NationStates Jolt Archive

There's been a lot of talk in the U.S. recently about rasing the minimum wage. Conventional wisdom has it that a rise in minimum wages corresponds with the loss of jobs. Now supposedly there are studies that refute this principle. I'm curious how the anti-minimum wage people would respond to these studies.

I believe the example they cite is the rise in both minimum wages and employment in the 90s. While I haven't done extensive research on the studies, I propose that a possible explanation is that number one, the U.S. economy was expanding in the 90s all the way up to the dot-com bust and two, that very few people actually get paid minimum wage, so the effect of the raises was negligible.

I'm whole-heartedly against the minimum wage in principle, but in terms of utilitarian benefit to society, I'm open to hear arguments because of the latest suggestions that the conventional wisdom on this issue is wrong.

There are plenty of states in the US where the minimum wage is higher than the federal requirement, and even more municipalities, so we have a pretty good sample size to work with, and the conventional wisdom has been disproven. In those areas, almost to a one, an increrase in the minimum wage corresponded with an increase in jobs and economic growth.

Now I want to be careful here--I'm not saying that the rise in the minimum wage led to that growth. I don't know that there's a one-to-one causal relationship. But there certainly seems to be a correlation between the two, and I believe it's related to the idea that a person at that end of the wage scale puts all his or her extra earnings back into the economy, and that drives growth.

I dunno.. the rise in the minimum wage back in '01 lead me to fire a dozen employees (of about 40), the higher-paid ones in particular, and to raise prices 10 or so percent. That's my experience with the minimum wage, for what it's worth.

it all depend on the question of reasonable life quality.
supopose the minimum wage will not let people get their bills paid and buy food, clothes and basic medicine (some will include more stuff which isn't save life, but still needed as:toys,tv, computer with internet and savings). this mean it too low and the country isn't care for the citizens.
since it is one of the goverment responsibilaties, the state should maintain welfare system (more taxes), or raise minimum wage (take it from companies managers).
this is more ethical question than economical one.

that very few people actually get paid minimum wage, so the effect of the raises was negligible.This is typically one of the reasons given supporting the minimum wage increase - that it wouldn't affect that many people directly, but would affect them indirectly.

just as the tory-favourite "trickle down" effect doesn't add to inflation and doesn't cause loss of high earning jobs, a 'trickle-up' effect of raising minimum wage to increase the income of the poor also does not have these negative effects on low-earning jobs and inflation.
the minimum wage was introduced in britain and it only served to stimulate the economy, even if it was admittedly introduced too low. economists generally agree (except my old professor, patrick minford, thatcher's lead economics advisor :upyours: ) that raising the minimum wage can be done safely for some time, but it must be done slowly and with plenty of forewarning to give the labour market time to adjust.


y'all should read this book
http://www.shaftesburysoc.org.uk/images/Polytoynbee/hard%20work.jpg

There are plenty of states in the US where the minimum wage is higher than the federal requirement, and even more municipalities, so we have a pretty good sample size to work with, and the conventional wisdom has been disproven. In those areas, almost to a one, an increrase in the minimum wage corresponded with an increase in jobs and economic growth.

Now I want to be careful here--I'm not saying that the rise in the minimum wage led to that growth. I don't know that there's a one-to-one causal relationship. But there certainly seems to be a correlation between the two, and I believe it's related to the idea that a person at that end of the wage scale puts all his or her extra earnings back into the economy, and that drives growth.

Conversely, the increase in jobs and economic growth could have led to more competition for employees, therefore leading to higher wages.

Honestly, I have yet to see a time when an increase in the MW DIDN't lead to prices going up at numerous places, especially those who pay it (ie McDonalds, WalMart, etc.) and very few companies that give equivalent compesatory wages to the rest of the employees. (John makes $10/hr, MW goes up $.50, John still makes $10/hr) thereby giving him less equivalant wages when the prices do go up. I've personally experienced this. I was making MW at an old job. After 3 months I got a raise. MW went up the next week. People just starting were now making the same as I was so I was actually being punished by the increase.

it all depend on the question of reasonable life quality.
supopose the minimum wage will not let people get their bills paid and buy food, clothes and basic medicine (some will include more stuff which isn't save life, but still needed as:toys,tv, computer with internet and savings). this mean it too low and the country isn't care for the citizens.
since it is one of the goverment responsibilaties, the state should maintain welfare system (more taxes), or raise minimum wage (take it from companies managers).
this is more ethical question than economical one.

You're basically arguing for a "living wage". I don't require a TV or a computer as "necessary".

I've yet to find anyone who can define a "living wage" w/o vagaries and unessential fluff.

I dunno.. the rise in the minimum wage back in '01 lead me to fire a dozen employees (of about 40), the higher-paid ones in particular, and to raise prices 10 or so percent. That's my experience with the minimum wage, for what it's worth.Was that all due to minimum wage increasing?
How much did minimum wage increase? (More then 10% I assume, otherwise the raise in price should cover it, barring declinign sales)

You're basically arguing for a "living wage". I don't require a TV or a computer as "necessary".

I've yet to find anyone who can define a "living wage" w/o vagaries and unessential fluff.
I just remind it as additional part. I didn't argue for living wage.
still, I think that since the info revolution, internet isn't just unessential fluff, but important tool for life. some experts compared between people who don't know how to use the net and analfabets.

Was that all due to minimum wage increasing?
How much did minimum wage increase? (More then 10% I assume, otherwise the raise in price should cover it, barring declinign sales)

From $5.75 to $6.75 between '01 and '02. Not a good idea immediately following 9/11, which cut our revenues 70% for the month of September. But that's California for you. Pretty typical.

this mean it too low and the country isn't care for the citizens.
since it is one of the goverment responsibilaties, the state should maintain welfare system (more taxes), or raise minimum wage (take it from companies managers).
this is more ethical question than economical one.

You've highlighted the basic difference between liberal and conservative economics. We dispute who should have more responsibility for the financial welfare of citizens. Liberals say you need the force of government to offset the greed that is inherent in businesses. Conservatives say the government has no right to play Robin Hood and people know what's best for themselves, not some giant impersonal bureaucracy.

it all depend on the question of reasonable life quality.
supopose the minimum wage will not let people get their bills paid and buy food, clothes and basic medicine (some will include more stuff which isn't save life, but still needed as:toys,tv, computer with internet and savings). this mean it too low and the country isn't care for the citizens.
since it is one of the goverment responsibilaties, the state should maintain welfare system (more taxes), or raise minimum wage (take it from companies managers).
this is more ethical question than economical one.
you'd find that book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0747564159/202-6786892-4100627?v=glance&n=266239&s=books&v=glance)especially interesting, based on that *nods*

seriously, it opened my eyes to the matter in a way that looking at straight economics or statistics never could. as the blurb on the back says (to paraphrase) 'this book should be essential reading for all MPs'

I just remind it as additional part. I didn't argue for living wage.
still, I think that since the info revolution, internet isn't just unessential fluff, but important tool for life. some experts compared between people who don't know how to use the net and analfabets.

Not personally owning a computer =/= not knowing how to use them or having access to one. Not knowing how to surf the net =/= being an illiterate who does not even know the alphabet.





BTW: it's spelled analphabet

Well, assuming inflation as a necessary part of keeping everybody happy, then the minimum wage is going to have to be raised so that everybody can maintain standard of living etc...

On the other hand, if we hadn't started the whole inflation cycle, then this wouldnt be an issue.

I blame, ah, who was it. I blame WWI. Who started WWI? I bet it was the commies. They needed to wreck the Western capitalistic system. Yeah, that's right...

In all seriousness, though, given the modern economic system, minimum wage does need to keep rising at about the rate of inflation, otherwise there'll be types who exploit the difference. How to set minimum wage, however, is a totally different question that I have no idea about.

There are plenty of states in the US where the minimum wage is higher than the federal requirement, and even more municipalities, so we have a pretty good sample size to work with, and the conventional wisdom has been disproven. In those areas, almost to a one, an increrase in the minimum wage corresponded with an increase in jobs and economic growth.

Now I want to be careful here--I'm not saying that the rise in the minimum wage led to that growth. I don't know that there's a one-to-one causal relationship. But there certainly seems to be a correlation between the two, and I believe it's related to the idea that a person at that end of the wage scale puts all his or her extra earnings back into the economy, and that drives growth.


If you're working for minimum wage in Herndon, Va., you must be pretty stupid. A day laborer starts at 17 dollars an hour here.

Go figure.

If you're working for minimum wage in Herndon, Va., you must be pretty stupid. A day laborer starts at 17 dollars an hour here.

Go figure.
And when I lived in San Francisco, the municipal minimum wage was $8.50 an hour, but no one worked for less than $10. Even at $10 an hour, it was hard to find a place to live in the area only working one job. So the market takes care of some of it, assuming there's enough demand to drive wages up. There's about to be a problem in the service industry down here in S. Florida, because it's getting too expensive to live down here without making a fairly substantial salary. Restaurants and bars, which never had to advertise job openings before, are having to do so now because people at that pay scale can't find anywhere to live anymore. I'd be surprised if we don't hit an inflationary cycle or see the real estate bubble burst (or both) in the next year or so.

In all seriousness, though, given the modern economic system, minimum wage does need to keep rising at about the rate of inflation, otherwise there'll be types who exploit the difference. How to set minimum wage, however, is a totally different question that I have no idea about.

True, if people don't earn wages adequate for basic needs, there'd be a lot of mouths to feed. But at least in competitive markets, wouldn't workers be able to simply quit and go to a company where they're happy with the pay?

See for me it all boils down to what people need to survive and be reasonably happy. I know for a fact that Congress has no idea what makes me happy. Do we really need the government to decide on a single figure that everyone's happy with or couldn't we just leave it up to the workers themselves to determine what they need? Again, I realize that for this to work you need competitive markets.

...or couldn't we just leave it up to the workers themselves to determine what they need? Again, I realize that for this to work you need competitive markets.

Sure, this would be ideal. But the government's decided that it'll do certain things, like making sure everybody gets health-care, Social Security, etc. So... it needs to make sure people can pay their taxes. It's a mess. I did specifiy "modern economic system" for a reason. Although I'm not sure it's so much a system as a "I want to get votes" process.

From $5.75 to $6.75 between '01 and '02. Not a good idea immediately following 9/11, which cut our revenues 70% for the month of September. But that's California for you. Pretty typical.


That's quite a large raise for one year, especially straight after the effects of sept 11.

If you're working for minimum wage in Herndon, Va., you must be pretty stupid. A day laborer starts at 17 dollars an hour here.

Go figure.
Roughly the same situation where I live. The only way you're making minimum wage in the places I live in is if you're a part-time college student, or a unique type of moron, who doesn't show up a work regularly.

Roughly the same situation where I live. The only way you're making minimum wage in the places I live in is if you're a part-time college student, or a unique type of moron, who doesn't show up a work regularly.

Looks like it's really only a case of the moral/sociological impact of the minimum wage. Just like a lot of people were up in arms over Ben Bernanke's inflation targeting policy until the realized that under Greenspan, even though there was no official target, they maintained inflation around 2.0% anyway.

Well, the issue is very hard to debate either way. Places that pay a higher minimum wage do have more jobs and a stronger economy, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the level of the wage. The reason they are so strong is because the states are attractive to higher paying service and manufacturing jobs due to abundant skilled workers; there are comparatively few people working in minimum wage jobs, so the negative effects of a higher wage are muted because labor costs are already higher.

Simply put, there is little or no casual link between the minimum wage and employment. A higher minimum wage has little effect because so few people are earning it; even in occupations that normally would pay minimum wage, the labor market is so tight that a higher wage has to be paid to retain workers. The higher minimum wage is a product of prosperity rather than a source of it; raising it nationwide would likely have zero effect on most states but it would hurt ones with already high unemployment and weak, low-skill or antiquated economies.

Simply put, there is little or no casual link between the minimum wage and employment. A higher minimum wage has little effect because so few people are earning it; even in occupations that normally would pay minimum wage, the labor market is so tight that a higher wage has to be paid to retain workers. The higher minimum wage is a product of prosperity rather than a source of it; raising it nationwide would likely have zero effect on most states but it would hurt ones with already high unemployment and weak, low-skill or antiquated economies.

Good point. I'm inclined to believe that many of the welfare states that have actually succeeded don't owe their success completely to government handouts. We usually don't factor in things like economic resources and just the general educational demographics and work ethic of the people. If your people are hard working and well educated, you might very well have a strong economy no matter what.

Restaurants and bars, which never had to advertise job openings before, are having to do so now because people at that pay scale can't find anywhere to live anymore. I'd be surprised if we don't hit an inflationary cycle or see the real estate bubble burst (or both) in the next year or so.

Florida has an unemployment rate of 3.2%; that's 1.4% below the national average and at its lowest rate ever. The labor market is so tight that you're going to see wages soar until the situation corrects; it's an inflationary environment that will worsen until unemployment rises to a more sustainable level.

The housing market might or might not burst; generally, the data points more to a levelling off but if some kind of shock occurs it will collapse in and will hurt the economy substantially in Florida.

Good point. I'm inclined to believe that many of the welfare states that have actually succeeded don't owe their success completely to government handouts. We usually don't factor in things like economic resources and just the general educational demographics and work ethic of the people. If your people are hard working and well educated, you might very well have a strong economy no matter what.

That's correct. The places that pay a higher minimum wage aren't affected because the economy and labor market are already strong enough for it to be irrelevant. A highly skilled, well educated workforce is simply not going to earn anywhere near the level of the minimum wage (barring an economic disaster) because the demand for workers naturally pushes wages higher.

It's more of a political issue than an economic one; in most states, raising it would have zero effect on the economy whatsoever but in a few states it might actually hurt.

We need a minimum wage so that the rich cannot keep all the money. CEOs get paid too much, so why not pay the workers some more money. You can barely raise a family on minimum wage.

We need a minimum wage so that the rich cannot keep all the money. CEOs get paid too much, so why not pay the workers some more money. You can barely raise a family on minimum wage.

Well, you should have gotten an education or changed you skills. No one is forced to work minimum wage jobs, and even for unskilled workers there are opportunities in construction and other industries that pay a good deal more than the minimum wage.

We need a minimum wage so that the rich cannot keep all the money. CEOs get paid too much, so why not pay the workers some more money. You can barely raise a family on minimum wage.

If you're trying to raise a family on minimum wage, there's most likely something wrong w/ you, not the system.

Do you honestly think that if MW goes up, the CEO's will personally pay for it out of their salary? It will be paid for by price increases, negating the raise and hurting those who didn't get compesatory raises in the bargain.

We need a minimum wage so that the rich cannot keep all the money. CEOs get paid too much, so why not pay the workers some more money. You can barely raise a family on minimum wage.

Might as well ask why not pay everyone the same salary? Then poverty would be eradicated!

And Kecibukia is correct in saying that CEOs, with all their savvy lawyers would find every way possible of passing the cost on to the consumers (in many cases, your minimum wage earners) and minimizing their taxes.

Again, I realize that for this to work you need competitive markets.The problem with this is that there aren't that many competitive markets in labor, and the ones that are competitive almost always become oversaturated.

The problem with this is that there aren't that many competitive markets in labor, and the ones that are competitive almost always become oversaturated.
That's why specialization, and training for specialization, is awesome.

That's why specialization, and training for specialization, is awesome.
Assuming your country is one that has the necessary infrastructure and political stability to provide that training.

it all depend on the question of reasonable life quality.
supopose the minimum wage will not let people get their bills paid and buy food, clothes and basic medicine (some will include more stuff which isn't save life, but still needed as:toys,tv, computer with internet and savings). this mean it too low and the country isn't care for the citizens.
since it is one of the goverment responsibilaties, the state should maintain welfare system (more taxes), or raise minimum wage (take it from companies managers).
this is more ethical question than economical one.

Are you saying that the purpose of a minimum wage is to provide a basic living wage? The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act made no such mention when it set the minimum wage at 25 cents an hour. If then, you wanted to enact a living wage, that's a separate discussion.

There are plenty of states in the US where the minimum wage is higher than the federal requirement, and even more municipalities, so we have a pretty good sample size to work with, and the conventional wisdom has been disproven. In those areas, almost to a one, an increrase in the minimum wage corresponded with an increase in jobs and economic growth.

