourself for respirating?
Actually it seems some here do restrict themselves to a single source, or sometimes it seems they only use those sources that agree with their position. Thta is a problem, IMO.

Hmm, do you doubt that only 36 percent of them are employed and that various federal policies--such as businesses waiting to glean the full impact of Obamacare--contribute to that dismal figure in a big way?
No, I don't, which is why I have not said anything like that.

As for blacks in particular--and yes I note the ever shifting sand where you throw in a variable not under discussion as though it trumps the argument that preceded--I think a long history of counterproductive policies and interventions are at the root of many of the problems to be found in the black community.
Yes, whiin someone wants to argue that a single variable is the caue of something thta is multi-variable in nature I will point out the other variables.

Case in point: Walmart is building several stores in Washington DC, a city where residents have to drive or take public transportation a long way to get to the few grocery stores in the city. A majority black city, Walmart will no doubt hire many DC residents who are in need of jobs. The (Democratic) city council, however, has passed a "living wage" law that would force Walmart and all major retailers to pay well over $12/hr to their employees. Walmart says it will stop construction if the "living wage" bill becomes law, and other retailers have threatened to move to the suburbs. The mayor has vetoed the bill, but the city council seeks to override it. If it does it will be a case in point: raising the minimum wage has negative consequences felt most by those on the lower income end of the spectrum. Or will be until you wrap your sophist maw around it.
Oops, personal attack again. Please see above.

I sure hope theory is nice as you champion so many of them. And "factual realities" sure sound preferable to unfactual ones. As for the clear negative effect I'd argue there should be a clear positive should the government intervene. Or do you think the only policy standard before passing legislation should be that it doesn't make things worse? What a high bar, the Founders would be so proud.
I won't try to speak for the Founder's, but yes, factual realities that contradict theory tend to indicate a problem with the theory. I do champion plenty of theories, as do most of us, but once the theory gets busted by reality I think the theory is pretty well done for.

My suspicion is that the minimum wage is generally raised during times of economic growth, which results in slower growth that goes unnoticed as the economy is generally on the upswing. Well at least it goes unnoticed by all save those who did not get a job because what growth there is doesn't spread as far with a higher minimum wage mandated. I think the NBER piece I posted does a better job of teasing that signal out from the noise in that regard than the CEPR piece you pasted.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I would argue both of them provide valuable information.

With all that said, I've asked if your goal is to illuminate or to obfuscate; our exchanges demonstrate full well it is the latter, which makes engaging you a waste of time. I commute two hours a day, work my day job, teach a college class one day a week, teach evening martial arts classes a couple times a week, and offer firearms classes most weekends or RSO at a large range complex. Deliberative keyboard time is hard to come by, in short, which causes long posts like this to take some time to create.
I sympathize. If it becomes a problem for you I would suggest not posting. After all, it is just the internet.

If the past is a predicate I expect your response will be to slap some ill-formed tail chase up that will require a couple more hours of deliberate keyboard time to take apart. As you can create convoluted arguments faster than I can untangle them, I don't intend to engage further, except insofar as I can point out deeply flawed rhetoric in the hope that others avoid engaging in it.
OK. Like I said, if you want to engage in a reasonable discussion of the issue I'm happy to oblige, but if you just want to pull out the personal attack card I probably won't play.

David Armstrong

09-15-2013, 01:55 PM

You've got to be kidding.

It's amazing that you pass yourself off as a scholar and disparage the well-reasoned arguments of other people when you do stuff like this. ETA: What more amazing is that you continually get away with it on this site, even though one of the forum staff told me over dinner that you "post just to get a rise out of people," which is the textbook definition of a troll.

Unbelievably childish. What sort of personality disorder, shortcomings and/or frustrations in life do you have to feel the need to post this nonsense?
As mentioned, I'll be glad to address any points you might have that are actually on the topic, but if it is just a personal attack I see little need to respond to you.