Now I want to be careful here--I'm not saying that the rise in the minimum wage led to that growth. I don't know that there's a one-to-one causal relationship. But there certainly seems to be a correlation between the two, and I believe it's related to the idea that a person at that end of the wage scale puts all his or her extra earnings back into the economy, and that drives growth.
Common sense would indicate that it's the other way around, wouldn't it? A new plant opens and wants to hire workers. The workers with experience leave their jobs at Safeway and McDonalds and start putting Toyotas together. Now the managers at McDonalds need to hire new unskilled workers, but there is a shortage. They need to compete with the Piggly-Wiggly, so they offer much better wages. I don't think you can effect much growth with a couple extra dollars per hour.

Assuming your country is one that has the necessary infrastructure and political stability to provide that training.
That's a totally different story. If a country lacks the stability to provide training, then it lacks the stability to even begin basic economic functions beyond simple subsistence. It cannot experience economic growth, and imposing a minimum wage would be beyond pointless.

I don't really see minimum wage as necessary.

In Alberta, there's probably not a single person who earns minimum wage.

That's why specialization, and training for specialization, is awesome.
Which is fine, as long as you can afford the training, and the thing you trained for is still in demand when you've finished training.

Raising minimum wage -> More people have more income -> They spend more money.

How is that bad for the economy?

If workers are being seriously underpaid for their true value there are really only two options.
Trade unions or government intervention (minimum wage). And atleast the government has some control and accountability and can think about the good of the economy.
Idealistically I'd preffer no minimum wage, but I do understand when work is limited sometimes people suffer. It has its ethical benefits and should encourage work and keep the poor happy.

Of course government intervention shouldn't be done lightly and any implimentation should be done specifically low and increases low and rare, I think it was handled very well in Britain.

Raising minimum wage -> More people have more income -> They spend more money.

How is that bad for the economy?

businesses now have to pay more -> prices go up -> people who didn't get raises are now making less value -> inflation goes up -> raise is nullified

ad nauseum

Raising minimum wage -> More people have more income -> They spend more money.

How is that bad for the economy?

Companys have to pay workers more thus will suffer in profits. And/or goods will raise in prices.

Higher prices (inflation) and smaller profits are veeery bad for the economy....

Raising of prices seems an artificial way to make more money. The idea is that more money = more purchasing power. If that is so, raising minimum wage shouldn't increase costs because more people will buy more products. Though you would probably need some sort of cost-benefit analysis, I doubt anyone ever does one instead of going "omg raise ze pricez!"

Which is fine, as long as you can afford the training, and the thing you trained for is still in demand when you've finished training.

oh nozorz I took Beckham studies at university and I'm not making much money with my skills. I should be paid more than I'm worth?

businesses now have to pay more -> prices go up -> people who didn't get raises are now making less value -> inflation goes up -> raise is nullified

ad nauseum

Only a small percentage of jobs are minimum wage -> Historically, they do not -> No, because there's been no established correlation between min wage increase and inflation. It's not like the economy revolves around minimum wage earners. -> again, that's BS -> raise is nullified by normal, everyday inflation, which is why the minimum needs to be raised periodically.

oh nozorz I took Beckham studies at university and I'm not making much money with my skills. I should be paid more than I'm worth?

I specialized in underwater basket weaving but can't find a job in that field. I demand a "living wage" though including DSL and full digital cable.

oh nozorz I took Beckham studies at university and I'm not making much money with my skills. I should be paid more than I'm worth?Not necessarily, but if you aren't paid more than you're "worth", then the training didn't help you, and you're back to entering a low-demand or high-supply career.

Only a small percentage of jobs are minimum wage -> Historically, they do not -> No, because there's been no established correlation between min wage increase and inflation. It's not like the economy revolves around minimum wage earners. -> again, that's BS -> raise is nullified by normal, everyday inflation, which is why the minimum needs to be raised periodically.

"periodically" does not equal the massive increases we've been hearing demanded. They DO raise prices. Just watch the local Wal Mart or McDonalds when the MW increases. The value of other workers wages are also made less unless they've been given compesatory raises as well.

To think minimum wage is the end all and be all of inflation is silly to the extreme. If there is a 10% raise in the minumum wage, it can't possibly translate to a 10% jump in inflation.

Come on people, THINK.

"periodically" does not equal the massive increases we've been hearing demanded. They DO raise prices. Just watch the local Wal Mart or McDonalds when the MW increases. The value of other workers wages are also made less unless they've been given compesatory raises as well.
Okay--you want to talk periodically? The last time the minimum wage was raised was 9 years ago. That's plenty enough period between raises in the minimum, I think. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation--just with inflation--over the last thirty years, it would be somewhere around nine bucks an hour now. It's at $5.25 and hour currently. I think the current suggestion to move it up to $7.25 is more than reasonable.

Not necessarily, but if you aren't paid more than you're "worth", then the training didn't help you, and you're back to entering a low-demand or high-supply career.

I think training should come with the unemployment benefit (and childhood)myself. But in essence I think the cycle works well, if you train yourself in a valued skill to a good level you're very likely to get a good job (reward) if you fail to attain a skill at a good level or a useful skill you'll have a more difficult time (punishment).

Yes some people are unlucky in developing a once useful skill that is now no longer valued. But some people are similarly "lucky" in the stock market or business, essentially its make your own luck and choice/responcibility.

"periodically" does not equal the massive increases we've been hearing demanded. They DO raise prices. Just watch the local Wal Mart or McDonalds when the MW increases. The value of other workers wages are also made less unless they've been given compesatory raises as well.

The "massive" increases suggested are pretty much just to bring the minimum wage back to the real value it was at last time it was raised.

Your second point is pure BS. The other workers buying power is not linked directly to what the small percentage of people making the minimum make.

I actually like it, given that it would allow me to initiate my political reforms without overly imposing on the general populace, however, even with a reduction in tax, it does detract from small businesses.

I actually like it, given that it would allow me to initiate my political reforms without overly imposing on the general populace, however, even with a reduction in tax, it does detract from small businesses.

Most small businesses do not pay the bulk of their employees minimum wage. Small businesses generally need skilled workers.

I think training should come with the unemployment benefit (and childhood)myself. That might work for some shorter training careers, but the unemployment benefit period is too short for many kinds of training.

But in essence I think the cycle works well, if you train yourself in a valued skill to a good level you're very likely to get a good job (reward) if you fail to attain a skill at a good level or a useful skill you'll have a more difficult time (punishment).

Yes some people are unlucky in developing a once useful skill that is now no longer valued. But some people are similarly "lucky" in the stock market or business, essentially its make your own luck and choice/responcibility.I would say that there's less choice and more luck involved than people like to acknowledge.

Your second point is pure BS. The other workers buying power is not linked directly to what the small percentage of people making the minimum make.

I'm not so sure. If I made 6-8$ an hour and minimum wage comes from 4$ to 6$ than the demand for items that typical 6$ an hour price range would increase thus they would rise in price due to more demand.

Therefore as someone who does not recive an increased wage but in the low earning bracket (enough to buy similar items as those on minimum wage) I will now pay more for my items and relitively make less money as a result.

Most small businesses do not pay the bulk of their employees minimum wage. Small businesses generally need skilled workers.

Indeed, however a proportion do.

The "massive" increases suggested are pretty much just to bring the minimum wage back to the real value it was at last time it was raised.

Your second point is pure BS. The other workers buying power is not linked directly to what the small percentage of people making the minimum make.

Really? So you're saying that an increase up to over $7/hour for minimum wage does not reduce the value of other labor workers? So the person who was making $7 and hour for certain skills or time on the job is not valued the same as someone who just started?

If so few people are making minimum wage, why should it be increased then if the market seems to be taking care of it?

I'm not so sure. If I made 6-8$ an hour and minimum wage comes from 4$ to 6$ than the demand for items that typical 6$ an hour price range would increase thus they would rise in price due to more demand.

Therefore as someone who does not recive an increased wage but in the low earning bracket (enough to buy similar items as those on minimum wage) I will now pay more for my items and relitively make less money as a result.
There's some play in the system, however--companies can't just automatically raise their prices to match new labor costs, because there'll be some rebellion from the market. You can't make a $3 burger cost $4 overnight because labor costs went up--your customers will go find someone who's selling a $3.10 burger instead. That company will make less per burger for a while, but will win the customer battle, will increase market share, and will eventually be able to slowly raise prices and regain profit margin. For all the doom and gloom that anti-minimum wagers prophesy about lost jobs and crashes in the economy from raises in the minimum wage, the data just doesn't back it up.

That might work for some shorter training careers, but the unemployment benefit period is too short for many kinds of training.
.
True but advanced training is what education is for or what high level business' give to their workers. Not everyone can make it to the big leauges and admittidly its much more difficult for some (which is unfortunate) but its still the best way to offer incentive and reward for work.


I would say that there's less choice and more luck involved than people like to acknowledge.

Public education, some freedom of choice in what you want to study, freedom to work where you want and a bit of help if things go awfully wrong mean we have enough choice. Yes some people will be unluckyer than others and some will get good breaks much quicker or easily but I do beleive we make our own luck. (no such thing as a naturally unlucky person as it may be :p )

I'm not so sure. If I made 6-8$ an hour and minimum wage comes from 4$ to 6$ than the demand for items that typical 6$ an hour price range would increase thus they would rise in price due to more demand.

Therefore as someone who does not recive an increased wage but in the low earning bracket (enough to buy similar items as those on minimum wage) I will now pay more for my items and relitively make less money as a result.

That would only be true if minimum wage earners made up the bulk of the workforce, which they don't. Or that only people making minimum wage and $8 bought certain items.

Or you could just look at REAL LIFE and see that the buying power of those making more than minimum wages has not dropped when the minimum wage was increased.

Therefore, the idea that raising the minimum wage impact YOUR earnings in a meaningful way is pure and unadulterated BS. I mean, the minimum wage HAS been raised before, and it simply has not had the effect that the minimum wage alarmists would have you believe.

Really? So you're saying that an increase up to over $7/hour for minimum wage does not reduce the value of other labor workers? So the person who was making $7 and hour for certain skills or time on the job is not valued the same as someone who just started?

If so few people are making minimum wage, why should it be increased then if the market seems to be taking care of it?Of course there would need to be compensatory wage increases, but that's something for workers to take up with their bosses, and it seems like they'd have a hell of an argument (or an incentive to start a union if the employer balks). No one is suggesting that the government ought to be in the business of setting wages across the board--only that there should be a reasonable floor.

Of course there would need to be compensatory wage increases, but that's something for workers to take up with their bosses, and it seems like they'd have a hell of an argument (or an incentive to start a union if the employer balks). No one is suggesting that the government ought to be in the business of setting wages across the board--only that there should be a reasonable floor.

There would "need to be" but there rarely are. I was screwed on that several times in HS. There's little chance of unions starting up in the areas that pay minimum wage. Companies can easily find replacements at that level. If they can't, the market is competative and they need to raise wages anyway.

When the majority of MW workers are teenagers, college students, or unskilled labor, I don't see the necessity for the increases.

I'm not so sure. If I made 6-8$ an hour and minimum wage comes from 4$ to 6$ than the demand for items that typical 6$ an hour price range would increase thus they would rise in price due to more demand.

Therefore as someone who does not recive an increased wage but in the low earning bracket (enough to buy similar items as those on minimum wage) I will now pay more for my items and relitively make less money as a result.

Not really true at all, as most of the goods purchased by the poor are inelastic goods. That's primarily econ-speak for saying that they are goods for which a small increase in price can have a dramatic decrease in demand. While a luxury yacht will effectively be bought no matter what its price, because the crowd that buys luxury yachts can pay any price for it without discomfort, virtually no one will buy a $2 Mars bar, which reflects an upward price of only about a $1.40 on average. So to say that prices will automatically increase in the wake of a wage increase is simply untrue, because some of the goods workers are making are goods for which it would cost more in decreased demand than it would to eat the costs of increased labor prices. As a side note, you completely ignore the fact that there are other ways to make up the difference in cost: increase productivity per worker, for instance, is a fine way of making up the costs while still possibly yielding reduced overall costs.

There's some play in the system, however--companies can't just automatically raise their prices to match new labor costs, because there'll be some rebellion from the market. You can't make a $3 burger cost $4 overnight because labor costs went up--your customers will go find someone who's selling a $3.10 burger instead. That company will make less per burger for a while, but will win the customer battle, will increase market share, and will eventually be able to slowly raise prices and regain profit margin. For all the doom and gloom that anti-minimum wagers prophesy about lost jobs and crashes in the economy from raises in the minimum wage, the data just doesn't back it up.

Strong opposition always makes laws better and tigher, and since its always been tried specifially low with caution its generally been successful which I'm pleased with.
As for a fast food market not being able to raise prices in their burgers. If demand for burgers suddenly goes up significantly (which the minimum wage is likely to do) the market is typical to respond by raising prices. If some people don't want to shop there demand for that one place will not be as high but they keep selling the same product and selling as much with a higher profit.
When demand jumps for an item it would be foolish for a competator the keep prices the same or lower them since they are almost guarenteed to make more profit by raising prices.

Really? So you're saying that an increase up to over $7/hour for minimum wage does not reduce the value of other labor workers? So the person who was making $7 and hour for certain skills or time on the job is not valued the same as someone who just started?

Someone making $7 pre-wage increase will pretty much have the same buying power post-wage increase...as long as you trust, oh I don't know, REAL LIFE, as opposed to the dire predictions of those who have a personal stake in the minimum wage remaining low.

If so few people are making minimum wage, why should it be increased then if the market seems to be taking care of it?

So you'd be fine if only a few children had to engage in hard labor? How about if only a few businesses engaged in unsafe worker environments? Is it okay if just a few businesses discriminate racially?

That would only be true if minimum wage earners made up the bulk of the workforce, which they don't. Or that only people making minimum wage and $8 bought certain items.

Or you could just look at REAL LIFE and see that the buying power of those making more than minimum wages has not dropped when the minimum wage was increased.

Therefore, the idea that raising the minimum wage impact YOUR earnings in a meaningful way is pure and unadulterated BS. I mean, the minimum wage HAS been raised before, and it simply has not had the effect that the minimum wage alarmists would have you believe.

You've yet to prove it's BS. When prices go up and there are no compesatory raises, those that weren't earning MW before are now equivalently less valued.

You like throwing out terms like "alarmist". I'll use one for you. Naive.

Some jobs simply aren't worth $7/hour. By raising minimum wage, you either force those jobs underground or destroy them completely.

There would "need to be" but there rarely are. I was screwed on that several times in HS. There's little chance of unions starting up in the areas that pay minimum wage. Companies can easily find replacements at that level. If they can't, the market is competative and they need to raise wages anyway.

When the majority of MW workers are teenagers, college students, or unskilled labor, I don't see the necessity for the increases.
You may not see the need, but you're not trying to get by on that kind of money either. As far as the unions are concerned, there's starting to be a bit of movement in that area--SEIU is the largest organization of service oriented unions, and they're organizing in some traditionally union-hostile areas. Had a big victory in Houston not long ago. Unions are moving away from manufacturing jobs because those jobs have largely disappeared and are moving toward the service sector, primarily because there's no way to outsource those jobs. Kind of hard to get someone in the Philippines to clean offices.

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]Really? So you're saying that an increase up to over $7/hour for minimum wage does not reduce the value of other labor workers? So the person who was making $7 and hour for certain skills or time on the job is not valued the same as someone who just started?[quote]

Someone making $7 pre-wage increase will pretty much have the same buying power post-wage increase...as long as you trust, oh I don't know, REAL LIFE, as opposed to the dire predictions of those who have a personal stake in the minimum wage remaining low.



So you'd be fine if only a few children had to engage in hard labor? How about if only a few businesses engaged in unsafe worker environments? Is it okay if just a few businesses discriminate racially?


Apparently you're not living in "real life". Throw your red herring statements around some more. The workers who do not get the compesatory raises are now making less for their value than they were before. When the person who just started is now making the same as someone w/ particular skills or time in business, the skilled labor is devalued. That is real life. They may have the same "buying power" until the companies raise their prices to compensate for the wage increase. Don't think it will happen? Then you have more faith in business than I do.

You've yet to prove it's BS. When prices go up and there are no compesatory raises, those that weren't earning MW before are now equivalently less valued.

You like throwing out terms like "alarmist". I'll use one for you. Naive.

You've yet to prove it's true. Since it was your assertion, the burden of proof is on you.

Naive is believing something without any support. Find me some proof, in the real world, that buying power drops proportionally when the minimum wage is increased or shut the hell up.

Good luck finding proof for this BS theory. I'll wait.

You may not see the need, but you're not trying to get by on that kind of money either. As far as the unions are concerned, there's starting to be a bit of movement in that area--SEIU is the largest organization of service oriented unions, and they're organizing in some traditionally union-hostile areas. Had a big victory in Houston not long ago. Unions are moving away from manufacturing jobs because those jobs have largely disappeared and are moving toward the service sector, primarily because there's no way to outsource those jobs. Kind of hard to get someone in the Philippines to clean offices.


Now who's "trying to get by"? Over 50% of the MW labor force is teenagers and college students. The majority of the rest is part-timers for supplemental income from the middle class. Only a small percent are poor, unskilled laborers.

These aren't the people who form unions.

virtually no one will buy a $2 Mars bar, which reflects an upward price of only about a $1.40 on average.
.
Well even if it cost 30% more to make a mars bar (due to labour) the price wouldn't raise 30% since the 60 cent increase is much more than the 10/20 cent increase to create the bar.
I'm not saying the economy will collapse or anything extreme, just if not carefully implimented the negative effects can outweigh the positive.


As a side note, you completely ignore the fact that there are other ways to make up the difference in cost: increase productivity per worker, for instance, is a fine way of making up the costs while still possibly yielding reduced overall costs.
Business' I'm sure will be trying to make workers as productive anyway. And if you want to make them more productive because of a wage increase that kinda misses the point of the minimum wage. You'll get more pay if you do more work...

You've yet to prove it's true. Since it was your assertion, the burden of proof is on you.

Naive is believing something without any support. Find me some proof, in the real world, that buying power drops proportionally when the minimum wage is increased or shut the hell up.

Good luck finding proof for this BS theory. I'll wait.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm676.cfm

Keep up the insults. Shows your intelligence.

Do you deny that the labor is devalued?

Well even if it cost 30% more to make a mars bar (due to labour) the price wouldn't raise 30% since the 60 cent increase is much more than the 10/20 cent increase to create the bar.
I'm not saying the economy will collapse or anything extreme, just if not carefully implimented the negative effects can outweigh the positive.


Business' I'm sure will be trying to make workers as productive anyway. And if you want to make them more productive because of a wage increase that kinda misses the point of the minimum wage. You'll get more pay if you do more work...

Based on the fact that productivity has skyrocketed since the minimum wage was last increased, I would say that they aren't being paid more. . .

Apparently you're not living in "real life". Throw your red herring statements around some more. The workers who do not get the compesatory raises are now making less for their value than they were before.

Only if their purchasing power drops, which historically doesn't happen.


When the person who just started is now making the same as someone w/ particular skills or time in business, the skilled labor is devalued. That is real life.

Fine, then you'll have no problem finding some figures to back that claim up.


They may have the same "buying power" until the companies raise their prices to compensate for the wage increase. Don't think it will happen? Then you have more faith in business than I do.

Do the math. Unless 100% of a companies workforce is paid minimum wage, a 20% bump in minimum wage will not cause a 20% bump in labor costs, and labor costs are only ONE factor in the cost of an item. So even if the was an immediate product price adjustment (which doesn't happen,) it would not be proportional to the wage increase.

It's a 100% BS argument.

Now who's "trying to get by"? Over 50% of the MW labor force is teenagers and college students. The majority of the rest is part-timers for supplemental income from the middle class. Only a small percent are poor, unskilled laborers.

These aren't the people who form unions.A lot of my college students are working low-paying jobs and going to school full-time, geetting precious little help from parents and going into student loan debt. And these days, working a part-time job and maxing out student loans will almost pay the rent around here--if you're rooming with a couple of other people.

And you've still never addressed the other point I made earlier--it's been nine years since there was a minimum wage increase. If it's not appropriate now, then when will it be appropriate? Like I said before, the buying power of the minumum wage is just over half what it was thirty years ago. So when? How much?

I am making a measley $7.00/hr >_<

There would "need to be" but there rarely are. I was screwed on that several times in HS. There's little chance of unions starting up in the areas that pay minimum wage. Companies can easily find replacements at that level. If they can't, the market is competative and they need to raise wages anyway.

When the majority of MW workers are teenagers, college students, or unskilled labor, I don't see the necessity for the increases.
Usually when Gymoor and Nazz get going I'm little more than that puppie that follows the bulldog going, "Yeah, tell 'em Butch" but I'll field this one because it hits in areas where I live.

The problem is that manufacturing doesn't pay minumum wage, it's not the making of products, most often it's in the service industries. When things like gentrification happens in places such as San Francisco you run into the problem of the people who run the city not being able to earn enough to live in the city, and that's a problem.

Paying these people enough to afford to live in those places that they service isn't going to increase the cost of your car or tv or really your burger, becasue suddenly these people will be able to afford at the very least the occasional burger.

Even if the service workers also happen to be in college (I don't know what it was like for you, but college wasn't exactly salad days for me, I worked my ass off at Joe jobs and ate more ramen than one man should) they need those jobs to be able to cover thier expenses. I can't get behind the "You're unskilled and/or a student in the process of getting skills, so you don't get to eat."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm676.cfm

Keep up the insults. Shows your intelligence.

Do you deny that the labor is devalued?

Show me in that linky there (from the Heritage Foundation, no less,) any statistic that shows that labor is devalued in real life.

Also, show me where I insulted you. I called a certain argumennt BS because it was not backed up by any hard numbers. You specifically called ME naive.

I guess being a hypocrite shows your intelligence :eek: .

Only if their purchasing power drops, which historically doesn't happen.
Fine, then you'll have no problem finding some figures to back that claim up.
Do the math. Unless 100% of a companies workforce is paid minimum wage, a 20% bump in minimum wage will not cause a 20% bump in labor costs, and labor costs are only ONE factor in the cost of an item. So even if the was an immediate product price adjustment (which doesn't happen,) it would not be proportional to the wage increase.

It's a 100% BS argument.


Your math, like your logic, is faulty. According to the USDA, for every 10% rise in the MW, there is a 1-2% increase in prices of basic necessities. Now that the majority of companies won't give compesatroy raises, they now have less buying power. Do you deny this? If you don't think that's alot, try living on a budget.

I am making a measley $7.00/hr >_<
With my precious college education I often get @$7.63 an hour-but a guaranteed 12 hour day, even if I leave half way through it. And they feed me.

Show me in that linky there (from the Heritage Foundation, no less,) any statistic that shows that labor is devalued in real life.

Also, show me where I insulted you. I called a certain argumennt BS because it was not backed up by any hard numbers. YOu slecifically called ME naive.

I guess being a hypocrite shows your intelligence :eek: .

You don't understand how it's devalued? Really? Are you that blind? You don't think that someone who is now making MW when previously was at a higher rate hasn't been devalued?

Calling it BS is insulting. Do you deny this? Sideways calling me a doomsayer, etc. is insulting. Do you deny this?

http://new.heritage.org/Research/Labor/BG1162.cfm

Show me where I've been a "hypocrite".

Edit: and an "Ad Hominem" to boot.

Usually when Gymoor and Nazz get going I'm little more than that puppie that follows the bulldog going, "Yeah, tell 'em Butch" but I'll field this one because it hits in areas where I live.

The problem is that manufacturing doesn't pay minumum wage, it's not the making of products, most often it's in the service industries. When things like gentrification happens in places such as San Francisco you run into the problem of the people who run the city not being able to earn enough to live in the city, and that's a problem.

Paying these people enough to afford to live in those places that they service isn't going to increase the cost of your car or tv or really your burger, becasue suddenly these people will be able to afford at the very least the occasional burger.

Even if the service workers also happen to be in college (I don't know what it was like for you, but college wasn't exactly salad days for me, I worked my ass off at Joe jobs and ate more ramen than one man should) they need those jobs to be able to cover thier expenses. I can't get behind the "You're unskilled and/or a student in the process of getting skills, so you don't get to eat."

When people still need to eat and are now making less so teenagers can make more, I've got issues w/ it. I also went to college. I've also lived on a budget. I've also gotten trained w/o parental help so I can make more than MW.

All this eco BS, chest pounding, capitolistic, hatred of the poor garbage aside. What is the cataclysmic problem with requireing employers to pay and treat their employees like they're actual human beings?

A lot of my college students are working low-paying jobs and going to school full-time, geetting precious little help from parents and going into student loan debt. And these days, working a part-time job and maxing out student loans will almost pay the rent around here--if you're rooming with a couple of other people.

And you've still never addressed the other point I made earlier--it's been nine years since there was a minimum wage increase. If it's not appropriate now, then when will it be appropriate? Like I said before, the buying power of the minumum wage is just over half what it was thirty years ago. So when? How much?

I don't think the federal rate should be increased much at all. As for exact numbers, I'ld say leave it up to state/local gov'ts.

As for the college students, there are other options available and they will be rewarded in the long run. I doesn't have to be "easy".

Your math, like your logic, is faulty. According to the USDA, for every 10% rise in the MW, there is a 1-2% increase in prices of basic necessities. Now that the majority of companies won't give compesatroy raises, they now have less buying power. Do you deny this? If you don't think that's alot, try living on a budget.

Look up what proportional means. I have lived on a biudget, thank you.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_slayers

Nor do economists view the issue with the monolithic disapproval that the Journal presents. Last fall, 562 economists signed a letter agreeing that "the minimum wage has been an important part of our nation's economy for 65 years." Further, they agreed that "as with a federal increase, modest increases in state minimum wages in the range of $1.00 to $2.00 can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed." The signers included four Nobel Laureates, three of whom have served as presidents of the American Economic Association, the mainstream, economists' professional association.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp150

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_raising_minimum_wage_2004

Despite the fact that contemporary economic research casts a long shadow of doubt on the contention that moderate minimum wage increases cause job losses, opponents still lead with this argument. This so-called “disemployment” argument is particularly difficult to maintain given two relatively recent developments in the history of minimum wages. First, the quality of empirical minimum wage research rose steeply over the last decade, due largely to economists’ ability to conduct pseudo-experiments3. Such experiments, rare in empirical economics, typically utilize the fact that numerous states (12 as of today) have raised their minimum wage above that of the federal level. This variation between states gives researchers a chance to isolate the impact of the wage change and test its impact on employment and other relevant outcomes. As stressed in the Card and Krueger book cited above, these studies reveal employment elasticities that hover about zero, i.e., they solidly reject the conventional hypothesis that any increase in the minimum wage leads to job losses among affected workers.

Second, following the most recent increase legislated in 1996, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades. The fact that the employment and earnings opportunities of low-wage workers grew so quickly following that increase continues to pose a daunting challenge to those who still maintain that minimum wage increases hurt their intended beneficiaries.

• Between 1998 and 2001, the number of small business establishments grew twice as quickly in states with higher minimum wages (3.1% vs. 1.6%).
• Employment grew 1.5% more quickly in high minimum wage states.
• Annual and average payroll growth was also faster in higher minimum wage states.

Look up what proportional means. I have lived on a biudget, thank you.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_slayers

Arguement by Authority.

Here's something from the Journal of economic perspectives:

Winter 2005 Journal of Economic Perspectives, an academic publication, reports that 71 percent of economists at America’s top universities agree with the statement “a minimum wage increases unemployment among the young and unskilled.” About one-third of the economists agree outright, and another third agree with reservations.


http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp150

Red herring. I've said nothing about "job losses". The articles I've posted didn't either. They showed increased prices and devalued workforces.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_raising_minimum_wage_2004

correlation =/= causality. What other factors were involved? Are you trying to argue that the MW increases LED TO the various economic increases?

You don't understand how it's devalued? Really? Are you that blind? You don't think that someone who is now making MW when previously was at a higher rate hasn't been devalued?

Only in their pride.

Calling it BS is insulting. Do you deny this? Sideways calling me a doomsayer, etc. is insulting. Do you deny this?

Calling an unsupported argument BS is not insulting, it's simply saying how it is. Directly calling ME naive, on the other hand, IS a direct insult.

http://new.heritage.org/Research/Labor/BG1162.cfm

Show me where I've been a "hypocrite".

I already did.

Again, the Heritage foundation primarily bases it's argument on predictions, predictions that do not, however, have any relation to how things have actually gone every time there has been a minimum wage increase. They use partial data to make inaccurrate preditions that are at odds with what actually happens.

One of the things you are missing is that MW workers earn $6000 below the official poverty line and so can claim welfare benefits and such like.

Now over here in the UK such benefits are means tested so that any increase in the MW reduces the anount of welfare money spent.

the other thing to remember is that if you have a low or no MW then bad employers who pay next to nothing effectively have their workforce subsidised by the government at the cost of lots of tax money again due to the welfare system.



But what does it matter... congress voted themselves a hefty payrise last week
wonder what value they add to the economy

Only in their pride.
.
And their relative worth and also if any inflation is caused as a result. If the rich suddenly had a greater proportion of their money taken away but I was left untouched in relative terms I would be richer.

Only in their pride.

and in thier labor. What they're doing is now worth less than an unskilled MW earner.



Calling an unsupported argument BS is not insulting, it's simply saying how it is. Directly calling ME naive, on the other hand, IS a direct insult.

So you're denying you were calling me a doomsayer,etc. while dismissing my arguements as BS w/o support of your own?



I already did.

No, you did not.


Again, the Heritage foundation primarily bases it's argument on predictions, predictions that do not, however, have any relation to how things have actually gone every time there has been a minimum wage increase. They use partial data to make inaccurrate preditions that are at odds with what actually happens.

Odd, the USDA uses "predictions" to make estimates. The HF used census data as well. You've yet to show where they're "innacurate".

Arguement by Authority.

Here's something from the Journal of economic perspectives:

Winter 2005 Journal of Economic Perspectives, an academic publication, reports that 71 percent of economists at America’s top universities agree with the statement “a minimum wage increases unemployment among the young and unskilled.” About one-third of the economists agree outright, and another third agree with reservations.

Yes, you're right. What you quoted right there is an argument from authority.


Red herring. I've said nothing about "job losses". The articles I've posted didn't either. They showed increased prices and devalued workforces.

No, they talked about preditions about increased prices and devalued workforces without any real word data to back them up. They make predictions, in other words, that are at odds with history.

correlation =/= causality. What other factors were involved? Are you trying to argue that the MW increases LED TO the various economic increases?

Well, your argument is that increases in MW leads to economic hardships, and there is neither a causal nor a correlative relationship that backs up that stance.

correlation =/= causality.

YAY! I thought I was the only one here who recognized that fact!

Yes, you're right. What you quoted right there is an argument from authority.

As was yours. Pot.Kettle.

No, they talked about preditions about increased prices and devalued workforces without any real word data to back them up. They make predictions, in other words, that are at odds with history.

And what you posted was about job losses. You've yet to show the history of it.



Well, your argument is that increases in MW leads to economic hardships, and there is neither a causal nor a correlative relationship that backs up that stance.

It leads to economic hardships for those making lower wages and do not recieve compesatory wages in the bargain. Since most companies won't give such raises, it hurts them with the adjusted prices that even the Gov't admits will happen.

As was yours. Pot.Kettle.

Read it again.



And what you posted was about job losses. You've yet to show the history of it.

Try reading




It leads to economic hardships for those making lower wages and do not recieve compesatory wages in the bargain. Since most companies won't give such raises, it hurts them with the adjusted prices that even the Gov't admits will happen.

Show me where, when a minimum wage increase occurred, it lead to economic hardship.

Since it seems a balanced article (and it's validity has not been contested, apparently,) with a wealth of links that one can actually check out, Wiki seems like a good place to start for EVERYONE.

It makes points both ways, so no whining about "Wiki sucks!"

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

This stood out, as it's a case of rigorous study of ACTUAL, REAL WORLD results.

Since the introduction of a national minimum wage in the UK in 1999, its effects on employment were subject to extensive research and observation by the Low Pay Commission. The bottom line there is, employment has not been reduced, productivity has increased in affected companies (especially service companies),[10] and neither trade unions nor employer organisations contest the minimum wage, although especially the latter had been doing so heavily until 1999.

This caught my eye too as interesting:

The traditional view that minimum wages have significant negative effects on employment is straightforward if one assumes that labor markets for low-skill workers can be characterized as fitting the model of a perfectly competitive market, where employers are unable to exploit workers by restricting demand for labour. On the other hand, if low-skill employers have (non-contestable) monopsony power, then an appropriate level of the minimum wage actually raises employment. Alan Manning's 2003 book, Monopsony in Motion: Imperfect Competition in Labor Markets (ISBN 0691113122) suggests that this kind of market is common if not ubiquitous in labor markets.