David Armstrong

09-15-2013, 02:01 PM

David.
On gold, you are wrong. By your own admission about shells. The object's worth is agreed upon by the organizing parties that object X has Y purchasing power. Cash, gold and silver all fluctuate in value, just like beef.
Beef may go up, but the burger price stays the same, because they add fillers or "reduce" the quality.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Note I said a $5 gold coin, not gold itself. There is a difference, and that is the difference I am pointing out. Nobody has to take a gold chain as payment. You have to take the gold coin. As for prices staying the same because they add fillers or reduce the quality that is an assumption without much to support it. While that is certainly a possible response it is in no way the only possible response

Joe in PNG

09-15-2013, 04:03 PM

One can, with care, go to the beaches of North Florida, pick out and fill a bucket with black grains of sand, and use it to argue that North Florida has black sand beaches*. Which it certainly does not.

History shows that fiddling around with the machinery of economics screws things up. Centrally planned economies tend to bugger themselves up. See also England, the EU, the Soviet Union, Japan Inc, Africa...

However, Centrally planned economies tend to be popular with some voters and many politicians, because they can get a nice short term benefit. In the long term, companies adapt by outsourcing, cutting benefits, and using cheaper materials or smaller portions.

Thus less cereal in the same box, MIM parts in your new K framed S&W, and "Made in China" on pretty much everything else.

But, the Left still wants Central planning. So enter the economic quote whores. These guys pick through the metaphoric beaches of fact, looking for those dark grains to prove that white is black... or whatever the Democratic party wants to be true today.

Sadly, the world is chock full of phony experts. Heck, just look how many we have in the shooting world.

*Analogy stolen from Bill Whittle

BaiHu

09-15-2013, 04:10 PM

Note I said a $5 gold coin, not gold itself. There is a difference, and that is the difference I am pointing out. Nobody has to take a gold chain as payment. You have to take the gold coin. As for prices staying the same because they add fillers or reduce the quality that is an assumption without much to support it. While that is certainly a possible response it is in no way the only possible response

A $5 gold coin isn't always a $5 coin now is it? What was a $5 coin in the 1880's might not be worth $5 now, wouldn't you agree? There is a difference, but you're not finding it from what I'm reading. As for fillers, I think it is well documented, remember the Pink Slime:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/taco-buns-fast-food-meat-cook-home/story?id=12826571

and

http://business.time.com/2012/02/01/mcdonalds-drops-pink-slime-from-hamburger-meat/

Whether they've truly changed their practices or simply cried uncle and chosen another filler is beyond my caring right now. Whereas my possible responses are quite probable, I do not see you addressing the main body of my argument. You're nibbling on the edges, but I do not see you tackling any of my premises whole.

This is my last post on this matter, b/c in the end, David, you've won the internet again, b/c many, such as myself, just can't play with you in any sandbox anymore.

David Armstrong

09-16-2013, 05:26 PM

A $5 gold coin isn't always a $5 coin now is it? What was a $5 coin in the 1880's might not be worth $5 now, wouldn't you agree?
Worth is not the issue. That $5 coin is backed by the government as being able to purchase a $5 item. That is the difference. Government determines money in the current environment. Others can determine how much that money will buy (I mentioned I'm a Zimbabwean billionare, IIRC). You have to take the $5 coin in payment. It is legal tender in that amount. What others choose to speculate it might be worth at any given time is a whole different issue.

There is a difference, but you're not finding it from what I'm reading. As for fillers, I think it is well documented, remember the Pink Slime
Yes, I remember pink slime. I wouldn't consider it a filler as it was and is a beef product, but I realize some use a different definition. It is essentially the same stuff many manufacturers use to make hot dogs. But did the price of burgers and such change without the additive? Nope.

Whether they've truly changed their practices or simply cried uncle and chosen another filler is beyond my caring right now. Whereas my possible responses are quite probable, I do not see you addressing the main body of my argument. You're nibbling on the edges, but I do not see you tackling any of my premises whole.
Perhaps if you could provide a clear premise it would help? I thought your premise was that those who support an increased minimum wage are indicative of folks who are incapable of being educated. Thus the presentation of so many well educated people who support the increase as a counter.

This is my last post on this matter, b/c in the end, David, you've won the internet again, b/c many, such as myself, just can't play with you in any sandbox anymore.
Well Heaven forbid that anyone should think they have to play with anyone else, particularly on the internet. Personally I've found that I can play with pretty much anyone. Maybe that is hte advantage of being willing to look at the whole thing instead of just a narrow slice?? Be that as it may, thank you for the reasoned discussion without diving off into personal attack and insult.