Anyway, economics is not as clear-cut or simple as lobbyists on either side would have one think. It's complex and chaotic and sometimes counter-intuitive.

Minimum wage should be raised to £9 an hour. Grrrrr *Macho Bolshevik showboating*

and in thier labor. What they're doing is now worth less than an unskilled MW earner.

So...if the minimum wage were increased, some people would make less than minimum wage? And I'm sorry, a skilled worker is not making $7 an hour anyway.


So you're denying you were calling me a doomsayer,etc. while dismissing my arguements as BS w/o support of your own?

You made the original assertion that minimum wage hikes caused negative effects. Without proof beyond unsupported theories that are at odds with what actually happens, then yes, I call your argument BS. I said nothing about you being a doomsayer. Show me where I did.

Odd, the USDA uses "predictions" to make estimates. The HF used census data as well. You've yet to show where they're "innacurate".

You've yet to show where their predictions and estimates actually come true, historically.

And their relative worth and also if any inflation is caused as a result. If the rich suddenly had a greater proportion of their money taken away but I was left untouched in relative terms I would be richer.

By that same argument, if the rich get richer (as they are doing) then the average person is getting poorer, even if average wages for the poor and middle class aren't dropping (which they are.)

Also, if a small segement of society getting a pay increase means what you're getting paid is worth less, then Congress has been making you worth less almost every year for a decade. At taxpayer expense.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/06/20/dobbs.june21/index.html

a high minimum wage equals higher inflation... period. Goods and services cost more and money is worth less.

one thing that is worth pointing out is the fact that only about 6% of the US work force works for a wage less than 7.25/hr (the democrats proposed increase), McDonalds even starts employees out at 8.50/hr. Of that 6% of the American workforce, around 2/3 of those working for 7.25/hr or less are under 21. What this tells us is that almost everyone working for the minimum wage are young and are not using it to support families or "make a living".

So why do democrats care?
first, it is an election year and is an issue that unlikely to pass but will get a lot of press (but, of course, you do not hear the media pointing that fact out like they did with the gay marriage issue for republicans).

Second is trade unions. Trade unions are beholden to the democratic party, and vice versa. Many trade union negotiations with corporations start with a factor of the minimum wage. For example, union electrician negotiators in AZ would start negotiations on a job at 4 times the minimum wage per hour for their workers. Factor of minimum wage is a common negotiation tactic. Thus, raising the minimum wage 2.10/hr for the hourly employee is more like raising wages by a factor of 2.10/hr for the Union employee, like 4.20, 6.30, 8.40 per hour. This sounds ridiculous I know, but it is the truth. Unions can gain a stranglehold over a company over time. Look at the united auto workers dealings (UAW) with general motors, who, by the way, factors minimum wage into union wage negotiations. UAW workers are compensated an average of $81 per hour in wages and benefits. This wage, of course, is passed directly on to you when you buy inferior vehicles from GM, or pay taxes to a government that buys GM (governments have to buy American cars). Ford has similar problems. So what if you buy imports? Well there you have to pay extra taxes and tariffs on foreign companies, a direct result of our companies being unable to compete because of extremely high union wages. All of these items directly add to inflation, so beyond costing you more money directly, it also makes the money you use worth less.

A raise in the minimum wage does only two significant things:
1) make people who do not know anything think that they are going to get a raise or help people who need raises.
2) help trade unions further subjugate reasonable wages and cause inflation and shoddy work.

a high minimum wage equals higher inflation... period. Goods and services cost more and money is worth less.

Prove it.

one thing that is worth pointing out is the fact that only about 6% of the US work force works for a wage less than 7.25/hr (the democrats proposed increase), McDonalds even starts employees out at 8.50/hr.

Then it really won't drive inflation much, will it?

Of that 6% of the American workforce, around 2/3 of those working for 7.25/hr or less are under 21. What this tells us is that almost everyone working for the minimum wage are young and are not using it to support families or "make a living".

No, but they might be from poor families and are working their way through school. And what of the other third? They don't matter?

So why do democrats care?
first, it is an election year and is an issue that unlikely to pass but will get a lot of press (but, of course, you do not hear the media pointing that fact out like they did with the gay marriage issue for republicans).

You mean Congress does things to get votes? Get out of town!!! That in itself is not an attack on the merits of the idea.

Second is trade unions. Trade unions are beholden to the democratic party, and vice versa. Many trade union negotiations with corporations start with a factor of the minimum wage. For example, union electrician negotiators in AZ would start negotiations on a job at 4 times the minimum wage per hour for their workers. Factor of minimum wage is a common negotiation tactic. Thus, raising the minimum wage 2.10/hr for the hourly employee is more like raising wages by a factor of 2.10/hr for the Union employee, like 4.20, 6.30, 8.40 per hour. This sounds ridiculous I know, but it is the truth. Unions can gain a stranglehold over a company over time. Look at the united auto workers dealings (UAW) with general motors, who, by the way, factors minimum wage into union wage negotiations. UAW workers are compensated an average of $81 per hour in wages and benefits. This wage, of course, is passed directly on to you when you buy inferior vehicles from GM, or pay taxes to a government that buys GM (governments have to buy American cars). Ford has similar problems. So what if you buy imports? Well there you have to pay extra taxes and tariffs on foreign companies, a direct result of our companies being unable to compete because of extremely high union wages. All of these items directly add to inflation, so beyond costing you more money directly, it also makes the money you use worth less.

By this same logic, the rich making more money makes your money worth less as well. But hey, I bet you supported lowered taxes targeted primarily at the rich.

A raise in the minimum wage does only two significant things:
1) make people who do not know anything think that they are going to get a raise or help people who need raises.

That's just an attack that says nothing.

2) help trade unions further subjugate reasonable wages and cause inflation and shoddy work.

How does it cause shoddy work? You mean you're against people gatheirng together to increase their bargaining power? Well, then I guess you're against investment groups, holding companies and corporations as well.

In other words, you don't think the middle and working class should have the same rights as the rich.

So...if the minimum wage were increased, some people would make less than minimum wage? And I'm sorry, a skilled worker is not making $7 an hour anyway.

Nice way to selectively edit and take it out of context. So you are now denying that someone who was making $7 and is now making the same as unskilled labor/new hires has had their experience/skilles devalued?




You made the original assertion that minimum wage hikes caused negative effects. Without proof beyond unsupported theories that are at odds with what actually happens, then yes, I call your argument BS. I said nothing about you being a doomsayer. Show me where I did.

And yet your own wiki link has shown evidence of it beyond your selectively edited posts. Do you deny that? Do you deny that you compared my posts stating (and showing) that there have been negative effects to doomsaying etc.? I'll use your line, try reading your own posts.



You've yet to show where their predictions and estimates actually come true, historically.

Once again, the articles I linked to had historical examples that you apparently ignored as well as your own Wiki article stating that some research had shown job loss.

Nice way to selectively edit and take it out of context. So you are now denying that someone who was making $7 and is now making the same as unskilled labor/new hires has had their experience/skilles devalued?

So? What does it matter if you're making the same as someone else as long as you have the same buying power, and you've yet to post anything that shows inflation and minimum wage increases go hand in hand, much less that one CAUSES the other.


And yet your own wiki link has shown evidence of it beyond your selectively edited posts. Do you deny that? Do you deny that you compared my posts stating (and showing) that there have been negative effects to doomsaying etc.? I'll use your line, try reading your own posts.

I said the Wiki link provided arguments for both sides when I posted it.

Once again, the articles I linked to had historical examples that you apparently ignored as well as your own Wiki article stating that some research had shown job loss.

Yes, some research has shown job loss. Other research has shown job growth. In other words, the only definite thing about the minimum wage increase is that those who are making minimum wage now will be making more if the minimum wage is increased. None of the articles you posted said anything like "When this specific minimum wage increase passed, it had these specific, negative consequences that can be traced directly to the minimum wage increase." In many cases there was a correlation (not cause and effect, necessarily,) between job losses, job gains and the minimum wage.

And most of the presumed job loss is in youngsters who are not supporting a family (your own argument,) and can be seen as an incentive to attain higher levels of schooling or to reduce job competition for those who ARE supporting a family on minimum wage.

So? What does it matter if you're making the same as someone else as long as you have the same buying power, and you've yet to post anything that shows inflation and minimum wage increases go hand in hand, much less that one CAUSES the other.

When someone else hasn't the skills or time invested in the same job, it makes a difference. You really can't see the difference? You really don't think that a company that now is using the skills from more experience workers at the same level as new hires is not paying for the value of thier labor?

I stated data from the USDA. Do you deny this? W/ the historical increases that have happened (try reading some of the sites) it has decreased the buying power of those who did not get compesatory raises.


I said the Wiki link provided arguments for both sides when I posted it.

Yes, some research has shown job loss. Other research has shown job growth. In other words, the only definite thing about the minimum wage increase is that those who are making minimum wage now will be making more if the minimum wage is increased.

And most of the job loss is in youngsters who are not supporting a family (your own argument,) and can be seen as an incentive to attain higher levels of schooling or to reduce job competition for those who ARE supporting a family on minimum wage.

Yet you only quoted certain aspects and decried the opposition as 100% BS. Now you're claiming that evidence supports both sides? Are you denying you made this claim?

I didn NOT argue for job loss. Show me where I did. I argued for reduced value of wages w/o compesatory wages.

When someone else hasn't the skills or time invested in the same job, it makes a difference. You really can't see the difference? You really don't think that a company that now is using the skills from more experience workers at the same level as new hires is not paying for the value of thier labor?

They're not exactly valuing their skill or experience by paying them $7.00,


I stated data from the USDA. Do you deny this? W/ the historical increases that have happened (try reading some of the sites) it has decreased the buying power of those who did not get compesatory raises.

Cite me the specifics please.



Yet you only quoted certain aspects and decried the opposition as 100% BS. Now you're claiming that evidence supports both sides? Are you denying you made this claim?

I decried the opposition at the time because their assertions were 100% unsupported. Now, after reviewing the data, the evidence is contradictory and unclear at best. In other words, stating it as a certainty is 100% unadulterated bovine excrement.

I didn NOT argue for job loss. Show me where I did. I argued for reduced value of wages w/o compesatory wages.

And your links never supported that assertion. Cite me the quotation that shows that a worker's pay is devalued by a minimum wage increase. Show me, I must be stupid.

I would first like to point out that I never stated that I was opposed to an increase in the minimum wage, I am attacking BOTH the methods democrats are using to achieve and increase AND some merits of the idea


Prove it.

Taught as accurate in the most basic economics classes (including my recent 101), the concept is called the Price-Wage Spiral.
In macroeconomics, the price/wage spiral (also called the wage/price spiral) represents a vicious circle process in which different sides of the wage bargain try to keep up with inflation to protect real incomes. This process in turn is one cause of inflation. It can start either due to high aggregate demand or due to supply shocks, such as an oil price hike. There are two separate elements of this spiral that coexist and interact:

Business owners raise prices to protect profit margins from rising costs, including nominal wage costs, and to keep the real value of profit margins from falling.
Wage-earners try to push their nominal wages upward to catch up with rising prices, to protect real wages from falling.
So "wages chase prices and prices chase wages," persisting even in the face of a (mild) recession. This price/wage spiral interacts with inflationary expectations to produce long-lived inflationary process. Some argue that incomes policies or a severe recession is needed to stop the spiral.

The first element of the price/wage spiral does not apply if markets are relatively competitive, while the second does not apply if workers lack labor unions or other sources of bargaining power. Thus, in the neoliberal era of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, when markets have become more competitive and unions have faded, the role of the price/wage spiral has shrunk.

The spiral is also weakened if labor productivity rises at a quick rate. Rising labor productivity (the amount workers produce per hour) compensates employers for higher wages costs while allowing employees to receive rising real wages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price/wage_spiral


Then it really won't drive inflation much, will it?

See later in my post chief, concerning union wages.

No, but they might be from poor families and are working their way through school. And what of the other third? They don't matter?

Oh they matter all right. Its a shame they have to pay higher prices for everything they buy, just like the middle class. 2% of the US workforce gets to be cannon fodder for democrats to exploit so that unions can jack up already high wages... Why don't those union guys spread some of that wealth down the hill?


You mean Congress does things to get votes? Get out of town!!! That in itself is not an attack on the merits of the idea.

What i am saying is that nobody in our drive-by media has pointed out that this is just as much as a ill-fated wedge issue as the gay marriage ammendment. In fact, I applaud them for finnaly mustering the willpower to propose a wedge issue like this. I just wish our media here would not by hypocrites about the way they cover simmilar wedge issues. Ironic that you critisize my pointing out the proposals overt political nature.



By this same logic, the rich making more money makes your money worth less as well. But hey, I bet you supported lowered taxes targeted primarily at the rich.

You critisize me for saying 'nothing', but here you haul off and throw around the word rich.
Lets make some classifications:
Capital holders: wealthy bussiness owners and people with stockpiles of capital, corporate officerss paid primarily through stock
High wage earners: high paid professions like doctors, lawyers, corporate officers that get paid with currency rather than stock.
Mixed: People with combinations of the above.

With this, we can measure their impact on inflation.
Capital holders actuall combat inflation by hording capital and preventing it from being a liquid force in an economy. This is called deflation (can be very, very bad if not controlled properly). Their investments yield gains for them through stock sales and dividends, and this would cause inflation through increased currency circulation, except for the fact that virtually all of this money is reinvested. Reinvestment is more hording.
High wage earners: this exclusive subset is rare, but if they live a lavish hand to mouth lifestyle, their wage's impact on inflation is virtually the same as low wage earners (except magnified). Again, this type of "rich" person is rare, consituting less than 1% of the population.
Mixed: very debatable, but through investment and hording they basicly negate their impact on inflation. These are taxed at extremely high rates, that when spent by the government, DO directly cause higher inflation rates.

That's just an attack that says nothing.

Actually, it says that this proposal appeals to people who are misinformed enough to think that they will get a pay raise. Also, it says that it might be being done to help poor people who "need raises", when the fact is that very few "poor people" actually make this wage. The people who support this are not being told this IS a proposal FOR UNIONS.


How does it cause shoddy work? You mean you're against people gatheirng together to increase their bargaining power? Well, then I guess you're against investment groups, holding companies and corporations as well.

Shoddy work is the result of two things: 1) omipresent no-fire clauses in union contracts and 2) closed shops. as for point 1), bussinesses whose ultimate aim is to produce products that will sell CANNOT fire union employees who do not share that same goal or are incompetant. Elaborate collective bargain processes are set up that prevent employers from removing horrible employees that are under the umbrella of union protection. Usually the only remedy for companies is to continue paying the laborer's wage but remove them from the job. Then they have to hire ANOTHER union worker (hopefully better) to perform the same task. Unions here are required to self-police, and they do a mediocre job at removing bad employees. 2) closed shops prevent bussinesses from hiring non-union workers. For example GM CANNOT hire even 1 non-union laborer for any of its michigan plants, even for union wages. the union does not allow it. This is the ultimate hammer for unions, you either have to do what they want (increase wages to extremely high levels), or they will literally close you down.

Also, for shoddy work, look at emperacle evidence. Go over to consumer reports and look to see who has the most reliable cars. Then the most reliable cars per dollar spent. Despite extra taxes... JAPANESE cars that are assembled in America (using non-union employees of course), have the best reliability and cost-value. Also at consumer reports, you can see what percentage of problems are associated with workmanship and with design. Workmanship causes the overwhelming majority of car problems.

Corportations and holding companies are different in character than unions because of what they are offering. Companies offering capital, unions offering labor. Because of the WAY a free economy works, capital is almost excusively working the the best interest of the market (average people), and labor is almost exclusively working against the interest of the market. This is what Marx sought to change. Since he didn't, we have labor seeking their own short term interests with no checks on their demands, while corportations have the ultimate checks on their demands: the consumer. If a product is not worth the money being asked, people do not buy it. This is why GM is selling cars below what it costs to make them. To turn non-liquid capital into capital. Corporations act in the interest of the market because they must respond to market demands. (average people).

In other words, you don't think the middle and working class should have the same rights as the rich.

Uh, they have the same rights inside the market, we probably should not help along our own economic weakness via inflation.




Original post:

a high minimum wage equals higher inflation... period. Goods and services cost more and money is worth less.

one thing that is worth pointing out is the fact that only about 6% of the US work force works for a wage less than 7.25/hr (the democrats proposed increase), McDonalds even starts employees out at 8.50/hr. Of that 6% of the American workforce, around 2/3 of those working for 7.25/hr or less are under 21. What this tells us is that almost everyone working for the minimum wage are young and are not using it to support families or "make a living".

So why do democrats care?
first, it is an election year and is an issue that unlikely to pass but will get a lot of press (but, of course, you do not hear the media pointing that fact out like they did with the gay marriage issue for republicans).

Second is trade unions. Trade unions are beholden to the democratic party, and vice versa. Many trade union negotiations with corporations start with a factor of the minimum wage. For example, union electrician negotiators in AZ would start negotiations on a job at 4 times the minimum wage per hour for their workers. Factor of minimum wage is a common negotiation tactic. Thus, raising the minimum wage 2.10/hr for the hourly employee is more like raising wages by a factor of 2.10/hr for the Union employee, like 4.20, 6.30, 8.40 per hour. This sounds ridiculous I know, but it is the truth. Unions can gain a stranglehold over a company over time. Look at the united auto workers dealings (UAW) with general motors, who, by the way, factors minimum wage into union wage negotiations. UAW workers are compensated an average of $81 per hour in wages and benefits. This wage, of course, is passed directly on to you when you buy inferior vehicles from GM, or pay taxes to a government that buys GM (governments have to buy American cars). Ford has similar problems. So what if you buy imports? Well there you have to pay extra taxes and tariffs on foreign companies, a direct result of our companies being unable to compete because of extremely high union wages. All of these items directly add to inflation, so beyond costing you more money directly, it also makes the money you use worth less.

A raise in the minimum wage does only two significant things:
1) make people who do not know anything think that they are going to get a raise or help people who need raises.
2) help trade unions further subjugate reasonable wages and cause inflation and shoddy work.

They're not exactly valuing their skill or experience by paying them $7.00,

This isn't Dodgeball, answer the question.


Cite me the specifics please.

Already did. I'm not redoing the work just because you refuse to read the posts.




I decried the opposition at the time because their assertions were 100% unsupported. Now, after reviewing the data, the evidence is contradictory and unclear at best. In other words, stating it as a certainty is 100% unadulterated bovine excrement.

No, you called it 100% BS from the beginning and stated that I wouldn't be able to support it. Now that I have, you're dodging your own claims. Try to be honest at least w/ yourself.



And your links never supported that assertion. Cite me the quotation that shows that a worker's pay is devalued by a minimum wage increase. Show me, I must be stupid.

Already cited the USDA report. Once again, read the thread.

I don't think you're stupid, just willfully ignorant.

This isn't Dodgeball, answer the question.

I see no proof that fringe-minimum wages are devalued.




Already did. I'm not redoing the work just because you refuse to read the posts.

There's nothing empirical in what you posted that shows the results of a minimum wage increase. If you think there is, cite the paragraph.


No, you called it 100% BS from the beginning and stated that I wouldn't be able to support it. Now that I have, you're dodging your own claims. Try to be honest at least w/ yourself.


What you posted does not support what you state in any way, shape or form. If I'm wrong, cite the specific passage. At this point, I doubt you even read what you linked.


Already cited the USDA report. Once again, read the thread.

I did. You referenced a USDA (U.S. Debt of Agriculture?) report without citing it. What the USDA is doing reporting on minimum wage, I have no idea, and since you refuse to link your source, I can only think you made it up. The only source you provide is the Heritage Foundation, a dubious conservative thinktank that is PAID to create pro-corporate propaganda. Their conclusions are based purely on conjecture with no hard evidence backing them up


I don't think you're stupid, just willfully ignorant.

And I think you are stupid, but you think you're smart. You simply do not appear to have the ability to comprehend what is being asked of you. Now support your U.S. Dept of Agriculture study (again, the USDA?,) or go away.

I see no proof that fringe-minimum wages are devalued.

There's nothing empirical in what you posted that shows the results of a minimum wage increase. If you think there is, cite the paragraph.
What you posted does not support what you state in any way, shape or form. If I'm wrong, cite the specific passage. At this point, I doubt you even read what you linked.

I did. You referenced a USDA (U.S. Debt of Agriculture?) report without citing it. What the USDA is doing reporting on minimum wage, I have no idea, and since you refuse to link your source, I can only think you made it up. The only source you provide is the Heritage Foundation, a dubious conservative thinktank that is PAID to create pro-corporate propaganda. Their conclusions are based purely on conjecture with no hard evidence backing them up




And I think you are stupid, but you think you're smart. You simply do not appear to have the ability to comprehend what is being asked of you. Now support your U.S. Dept of Agriculture study (again, the USDA?,) or go away.

Since you're too willfully ignorant to read, you have to result to the personal attacks. You like to cite selective passages to "prove" your points when the next contratict what you claim. It's nice to assume I "made it up" when you have nothing to counter it and it's the first result on a google search. You can believe I'm "stupid" all you want, It shows more how sad your debate skills are.

Since you're too willfully ignorant to read, you have to result to the personal attacks. You like to cite selective passages to "prove" your points when the next contratict what you claim. It's nice to assume I "made it up" when you have nothing to counter it and it's the first result on a google search. You can believe I'm "stupid" all you want, It shows more how sad your debate skills are.

I've read and reread this whole thread 4 times. You linked the Heritage Foundation AND THAT IS ALL.

Where is this USDA report? What was it's methodology? How did it arrive by it's conclusions? Did you even know that the USDA was the Dept of Agriculture?

You've been insulting, obtuse, and disdainful the whole time, and then you act all butthurt when someone reacts in kind. That's childish and delusional. Wear a helmet if you can't take it.

Debate skills? What skills have you shown? When challenged, all you do is say "I already did it" when YOU HAVEN'T, not at all.

See, the difference between your evidence and mine is yours says things to the effect of "If things had been different, this would have happened."

That's called conjecture.

My sources say "After the minimum wage changed, this happened. It might not be connected, but this is what happened, nontheless."

Do you see the difference? Hello? Is there anybody in there?

Now support your goddam USDA "report". I don't think you can. I'm laughing at you right now, because I think you made it up, and now you've been caught.

Here are the 2004 US department of labor stats on Federal minimum wage earners.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm

These stats also include those who earn less than minimum wage. There were 3 times as many of those.

These stats do not include stats of workers earning minimum wage in States and municipalities which have minimum wages set above the Federal level.



I think it is time to raise minimum wage. The current buying power of Federal Minimum wage is less than at any time since minimum wage existed. The peak buying power of minimum wage was in 1968 when minimum wage was raised to $1.60. There doesnt seem to be any correlation between raising minimum wage and the economy collapsing in the next year or two.

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

Correction to the above post. I dont know the buying power of those earning minimum wage from 1938 until 1954. And I cant be asked to do the math and research to adjust for inflation on them.

Here are the minimum wages from 1938-1956 if anyone else wants the task

Oct 24, 1938
$0.25

Oct 24, 1939
$0.30

Oct 24, 1945
$0.40

Jan 25, 1950
$0.75

Mar 1, 1956
$1.00

I've read and reread this whole thread 4 times. You linked the Heritage Foundation AND THAT IS ALL.

Which cites historical data from the census that you've convienently ignored over and over again that you kept deriding as "conjecture" w/o backing it up.Just because I'm not going to play your game and selectively edit to "prove " my point and instead (god forbid) rely on you to do some reading. Oh, wait. You ad hominemed them first off, didn't you? More fine debate skills on your point.

Where is this USDA report? What was it's methodology? How did it arrive by it's conclusions? Did you even know that the USDA was the Dept of Agriculture?

Don't believe in Google? Can't find it on your own?

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/general/aib/aib74703.pdf

Here's one.

maybe they help w/ the FOOD INDUSTRY. Since you had no idea of that, maybe you are stupid like you say.
You've been insulting, obtuse, and disdainful the whole time, and then you act all butthurt when someone reacts in kind. That's childish and delusional. Wear a helmet if you can't take it.

Debate skills? What skills have you shown? When challenged, all you do is say "I already did it" when YOU HAVEN'T, not at all.

Like calling 100% BS w/o proof of your own then denying you said that after being shown wrong by your own sources? Like refusing to answer direct questions because you know you're wrong? Kind of like those debate skills of yours?

See, the difference between your evidence and mine is yours says things to the effect of "If things had been different, this would have happened."

That's called conjecture.

My sources say "After the minimum wage changed, this happened. It might not be connected, but this is what happened, nontheless."



Do you see the difference? Hello? Is there anybody in there?

No, your initial sources claimed increased economics based on MW increases as causality. Not maybe's. You specifically selectively cited those specific points and only retracted AFTER I called you on causality v correlation. Go ahead, deny or ignore it. It's your standard tactic.

Now support your goddam USDA "report". I don't think you can. I'm laughing at you right now, because I think you made it up, and now you've been caught.


Oh, you don't think I can? That's like a five year old insult challenge. Why don't you go around yelling "NYAH NYAH YOU"RE STUPID"? It seems to be the high point for you.

Since looking things up that you don't like seems beyond your capabilities, here's some more links:

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LaSVSwH5pEXykAsiVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE3M3ZlcmdnBGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANGNzU1X zE3OQ--/SIG=12qk9vnku/EXP=1151037744/**http%3a//www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_n46_v30/ai_18940863
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LaSVSwH5pEXykArSVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE3bXJpdGtnBGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNARzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANGNzU1X zE3OQ--/SIG=12okdl4uf/EXP=1151037744/**http%3a//www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodreview/jan1999/contents.htm
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/general/aib/aib74703.pdf
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/general/tb/tb1877.pdf

Which cites historical data from the census that you've convienently ignored over and over again that you kept deriding as "conjecture" w/o backing it up.Just because I'm not going to play your game and selectively edit to "prove " my point and instead (god forbid) rely on you to do some reading. Oh, wait. You ad hominemed them first off, didn't you? More fine debate skills on your point.

Stop using words you don't know the meaning of. The Heritage foundation is not inaccurate because they are the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is inaccurate because they've been proven inaccurate time and again. They are simply not a reliable source. An ad hominem would be saying they are inaccurate simply because of who they are. Saying they are inaccurate because they make shit up is perfectly valid.


Don't believe in Google? Can't find it on your own?

I do, but I'm not going to do your homework for you.

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/general/aib/aib74703.pdf

Here's one.

Lol, and what does that very first paragraph say? It says that if the entire price of the minimum wage price increase was passed on to consumers (which it won't be,), the change would be less than 1%, and that is the upper end of the possible change, because certain money-saving processes were excluded. So basically, you exaggerated an exaggeration which was used to illustrate the point that raising the minimum wage would pretty much do bupkis to food prices! Bwahahahahahahahahaha! What a moron.

Now THAT is being proven wrong by one's own sources!


maybe they help w/ the FOOD INDUSTRY. Since you had no idea of that, maybe you are stupid like you say.

Still laughing at you.

Like calling 100% BS w/o proof of your own then denying you said that after being shown wrong by your own sources? Like refusing to answer direct questions because you know you're wrong? Kind of like those debate skills of yours?


I've answered every question you've asked. And I stated before I posted the Wiki article that it gives evidence both ways. That's called being fair and open minded. You should try it sometime.

So, what, exactly, have I been proven wrong about? Be specific. It'll be fun to beat you down some more, pup.

No, your initial sources claimed increased economics based on MW increases as causality. Not maybe's. You specifically selectively cited those specific points and only retracted AFTER I called you on causality v correlation. Go ahead, deny or ignore it. It's your standard tactic.

Really. Can you point out where I said that? Can you point out where my source said it was causal? Oh wait, I didn't. You're a fool again. I never even had to retract anything. You make stuff up to support your point and then you make stuff up to attack.

Oh, and I didn't selectively cite my source. I only cut and pasted the specific paragraphs I was talking about, but I DID link the entire, unedited articles. Meaning the original context was still intact and only one click away...which is more than I can say for you.


Oh, you don't think I can? That's like a five year old insult challenge. Why don't you go around yelling "NYAH NYAH YOU"RE STUPID"? It seems to be the high point for you.

It's clear that you can't

Since looking things up that you don't like seems beyond your capabilities, here's some more links:

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LaSVSwH5pEXykAsiVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE3M3ZlcmdnBGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANGNzU1X zE3OQ--/SIG=12qk9vnku/EXP=1151037744/**http%3a//www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_n46_v30/ai_18940863
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LaSVSwH5pEXykArSVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE3bXJpdGtnBGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNARzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANGNzU1X zE3OQ--/SIG=12okdl4uf/EXP=1151037744/**http%3a//www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodreview/jan1999/contents.htm
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/general/aib/aib74703.pdf
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/general/tb/tb1877.pdf

Thanks, I'll read these at my leisure and get back to you.

Let me punctuate the end of this thread with two thoughts.

First, where does the federal government get it's authority to control wages for private sector employees? Our Constitution spells out everything that the federal government CAN do and then leaves everything else to the States and People.

Second, only something like two percent of all workers get paid the minimum wage. Why is this such a hot issue? Because so many union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. This isn't about a wage for unskilled workers, it's about a forced pay raise for union members. Where I say union, you can substitute Democratic party voter.

Let me punctuate the end of this thread with two thoughts.

First, where does the federal government get it's authority to control wages for private sector employees? Our Constitution spells out everything that the federal government CAN do and then leaves everything else to the States and People.

No, the Constitution spells out what the Government can't do. I see nothing about not being able to pass minimum wage laws.

Second, only something like two percent of all workers get paid the minimum wage. Why is this such a hot issue? Because so many union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. This isn't about a wage for unskilled workers, it's about a forced pay raise for union members. Where I say union, you can substitute Democratic party voter.

Or perhaps company owners negotiated contracts that way as a way to keep the minimum wage artificially low. Did you ever think of that?

Or perhaps company owners negotiated contracts that way as a way to keep the minimum wage artificially low. Did you ever think of that?

How often do you hear this mentioned as a reason not to raise the minimum wage? I never have before.

If the goal were to use it to depress the minimum wage, we'd have heard about it. I suspect the goal is to allow raises in the minimum wage to be sold to the public as benefitting the working poor, but with the actual goal being the funnelling of extra money from large employers into unions.

How often do you hear this mentioned as a reason not to raise the minimum wage? I never have before.

If the goal were to use it to depress the minimum wage, we'd have heard about it. I suspect the goal is to allow raises in the minimum wage to be sold to the public as benefitting the working poor, but with the actual goal being the funnelling of extra money from large employers into unions.

It doesn't matter if it's mentioned or not. I'm saying that, because of the connection between minimum wage and union wages, BOTH SIDES have a magnified reason to skew the facts to their own purposes.

Anyway, economics is not as clear-cut or simple as lobbyists on either side would have one think. It's complex and chaotic and sometimes counter-intuitive.

Wait a second. Why would you assume monopsony power? Where have you seen monopsony power for an employer of unskilled labour?

Wait a second. Why would you assume monopsony power? Where have you seen monopsony power for an employer of unskilled labour?

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boal.monopsony

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boal.monopsony

the monopsonist avoids purchasing the last few units of a good whose value to the monopsonist is greater than their marginal cost, in order to hold down the price paid for prior units.

That doesn't make any sense. The prior units are already purchased. If I take a job paying me $4/hour, and then some other guy takes the same job and gets paid $7/hour, that has no impact on whether my wages are adequate. I agreed to them.

This is actually why I oppose the concept of equal pay for equal work. It assumes equivalent non-monetary compensation, plus it requires that the same wage has the same marginal value to all people.

Let me punctuate the end of this thread with two thoughts.

First, where does the federal government get it's authority to control wages for private sector employees? Our Constitution spells out everything that the federal government CAN do and then leaves everything else to the States and People.

Second, only something like two percent of all workers get paid the minimum wage. Why is this such a hot issue? Because so many union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. This isn't about a wage for unskilled workers, it's about a forced pay raise for union members. Where I say union, you can substitute Democratic party voter.

Hi Myrmidonisia -- Well the Consitution does set up the basic powers and prohibited actions of the goverment. But Congress has the power to make new laws, subject to judical review, and as Congress acts on the Federal level the laws they make will affect all the States in the Union. So really Congress does have the power to enact minimum wage laws for the entire country.

As far as point 2 goes: I think it is a great wedge issue for the Democratic party to use for all the election year fun that is going on....and this is not the first time they have done this either. And while I don't know how many people get paid minimum wage, I think that if you look at wages as a sliding scale, that increasing the base point of the scale, will over time, increase the whole scale. So I think you are right that this will affect more than just lower paid workers. Unions as a whole are really in a decline right now -- so I am not sure how much they really have a hand in this issue being played up right now.

At the end of the day -- the whole minumum wage issue is cyclical in nature -- and is just playing catch up at this time. The minimum wage has been raised many times in the past, so I really don't see the doom and gloom or even the anger at looking at this issue as a handout and undeserved for the so called main beneficiaries -- that many posts have expressed -- about the lower paid worker. Thus endith my sermon!:p

... but I don't beleive anyone has a "right" to any wage at all. A wage is an agreement bewteen employee and employer - the employee's work is worth 'Z' to the employer, and the employee would not do it for less than 'X', so they settle on 'Y'. If that's not enough for the employee, then he/she does not have to do the work. If the employee wants too much, then the employer can look elsewhere. When an employer is coerced to pay more, then the difference is theft, however direct or indirect it may be.

Ahh... but now we have this silly notion that there is a 'right' to a job - that there is a 'right' to demand of the resources of others - they must pay more than what they feel is a fair price. It's theft.

Many will argue that it's only taking money from those who have plenty. Well, in a free market at least, they only have that money because they provided someone else a good or service they wanted. That good or service was worth more to that customer than the money, else they wouldn't have purchased it. Win-win. These are the last people who should be punished, especially since there wouldn't be jobs in the first place for most of us without these people building businesses and taking risks themselves. If the money was made in another fashion, it was probably illegal.

Most people who make minimum wage are not making it for very long, most are quite young and have no skills. How do you expect them to climb the economic ladder when you kick out the bottom rungs? People should be paid the market value of the labor they provide. If they have no knowledge or skill and if anyone else can do the job, then they shouldn't be paid much. Otherwise, you remove the econimic incentives that push people to develop their skills to be applied in an area where people are needed - and hence higher paid.

I knew a good objectivist would show up eventually.

Thanks.

... but I don't beleive anyone has a "right" to any wage at all. A wage is an agreement bewteen employee and employer - the employee's work is worth 'Z' to the employer, and the employee would not do it for less than 'X', so they settle on 'Y'. If that's not enough for the employee, then he/she does not have to do the work. If the employee wants too much, then the employer can look elsewhere. When an employer is coerced to pay more, then the difference is theft, however direct or indirect it may be.

Ahh... but now we have this silly notion that there is a 'right' to a job - that there is a 'right' to demand of the resources of others - they must pay more than what they feel is a fair price. It's theft.

Many will argue that it's only taking money from those who have plenty. Well, in a free market at least, they only have that money because they provided someone else a good or service they wanted. That good or service was worth more to that customer than the money, else they wouldn't have purchased it. Win-win. These are the last people who should be punished, especially since there wouldn't be jobs in the first place for most of us without these people building businesses and taking risks themselves. If the money was made in another fashion, it was probably illegal.

Most people who make minimum wage are not making it for very long, most are quite young and have no skills. How do you expect them to climb the economic ladder when you kick out the bottom rungs? People should be paid the market value of the labor they provide. If they have no knowledge or skill and if anyone else can do the job, then they shouldn't be paid much. Otherwise, you remove the econimic incentives that push people to develop their skills to be applied in an area where people are needed - and hence higher paid.

Well put. You address two confusions that always lead people to believe that government regulation of the economy is the solution to the ills of society. Number one, people nowadays keep confusing things that are allowed with things that are guaranteed. Your job is not a guaranteed right. If you screw up, they're allowed to fire you. When you were hired, I doubt that they guaranteed you would keep your job no matter how badly you f**k up. And having the government guarantee jobs for people gives them the right to screw up and not face the consequences of their actions.

Two, people always make the jump from noting that someone is rich to saying they don't deserve their wealth and they should give it to the less fortunate. They skip the step in between which is to ask, "Did the rich person steal their wealth or earn it? If they earned it without lying or stealing, you and I have no right to say whether they deserve it or not.

Contrary to the likes of greedy bastards like Sklling and Lay of Enron, most people, at least in the U.S., earn their wealth legally through hard work and foresight and even in some cases...benevolence. And yet some of us would have them punished for this? Terrible. Just concentrate on rooting out lying, cheating and stealing.

You're basically arguing for a "living wage". I don't require a TV or a computer as "necessary".

I've yet to find anyone who can define a "living wage" w/o vagaries and unessential fluff.
BUt a person who makes minimum wage makes $10,500 a year if he/she works 40 hours a week, how ca person with a family live on this?

The federal minimum wage is an appalling idea.

I hold this position for 2 reasons:

1- The country is not a homogenous market.
Setting a single minimum wage for the country is equivalent to setting housing assistance to a single market – were subsidized housing to be set at DC prices, the housing subsidy to a family in rural Georgia would allow them to rent a far better place than most in the middle class. The same disparity between regions means that what is a reasonable minimum wage in Northern Louisiana and in Manhattan are considerably different.

2- Why is there a minimum wage to begin with?
Jobs paying minimum wage are few and far between because workers will not agree to work for that wage. If nobody wants to work for it, employers must raise their wages to get reasonable workers. If only really poor quality workers will work for it, you must raise wages to attract better quality workers.

On the other side of the coin, if workers who will accept minimum wage are not worth minimum wage, you will not hire them. Why pay $7/hr for someone who is only worth $4?

The reason why there is not a spike in unemployment when the minimum wage is raised is because hardly anyone works minimum wage and it is raised when the economy is doing reasonably well.

If you want to think about the effect of a raise in minimum wage, take it to extremes. Why not just raise the minimum wage to $100/hr? That way nobody would be poor and you don’t want people to be poor, so why don’t you push for it to be $100/hr?


If you cannot live on $6/hr then you will not agree to take a job for $6/hr. The only reason to take a job paying minimum wage is because you have no marketable skills and are incapable of getting anything better. Thus, you should be grateful to have a job at all.
Even those who cannot read and can hardly count past 4 can get a job for better than minimum wage – so long as they are reasonable workers. Anyone who can’t do better than that has some serious problems which upping the minimum wage is not going to help.

This is purely a political issue so the Democrats can try to get some headlines and win some votes – unfortunately there are enough people who will be dumb enough to fall for this tactic.


Additionally:
You do not have the right to force me to pay more money.
You do not have the right to demand that I work harder for your lazy ass.
You do not have the right to take what I bust my ass to get.

BUt a person who makes minimum wage makes $10,500 a year if he/she works 40 hours a week, how ca person with a family live on this?

Good budgeting? And if they're not happy with it, they should quit and tell the world what a bad company that is. In the age of the Internet, your company can't get away with bad policies for too long.

... but I don't beleive anyone has a "right" to any wage at all. A wage is an agreement bewteen employee and employer - the employee's work is worth 'Z' to the employer, and the employee would not do it for less than 'X', so they settle on 'Y'. If that's not enough for the employee, then he/she does not have to do the work. If the employee wants too much, then the employer can look elsewhere. When an employer is coerced to pay more, then the difference is theft, however direct or indirect it may be.

Ahh... but now we have this silly notion that there is a 'right' to a job - that there is a 'right' to demand of the resources of others - they must pay more than what they feel is a fair price. It's theft.

Many will argue that it's only taking money from those who have plenty. Well, in a free market at least, they only have that money because they provided someone else a good or service they wanted. That good or service was worth more to that customer than the money, else they wouldn't have purchased it. Win-win. These are the last people who should be punished, especially since there wouldn't be jobs in the first place for most of us without these people building businesses and taking risks themselves. If the money was made in another fashion, it was probably illegal.

Most people who make minimum wage are not making it for very long, most are quite young and have no skills. How do you expect them to climb the economic ladder when you kick out the bottom rungs? People should be paid the market value of the labor they provide. If they have no knowledge or skill and if anyone else can do the job, then they shouldn't be paid much. Otherwise, you remove the econimic incentives that push people to develop their skills to be applied in an area where people are needed - and hence higher paid.

I may have missed a post or two here or there, but I don't think anyone claimed that people have a "right" to a job. They do, however, have a "right" to a means of surviving, and any economic and legal system that denies them this does so at its own peril. Put simply, it should be patently obvious that laws only have weight when people are willing to obey them, and when the law presents people with a choice of obeying a lawful contract (or lack thereof, if we accept the contrapositive of your claim) and survival, then they will not obey the law or the contract, instead accepting the inconviences of the state of nature over the certain misery of the current legal system. Whatever your claims to morality might be, only an idiot supposes that people will die or live in misery before they act immorally. Only the heir to the kingdom of idiots builds an entire economic model based on such a premise.

Unfortunately, the claims to a moral economy you've made allow for just such a contigency: you claim that people should only be paid for the market value of their work, a claim that ignores 1) the market value may be below the subsistence value of society, and 2) no one in a market economy is paid the market value of their work anyway. What you call profit is usually tabulated by the equation of Market Value minus cost (including labor cost), so any profitable system is by definition paying people wages below the market value of what they make. By your own definition, this is theft. Curious then, for all your claims to morality, that you fail to mark it as such.

BUt a person who makes minimum wage makes $10,500 a year if he/she works 40 hours a week, how ca person with a family live on this?

Parttime job for the partner ?
Wait with starting a family till you can afford it ?

The keyword however I fear is "barely".

Parttime job for the partner ?
Wait with starting a family till you can afford it ?

Heh, people don't want that much personal responsibility. They want to delegate their well-being to the government and other taxpayers.

The federal minimum wage is an appalling idea.

I hold this position for 2 reasons:

1- The country is not a homogenous market.
Setting a single minimum wage for the country is equivalent to setting housing assistance to a single market – were subsidized housing to be set at DC prices, the housing subsidy to a family in rural Georgia would allow them to rent a far better place than most in the middle class. The same disparity between regions means that what is a reasonable minimum wage in Northern Louisiana and in Manhattan are considerably different.
Then make "minimum wage" a fluctuating living wage. based on location.

2- Why is there a minimum wage to begin with?
Jobs paying minimum wage are few and far between because workers will not agree to work for that wage. If nobody wants to work for it, employers must raise their wages to get reasonable workers. If only really poor quality workers will work for it, you must raise wages to attract better quality workers.
Honestly? This doesn't work for anything.

If you cannot live on $6/hr then you will not agree to take a job for $6/hr.
Unless you can get no other jobs then you take it and another job paying the same rate and you work forever.

The only reason to take a job paying minimum wage is because you have no marketable skills and are incapable of getting anything better.
People without marketable skills don't deserve to live, right?

Thus, you should be grateful to have a job at all.
Yup, right.

Even those who cannot read and can hardly count past 4 can get a job for better than minimum wage – so long as they are reasonable workers.
If you like manual labor for substandard pay compared to what you are doing.

This is purely a political issue so the Democrats can try to get some headlines and win some votes – unfortunately there are enough people who will be dumb enough to fall for this tactic.
Ooh, there it is. We get both liberal hate and hypocrisy. At least the Democratic flash-bang issues have a premise of helping people as opposed to Republican flash-bang issues.

In general states or countries would put up minimum wages in times when unemployment was low and expected to drop. governments are not idiots and they don't want their polices to demonstrably fail. This means it is likely that the fact that the policy is associated with another effect doesn't show causation.

However I am in favor of a minimum wage because the employment market is NOT efficient.

If you don’t have a minimum wage you make it artificially easier for companies to specialize in low wage activities. A minimum wage can instead drive companies to look for more high wage activities.
For example if you put a minimum wage at a point where fruit picking was no longer viable you might find that the capital and people previously involved in that industry would be diverted to other industries where they would create jobs, if that was lets say the IT industry they might create much higher paying jobs.
This is a trade off of course - in the short term it should raise unemployment and there would be cost and benefits.

" If you cannot live on $6/hr then you will not agree to take a job for $6/hr. "

As with the employer irrationality, the bad news is that employees just aren’t all that “rational” either. Most don’t really have that great a grasp on what they NEED to live anyway.

Anyway, many workers have negative value; for example some really ugly people or some really fat people or some people with some disease or people who have some mental issues (of course you could declare these people to not deserve to live or be happy).

At the same time, groups like the latter one can keep their jobs (where they do keep them) by being basically indistinguishable from other workers who do have value thus destroying the information assumption of the free market for certain types of job.

> Ahh... but now we have this silly notion that there is a 'right' to a job - that there is a 'right' to demand of the resources of others.

It is hard to say how this pans out because one could equally say the government owns the roads you use to get to work - if you want to fight them and deny them some influence over your things maybe they should deny you the ability to use theirs.
To what extent are you allowed to use threats like "do this or I will take an action I know will result in you starving!"

> Well, in a free market at least, they only have that money because they provided someone else a good or service they wanted.

Or they were born with it or were given it or leveraged relationships or colluded in the market place or created a demand in the consumer that didn’t exist previously or whatever…

Or they were born with it or were given it or leveraged relationships or colluded in the market place or created a demand in the consumer that didn’t exist previously or whatever…

Buyer beware. :rolleyes:

Nevermind a minimum wage, what about a maximum wage? CEOs are making too much money, and the government needs to step-in and makes sure they only get their fair share.

If there weren't CEOs, workers would get together and democratically form companies, and we'd all have a fair share. We are the richest country in the world, but we don't share equally, even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires us to be equal. I hate capitalists, christians and tories.

Then make "minimum wage" a fluctuating living wage. based on location.


I would be far more open to the idea if this were proposed - at least it would show that there were two or three brain cells to rub together.

That being said, I am opposed to the "living wage" concept as well.
Flipping burgers for 40 hours a week in no way entitles you to $30k/yr. If you require that you will soon see a lot of people out of work.

Actually, come to think of that… it might very well be a good thing for fast food in the long run. It would hasten the shift towards a fully automated kitchen. There is no reason to have some half-baked stoner flipping burgers in the back. All you would need is someone to watch over the system to make sure it is well stocked and do a little maintenance now and then.

Use a touch-pad to place your order and swipe your credit card to pay for it – then the system puts it in a bad and it comes out the hopper. I’m sure it would greatly speed up the process and reduce the number of errors – not to mention the considerable amount of contamination that the high school students like to contribute to the food.

Were the payroll costs to go much higher I could see that being very cost effective.



Ooh, there it is. We get both liberal hate and hypocrisy. At least the Democratic flash-bang issues have a premise of helping people as opposed to Republican flash-bang issues.

What hypocrisy? You are assuming that I am a Republican and that I love the Republican idiotic jingoist comments. And yes, it is indeed the premise of helping people, but does not go beyond the lip service.

Nevermind a minimum wage, what about a maximum wage? CEOs are making too much money, and the government needs to step-in and makes sure they only get their fair share.

If there weren't CEOs, workers would get together and democratically form companies, and we'd all have a fair share. We are the richest country in the world, but we don't share equally, even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires us to be equal. I hate capitalists, christians and tories.

Well, two out of three isn't too poor for a first impression....;)

The notion of a maximum wage is preposterous, and its prosecution unteneble. How many of the truly wealthy pay their full tax allotment? Hence, if augmented taxation is abused, why will salary caps be infallible?

If there weren't CEOs, workers would get together and democratically form companies, and we'd all have a fair share. We are the richest country in the world, but we don't share equally, even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires us to be equal. I hate capitalists, christians and tories.

Umm, right. If there weren't Chief Executive Officers, i.e. one officer making executive decisions for the company, you'd have something like Co-Executive Officers. You've chopped off the dragon's head and grown 10 in it's place. :rolleyes: Someone's gonna run a company no matter what. The fact that they get paid too much is because some companies are simply paying too much for mediocre performance - to their own detriment.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't advocate an egalitarian society either. Do you really want us to be cookie cutter people? It advocates equal rights not equal everything. :rolleyes:

Umm, right. If there weren't Chief Executive Officers, i.e. one officer making executive decisions for the company, you'd have something like Co-Executive Officers. You've chopped off the dragon's head and grown 10 in it's place. :rolleyes: Someone's gonna run a company no matter what. The fact that they get paid too much is because some companies are simply paying too much for mediocre performance.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't advocate an egalitarian society either. Do you really want us to be cookie cutter people? It advocates equal rights not equal everything. :rolleyes:

Equal rights means equal money. We are all indepedent and can freely develop. This means we can do whatever we want to without worrying about the consequences. This is true freedom. If the United States wasn't here we would have so much prosperity right now, but the United States steals all the money from everyone.

Equal rights means equal money. We are all indepedent and can freely develop. This means we can do whatever we want to without worrying about the consequences. This is true freedom. If the United States wasn't here we would have so much prosperity right now, but the United States steals all the money from everyone.

Really??? True freedom! Why didn't I think of that before??? Equal rights, equal money! Weee! I'm going to spend all my money on a spankin' new gas guzzlin' RV. Oops, I spent all my money. Now you have more money than me you greedy capitalist fat cat. Give me half of yours so we'll be equal!

Umm, right. If there weren't Chief Executive Officers, i.e. one officer making executive decisions for the company, you'd have something like Co-Executive Officers. You've chopped off the dragon's head and grown 10 in it's place. :rolleyes: Someone's gonna run a company no matter what.

And a better way than the current system would be to have an "administrative" institution under workers' control that would advise the other institutions under workers' control on how to manage things. Every institution would be free to accept as much or as little of the advice as they choose, thus remaining true to free association, but they would have access to the administrative talent they need while still being run according to democratic principle.

Really??? True freedom! Why didn't I think of that before??? Equal rights, equal money! Weee! I'm going to spend all my money on a spankin' new gas guzzlin' RV. Oops, I spent all my money. Now you have more money than me you greedy capitalist fat cat. Give me half of yours so we'll be equal!

But wait, I need money too. I want a half of what you have!

Really??? True freedom! Why didn't I think of that before??? Equal rights, equal money! Weee! I'm going to spend all my money on a spankin' new gas guzzlin' RV. Oops, I spent all my money. Now you have more money than me you greedy capitalist fat cat. Give me half of yours so we'll be equal!

Property would count.

And a better way than the current system would be to have an "administrative" institution under workers' control that would advise the other institutions under workers' control on how to manage things. Every institution would be free to accept as much or as little of the advice as they choose, thus remaining true to free association, but they would have access to the administrative talent they need while still being run according to democratic principle.

I find it strange that you adovcate (or seem to) anarchism, yet here you are advocating the creation of government bureacracies.

There is no single "system" of running a business anyway.

I find it strange that you adovcate (or seem to) anarchism, yet here you are advocating the creation of government bureacracies.

Who said anything about government bureaucracies? I certainly didn't.

There is no single "system" of running a business anyway.

Of course not.

Nevermind a minimum wage, what about a maximum wage? CEOs are making too much money, and the government needs to step-in and makes sure they only get their fair share.

If there weren't CEOs, workers would get together and democratically form companies, and we'd all have a fair share. We are the richest country in the world, but we don't share equally, even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires us to be equal. I hate capitalists, christians and tories.

Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are different things. The Declaration of Human Rights doesn't specify which it means.

So regardless of how hard I work, I should get the same result? That's a great way to encourage laziness.

Incentives matter.

CEOs earn so much because they have skills someone really values. The same goes for professional athletes. Someone agreed to pay these people enormous sums because they create enormous wealth for their employers.

Some day someone will explain to you how the stock market works.

It is simple – contribute to society and you will be rewarded.
If you contribute little, you will receive little.
Contribute greatly, and you will receive much.

Now how society determines how much each individual’s contribution is worth is a little messed up in my opinion – but I do not pretend to understand the motivations and priorities of the hoi polloi. Why a man who tosses a ball through a hoop is considered to be 100 times as valuable as an amazing history teacher I do not understand, but that is how society values them. This is how people are actually valued – what people claim they value is not always the same as what they actually value.

If you contribute very little to society, by flipping burgers at McDs perhaps, then you do not deserve to live a life of luxury. You simply are not worth it. If you really were worth something, you would get paid a lot more than minimum wage – if you have any ability whatsoever and you are making minimum wage then you really need to open your eyes and find a better job. Better yet, make your own job.

Millions of people in the country manage to work without any legal protection whatsoever. Not only are they able to survive (living wage my ass) but they manage to send a lot of money back to their country of origin.

But wait… how is this possible? People are actually able to survive without government control forcing those greedy capitalist pigs to make sure they have a comfortable lifestyle? Lies!

Equal rights means equal money. We are all indepedent and can freely develop. This means we can do whatever we want to without worrying about the consequences. This is true freedom. If the United States wasn't here we would have so much prosperity right now, but the United States steals all the money from everyone.

No, there'd just be another nation like China, Russia, Germany or the UK in the top spot. The only reason the US is so prosperous is because we are one of the most competitive and productive nations in the world and we have a huge talent pool to draw from. That gave us the competitive edge necessary to rise to the top, and if other nations follow the same formula they too will rise to the top.

Hell, the US is indirectly helping bring 2.3 billion people in India and China out of poverty right now through our trade and investment...

CEOs earn so much because they have skills someone really values. The same goes for professional athletes. Someone agreed to pay these people enormous sums because they create enormous wealth for their employers.

That's correct; it's supply and demand in action. Running a successful company requires decades of experience and education, and the number of people who possess those talents are very few. Everyone wants their company run by experts, so they have to compete with each other to get these top-of-the-line CEOs.

That drives up wages and benefits for them; their pay and benefits are huge because people are willing to pay them those benefits because of what they offer to companies in return.

1.) most ( a vast majority in fact) people on Minimum Wage are Teenagers living with their parents
2.) most (almost all) people on Minimum Wage get a raise by the end of the year
3.) the Cost of Living Index is different from state to state, and should be states rights right there
4.) nowhere in Article 1, Section 8, does it even state that there should be a minimum wage, and therefore falls under the tenth ammendment, it is a power granted to the states. (Not arguing we shouldn't have one, just that it is states rights)

1.) most ( a vast majority in fact) people on Minimum Wage are Teenagers living with their parents

The earnings of minimum wage workers are crucial to their families' well-being. Evidence from the 1996-97 minimum wage increase shows that the average minimum wage worker brings home more than half (54%) of his or her family's weekly earnings.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts

Really??? True freedom! Why didn't I think of that before??? Equal rights, equal money! Weee! I'm going to spend all my money on a spankin' new gas guzzlin' RV. Oops, I spent all my money. Now you have more money than me you greedy capitalist fat cat. Give me half of yours so we'll be equal!

You're right, money should just be abolished. Even if we gave equal money to all, some would buy RV's and SUV's, which must be abolished. Essentially what I mean is that the government would provide everything to everyone!

You're right, money should just be abolished. Even if we gave equal money to all, some would buy RV's and SUV's, which must be abolished. Essentially what I mean is that the government would provide everything to everyone!

Where would it get the stuff it provides?

The government can't just pull wealth out of its ass.

No, there'd just be another nation like China, Russia, Germany or the UK in the top spot. The only reason the US is so prosperous is because we are one of the most competitive and productive nations in the world and we have a huge talent pool to draw from. That gave us the competitive edge necessary to rise to the top, and if other nations follow the same formula they too will rise to the top.

Hell, the US is indirectly helping bring 2.3 billion people in India and China out of poverty right now through our trade and investment...

But we have 52,000,000 without health insurance, whereas Cuba has none. We have a 99% literacy rate, whereas Cuba's is 100%.

Who said anything about government bureaucracies? I certainly didn't.


Hmm. Serves me right for entering the conversation half-way and not bothering to really read it. Oh well. :cool:

But we have 52,000,000 without health insurance, whereas Cuba has none. We have a 99% literacy rate, whereas Cuba's is 100%.

But Cuba lacks advanced diagnostic tools, and doesn't do any medical research.

And many of those people without health insurance in the US had insurance 6 months ago, and will have insurance 6 months from now. They're voluntarily between jobs. And others are rich, and don't need health insurance. And some are young and stupid. The number of people who want health insurance and can't get it is a vastly smaller number.

And why would you believe that 100% number? Who measured it?

But Cuba lacks advanced diagnostic tools, and doesn't do any medical research.

And many of those people without health insurance in the US had insurance 6 months ago, and will have insurance 6 months from now. They're voluntarily between jobs. And others are rich, and don't need health insurance. And some are young and stupid. The number of people who want health insurance and can't get it is a vastly smaller number.

And why would you believe that 100% number? Who measured it?

Cuba's Health and Education Ministry.

It's wrong that some get excellent care and others none.

If we can't all get equal healthcare, then we must accept a lower standard, so that we can.

Cuba's Health and Education Ministry.

And you don't think maybe they're trying to make themselves look good?

It's wrong that some get excellent care and others none.

If we can't all get equal healthcare, then we must accept a lower standard, so that we can.

What if everyone got basic care, but some could get better care by paying for it? Or do you think there's some value in it being equal?

Right now, everyone in the US can get treated in an emergency room. They're not allowed to turn people away. So everyone does get a basic level of healthcare.

Where would it get the stuff it provides?

The government can't just pull wealth out of its ass.

That is where wealth comes from...
The only difference is "who is pulling and who's ass..."

ok I think I carried that metaphore a little too far...

But we have 52,000,000 without health insurance, whereas Cuba has none. We have a 99% literacy rate, whereas Cuba's is 100%.

that is impossible - unless cuba has a nasty eugenics programe.

... but I don't beleive anyone has a "right" to any wage at all. A wage is an agreement bewteen employee and employer - the employee's work is worth 'Z' to the employer, and the employee would not do it for less than 'X', so they settle on 'Y'. If that's not enough for the employee, then he/she does not have to do the work. If the employee wants too much, then the employer can look elsewhere. When an employer is coerced to pay more, then the difference is theft, however direct or indirect it may be.

Furthermore, no employee has a "right" to expect a safe working environment. No employee has a right to have holidays off. No pregnant woman has a right to keep her job. If you have money, you can do whatever you want. Theft is a legal term. Minimum wage is the law. Therefore it is not theft. Go cry somewhere else.

Ahh... but now we have this silly notion that there is a 'right' to a job - that there is a 'right' to demand of the resources of others - they must pay more than what they feel is a fair price. It's theft.

But people searching for work ARE forced to take a job that is worth less than what they think they deserve. They do have to eat, after all. An employer can choose to not hire someone and suffer few repurcussion. They still have food on the table and a roof over their heads.

Many will argue that it's only taking money from those who have plenty. Well, in a free market at least, they only have that money because they provided someone else a good or service they wanted.

Those aren't the only ways money is made. And a completely unregulated market is not freee by any stretch of the imagination. Imperfect competition skews things further and further out of balance as tiime goes on.

That good or service was worth more to that customer than the money, else they wouldn't have purchased it. Win-win.

Ah, so some things DO have more value than money. Glad you admit that.

These are the last people who should be punished, especially since there wouldn't be jobs in the first place for most of us without these people building businesses and taking risks themselves.

There is a difference between punishing someone and reigning them in. Complaints about the limits of one's power are the cries of a child and nothing more. Grow up. The U.S. is a country built on the idea of checks and balances. The minimum wage is merely another check and balance. We will not be ruled by dictators, be they of the governmental type or the economic type. Money IS NOT a carte blanche to mistreat people.

Would you say forcing people to tell the truth when advertising is punishing them? Breaking up monopolies? Having a health department telling business owners to clean up? I mean, the business owner should be able to keep their business any way they want, and if employees and customers keep going there, it's none of our business, right?

If the money was made in another fashion, it was probably illegal.

Or they inherited it. Or they got dividends.

Most people who make minimum wage are not making it for very long, most are quite young and have no skills.

Actually, the Dept of labor report CITED earlier says that less than half are 25 or younger.

How do you expect them to climb the economic ladder when you kick out the bottom rungs? People should be paid the market value of the labor they provide.

The bottom rung is still there. It's just not equivalent of indentured servitude. We tried total deregulation of business. It lead to robber barons, recession and depression


If they have no knowledge or skill and if anyone else can do the job, then they shouldn't be paid much. Otherwise, you remove the econimic incentives that push people to develop their skills to be applied in an area where people are needed - and hence higher paid.

Minimum wage is still below poverty level. There's still plenty of incentive to improve oneself.

Furthermore, no employee has a "right" to expect a safe working environment. No employee has a right to have holidays off. No pregnant woman has a right to keep her job. If you have money, you can do whatever you want.

They would if they negotiated for it.

Those aren't the only ways money is made.

In a free market, yes it is. Nothing but voluntary exchange.

Ah, so some things DO have more value than money.

Of course. This is why I don't think all employees doing the same job should necessarily receive the same wage. They might have differing levels of non-monetary compensation.

Would you say forcing people to tell the truth when advertising is punishing them?

I support laws against fraud. As long as all you're doing is prohibiting fraud.

Breaking up monopolies?

In a free market, they'll almost never occur, and they won't last very long.

Or they inherited it. Or they got dividends.

That's still voluntary exchange.

We tried total deregulation of business. It lead to robber barons, recession and depression

That was a failure to enforce the rule of law.

Minimum wage is still below poverty level.

How are you defining poverty?

There's still plenty of incentive to improve oneself.

But less.

They would if they negotiated for it.

They're not really in a position to negotiate. You have a picture of idealized capitalism that is at odds with reality.



In a free market, yes it is. Nothing but voluntary exchange.

There is no such thing as a free market.

Of course. This is why I don't think all employees doing the same job should necessarily receive the same wage. They might have differing levels of non-monetary compensation.

That still doesn't mean there shouldn't be a bottom limit.

I support laws against fraud. As long as all you're doing is prohibiting fraud.

But that's punishing business owners. It's not their fault if people believe them!

In a free market, they'll almost never occur, and they won't last very long.

THere's no such thing as a free market. In real life, when a monopoly occurs, it's almost impossible to break it up without governmental intervention. Do you think Ma Bell would have just disappeared by itself? The tendency of business is to acquire and consolidate, not fracture.


That was a failure to enforce the rule of law.

A failure to enforce anti-trust laws before there were anti-trust laws?

How are you defining poverty?

A standard of living significantly below the median.


But less.

Microscopically, anyway. If people's natural inclination was to be idle, there would be no rich people. People's natural urge is towards aquisition and power. Putting a cap on the lowest possible that a person can be paid isn't going to change that.

I'm going to focus on just one point, here.

A standard of living significantly below the median.

Why does it matter where the median is? If I have all I need, who cares if most people are vastly risher than me?

This is why I object to relative measures of poverty. I'd much rather measure absolute poverty. If can afford food and clothing and shelter, I shouldn't be counted among the poverty-stricken.

BUt a person who makes minimum wage makes $10,500 a year if he/she works 40 hours a week, how ca person with a family live on this?

Why is he only working 40 hours per week?

A 40 hour work week is a luxury not all people can afford.

Let's just let the market decide and strong trying to use government to infringe on other people's liberties.

If you don't like the wage a company offers, don't work there. If you can't find a job at a wage you like, get educated.

Why is he only working 40 hours per week?

A 40 hour work week is a luxury not all people can afford.

Poor people don't deserve to raise their children!

Poor people don't deserve to raise their children!

Poor people can raise their children by getting educated.

Maybe they shouldn't have children until they have a reasonable income, this is what the rest of us do.

It might be moral to provide them charity under the moral laws of God, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to my money because they don't want to plan ahead.

Let's just let the market decide and strong trying to use government to infringe on other people's liberties.

If you don't like the wage a company offers, don't work there. If you can't find a job at a wage you like, get educated.

Am I missing something, or is that the exact opposite of the position you were just arguing?

They're not really in a position to negotiate. You have a picture of idealized capitalism that is at odds with reality.

Right now, if I go looking for a job, employers compete with each other for my services. Why? Because I live in a free market and I have desirable skills (though they were self-taught).

There is no such thing as a free market.

As long as there's no coercion or restriction on exchange, that's a free market.

That still doesn't mean there shouldn't be a bottom limit.

There is a bottom limit. The level below which people won't accept the job.

But that's punishing business owners. It's not their fault if people believe them!

Sure it is. It's not their fault if the people draw false conclusions from incomplete evidence, though.

THere's no such thing as a free market. In real life, when a monopoly occurs, it's almost impossible to break it up without governmental intervention. Do you think Ma Bell would have just disappeared by itself? The tendency of business is to acquire and consolidate, not fracture.

The AT&T monopoly was created largely as a result of government intervention. And by now, they would have faced considerable competition from cellular phone providers.

A failure to enforce anti-trust laws before there were anti-trust laws?

I was more thinking of the robber barons.

People's natural urge is towards aquisition and power.

I don't think that's true of all people. Do you have evidence that it is?

I may have missed a post or two here or there, but I don't think anyone claimed that people have a "right" to a job. They do, however, have a "right" to a means of surviving, and any economic and legal system that denies them this does so at its own peril. Put simply, it should be patently obvious that laws only have weight when people are willing to obey them, and when the law presents people with a choice of obeying a lawful contract (or lack thereof, if we accept the contrapositive of your claim) and survival, then they will not obey the law or the contract, instead accepting the inconviences of the state of nature over the certain misery of the current legal system. Whatever your claims to morality might be, only an idiot supposes that people will die or live in misery before they act immorally. Only the heir to the kingdom of idiots builds an entire economic model based on such a premise.

Unfortunately, the claims to a moral economy you've made allow for just such a contigency: you claim that people should only be paid for the market value of their work, a claim that ignores 1) the market value may be below the subsistence value of society, and 2) no one in a market economy is paid the market value of their work anyway. What you call profit is usually tabulated by the equation of Market Value minus cost (including labor cost), so any profitable system is by definition paying people wages below the market value of what they make. By your own definition, this is theft. Curious then, for all your claims to morality, that you fail to mark it as such.

First off, lets try to avoid direct insults if we are to take each other seriously.

Second, you counfuse survival and comfort. Currently, in most western nations, a person can survive by doing nothing other than registering with the appopriate office or going to a soup kitchen. Now, that may not affort comfortable and privat living space, tasty food, a big screen tv and a car, but those items are irrelevant to survival.

Third, you are confused on what is meant by market value. You seem to misinterpret market value as the result of labor, where I am talking about the market value of the labor itself. Said labor is worth whatever the two parties agree to, the market value is the moving average of those negotiations for a given aggregate.

I'm going to focus on just one point, here.



Why does it matter where the median is? If I have all I need, who cares if most people are vastly risher than me?

This is why I object to relative measures of poverty. I'd much rather measure absolute poverty. If can afford food and clothing and shelter, I shouldn't be counted among the poverty-stricken.

We're not animals. There's more to life than eating, sleeping and shitting. Besides, as conservatives are so used to saying, think of the children! When a child is raised in a family significantly below the median family income, class mobility is severely impacted, which is direct proof that perfect competition is NOT happening. Without perfect competition, a free market is impossible.

The "free market" is a fantasy. The "free market" is an invention by imperfect man. It no more works without corrections and supervision than any other system invented by man. And those corrections and supervisions are, themselves, imperfect as well.

Poor people don't deserve to raise their children!

He was describing a family on a single, minimum-wage income. I see no reason why that has to be a 40 hour a week income.

Especially if they share lodging with another poor family.

Am I missing something, or is that the exact opposite of the position you were just arguing?

The government should have a very high minimum wage because without economic justice all the other liberties are void.

You're right, money should just be abolished. Even if we gave equal money to all, some would buy RV's and SUV's, which must be abolished. Essentially what I mean is that the government would provide everything to everyone!

Two indisputable truisms:

1) Government gives nothing that it hasn't already taken, and

2) Any government that's big enough to give everything you want is also big enough to take everything you've got.

Different philosophies feel differently about these statements, but they are true, if simplified.

Abolish the minimum wage now.

It violates Lochner v. New York.

Two indisputable truisms:

1) Government gives nothing that it hasn't already taken, and

2) Any government that's big enough to give everything you want is also big enough to take everything you've got.

Different philosophies feel differently about these statements, but they are true, if simplified.

Do our rights come from God or government?

We're not animals.

Yes we are.

Do our rights come from God or government?

Government.

Right now, if I go looking for a job, employers compete with each other for my services. Why? Because I live in a free market and I have desirable skills (though they were self-taught).

There is no such thing as a free market.


As long as there's no coercion or restriction on exchange, that's a free market.

Exactly. Which is why a free market has never and never will exist. It's as much a fairy tale as functional communism. Study economics. You'll see that there are a myriad of conditions that produce imperfect competition.

There is a bottom limit. The level below which people won't accept the job.

At which point, they either starve or turn to crime. Reigning in the power of the rich lowers crime.

Sure it is. It's not their fault if the people draw false conclusions from incomplete evidence, though.

There's no such thing as complete evidence.


The AT&T monopoly was created largely as a result of government intervention. And by now, they would have faced considerable competition from cellular phone providers.

The gap between Ma Bell being broken up and cell phones hitting the main stream spans decades. There's also the myriad of other trusts that were broken by Teddy Roosevelt.

I was more thinking of the robber barons.

Who do you think the roibber barons were?

I don't think that's true of all people. Do you have evidence that it is?

Nothing is true of all people, other than basic biology.

Government.

Are you Usian or otherwise what country are in right now?

Abolish the minimum wage now.

It violates Lochner v. New York.

Apparently not.

Yes we are.

Only biologically.

At which point, they either starve or turn to crime.

Why are you assuming there's no competition for labour?

There's also the myriad of other trusts that were broken by Teddy Roosevelt.

But did htey arise without government interference? AT&T certainly didn't.

Nothing is true of all people, other than basic biology.

And yet you made a universal claim about people.

Are you Usian or otherwise what country are in right now?

I'm in Canada.

Only biologically.

Why do you think everyone's entitled to free time and comfy furniture? What's your basis for that?

Government.

That's an odd position for someone who claims that the Government doesn't have the right to set a minimum wage.

Why do you think everyone's entitled to free time and comfy furniture? What's your basis for that?

You've never been poor, have you?

A person with no free time is likely to snap. They have no time for their children. They have no time to form bonds with their fellow human beings. That's not good for society.

The poor don't exactly have comfy furniture. They live in crime-ridden neighborhoods with little help from the underfunded local police. Their schools are small, underfunded, and filled with violence. The quality of food available to them is poor, leading to underdevelopment of the brain and body.

You treat people like animals, even animals with food and comfy furniture, you get animals.

Furthermore, no employee has a "right" to expect a safe working environment. No employee has a right to have holidays off. No pregnant woman has a right to keep her job. If you have money, you can do whatever you want. Theft is a legal term. Minimum wage is the law. Therefore it is not theft. Go cry somewhere else.

That is absolutely correct. There is no 'right' to those things. There are contractial agreements that both parties agree to. Furthermore, define a 'safe working environment'. There is a difference between safety and negligent. both employee and employer have some responsibility here, but you are using this as a loaded term.

But people searching for work ARE forced to take a job that is worth less than what they think they deserve. They do have to eat, after all. An employer can choose to not hire someone and suffer few repurcussion. They still have food on the table and a roof over their heads.

Employee - maybe for the short term, but if they are smart they will be looking to move on relatively quickly. Besides, what they think they deserve is mostly irrelevant - what do they produce, and what is that worth? And to the last sentence, "go cry somewhere else."

Those aren't the only ways money is made. And a completely unregulated market is not freee by any stretch of the imagination. Imperfect competition skews things further and further out of balance as tiime goes on.

A completely unregulated market is free to the extent that there is competition and no fraud. IF it is totally unregulated, then it is realistic to expect that these two conditions will not be met. The only regulations that we should have are to combat this.

Ah, so some things DO have more value than money. Glad you admit that.

Never said otherwise. As a matter of fact, money is intrinsically worthless.

There is a difference between punishing someone and reigning them in. Complaints about the limits of one's power are the cries of a child and nothing more. Grow up. The U.S. is a country built on the idea of checks and balances. The minimum wage is merely another check and balance. We will not be ruled by dictators, be they of the governmental type or the economic type. Money IS NOT a carte blanche to mistreat people.

Actually, I liken complaints about not having all that you want when you didn't earn it to the cries of a child.

Would you say forcing people to tell the truth when advertising is punishing them? Breaking up monopolies? Having a health department telling business owners to clean up? I mean, the business owner should be able to keep their business any way they want, and if employees and customers keep going there, it's none of our business, right?

No. No. Maybe. Almost always, yes, with some caveats. An organization is still responsible for any damages caused to the persons or property of others.

Or they inherited it. Or they got dividends.

Yeah, so? Do you really understand what dividends are and who mostly gets them?

Actually, the Dept of labor report CITED earlier says that less than half are 25 or younger.

Funny, I've heard of other statistics come from government agencies that say otherwise. Since I do not have the time to dig up a competing source, I'll have to let this stand. It still does not wholly dispute my point that most people who make minumum wage do not stay there very long.

The bottom rung is still there. It's just not equivalent of indentured servitude. We tried total deregulation of business. It lead to robber barons, recession and depression

That is a disingenous and emotional comparison with absolutely no grounding in fact. Also, we've never had total deregulation of business, and you are absolutely wrong on your last point. Often times, governments create monopolies through their regulations - look at utilities. No competition there, and it's the regulators that keep it that way.

Minimum wage is still below poverty level. There's still plenty of incentive to improve oneself.

Kick out the bottom rungs too much and there will be less means for many at the very bottom to improve themselves.

Poor people can raise their children by getting educated.

Maybe they shouldn't have children until they have a reasonable income, this is what the rest of us do.

It might be moral to provide them charity under the moral laws of God, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to my money because they don't want to plan ahead.


By Jove, I think he's got it! :p

Abolish the minimum wage now.

It violates Lochner v. New York.

(Genuinely curious) Why, what did Lochner say? :confused:

Do our rights come from God or government?

Our rights come from the fact that we are human beings. In the U.S. at least, government is granted it's powers by the people, not the other way around, though many seem to forget that.

By Jove, I think he's got it! :p

By Jove, great Scott, and Jesus Christ, he does. :eek: :p

By Jove, great Scott, and Jesus Christ, he does. :eek: :p

Well, he had it at least... I'm beginning to wonder if he can keep it!

That's an odd position for someone who claims that the Government doesn't have the right to set a minimum wage.

I didn't say they didn't have the right to do so. I said it would have generally negative consequences.

I gotta leave the thread for the evening folks... if it's still going tomorrow, I'll come back and join in the fun once more.

You've never been poor, have you?

A person with no free time is likely to snap. They have no time for their children. They have no time to form bonds with their fellow human beings. That's not good for society.

The poor don't exactly have comfy furniture. They live in crime-ridden neighborhoods with little help from the underfunded local police. Their schools are small, underfunded, and filled with violence. The quality of food available to them is poor, leading to underdevelopment of the brain and body.

You treat people like animals, even animals with food and comfy furniture, you get animals.

Subsistence farmers don't have a lot of free time. Do they snap?

And why are you assuming that police are less well funded in poor neighbourhoods? That's hardly required.

Poor people can raise their children by getting educated.

Maybe they shouldn't have children until they have a reasonable income, this is what the rest of us do.

It might be moral to provide them charity under the moral laws of God, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to my money because they don't want to plan ahead.

Yes, THEY, do not deserve children. Accidents never happen to THEM. Being poor is always the fault of the poor, and if THEY have children, even if by accident, then the children should suffer for it.

Because everyone knoes you're only poor if you are stupid and lazy and you're only rich if you are industrious and talented.

Yay the perfect free market!!!

Subsistence farmers don't have a lot of free time. Do they snap?

And why are you assuming that police are less well funded in poor neighbourhoods? That's hardly required.

Subsistence farmers and hunter/gatherers actually have more free time than the average American.

Have you ever lived in a poor neighborhood?

Yes, THEY, do not deserve children. Accidents never happen to THEM. Being poor is always the fault of the poor, and if THEY have children, even if by accident, then the children should suffer for it.

Because everyone knoes you're only poor if you are stupid and lazy and you're only rich if you are industrious and talented.

Yay the perfect free market!!!

Gymoor Prime, you strongly believe in Contraception/Abortion, and I believe in Chastity, but regardless of these differing views, are the Poor compelled somehow to have children?

I didn't say they didn't have the right to do so. I said it would have generally negative consequences.

In practice, not theory, has it had generally negative consequences?

Gymoor Prime, you strongly believe in Contraception/Abortion, and I believe in Chastity, but regardless of these differing views, are the Poor compelled somehow to have children?

When have I said ANYTHING about contraception or abortion? I do believe in contraception. It's just smart to teach and practice it. On abortion, I have the same view as Pres Clinton: It should be safe, freely available and as rare as possible.

As for what compells the poor (or anyone,) to have children, it's called biology.

When have I said ANYTHING about contraception or abortion? I do believe in contraception. It's just smart to teach and practice it. On abortion, I have the same view as Pres Clinton: It should be safe, freely available and as rare as possible.

As for what compells the poor (or anyone,) to have children, it's called biology.

That's true, under Chimpanzee, our Creator, and Evolutionary Biology, our Faith, it does mandate that we are little more than animals and must do as they do on the Discovery Channel.

Do people have the ability to veto their biological impulses? For example, can't I wait until I am fianancially stable to have children?

Do people have the ability to veto their biological impulses? For example, can't I wait until I am fianancially stable to have children?
Oh, and if you never are? If you work three jobs and can't even make ends meet as it is? You're rationally going to decide that you don't deserve to have children because people who are more privileged than you think you'd suck at raising them?

Oh, and if you never are? If you work three jobs and can't even make ends meet as it is? You're rationally going to decide that you don't deserve to have children because people who are more privileged than you think you'd suck at raising them?

It's not that you don't deserve them. It's that you can't afford to have them. It sounds like you think people are somehow guaranteed children as a right. Ok, so how many children are we guaranteed? Two? Three? Some people would only be happy with seven. So shall we adjust minimum wage to account for single parents feeding seven mouths?

Oh, and if you never are? If you work three jobs and can't even make ends meet as it is? You're rationally going to decide that you don't deserve to have children because people who are more privileged than you think you'd suck at raising them?

It's the idea of liberty. I don't know if my lack of having any useful skill is a basis for requiring my fellowman, without any choice, to fund my lack of skills.

Only 2.5% of the workforce even gets the minimum wage, and half of this 2.5% is under 25 years old.

It's not that you don't deserve them. It's that you can't afford to have them. It sounds like you think people are somehow guaranteed children as a right. Ok, so how many children are we guaranteed? Two? Three? Some people would only be happy with seven. So shall we adjust minimum wage to account for single parents feeding seven mouths?

You are guaranteed none if you want your fellowman to raise them for you.

Most of the people here that are arguing for a higher minimum wage don't even know anyone who gets it. It just means that a job that someone might hire for a few bucks an hour, just won't offer it because it's not worth it for the higher wage. So some kid with only a few skills won't get a job.

That's true, under Chimpanzee, our Creator, and Evolutionary Biology, our Faith, it does mandate that we are little more than animals and must do as they do on the Discovery Channel.

Do people have the ability to veto their biological impulses? For example, can't I wait until I am fianancially stable to have children?

God made us imperfect. Not many can resist their natural impulses indefinitely.

Tell me, do you have no flaws? Do you ever overeat sometimes? Sleep in? Lose your temper? Act irrationally? Tell a lie?

A few points that I see need clarification:

1) regulating the minimum wage is constitutional, at least be established and accepted interpretations of the "Commerce Clause". Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, empowers the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Over time, this clause has been interpreted to allow congress to regulate ANYTHING that even effects interstate commerce. No joke: Since some of the materiels that were used to make your matress came from another state, the federal government can pass a law that restricts the comoposition requirements of that matress (flamability, recycled content, ect.). The majority of actions the federal government makes are justified by the commerce clause.

2) The idea of a minimum wage increases being fixed to inflation IS THE WORST IDEA EVER. Basic economics tells us that wages (YES! even bottom rung jobs) chase inflation, and that inflation chases wages in something that resembles a free market. It is a simple fact that the most bottom rung job will always be untenable to "support a family" inside an economy that is largely regulated by market forces.

3) The idea for a minimum wage comes from the philosophical idea that all labor is equal, and workers should be compensated accordingly. According to this communist/marxist thought, labor itself is a commodity inside a capitalist system (this, largely, is true). You've heard that you have to market yourself to get a job, and you've also heard that you have to do well in a job to get advancement and keep that job. This is the result of capitalism, its not the labor you do, but your overall value to that company.

4) The only realistic way that "living wages" (meaning increased wages with the natural corresponding increase in prices) can be created is to establish price controls on goods in the market at the same time as establishing a minimum wage. You can see this in many western European countries. This is the only way that increased wages will not directly add to inflation on goods and services inside a somewhat free market. Or you can just be a communist country, those 5 year programs and "re-revolutions" solve pretty much everything by murdering the non-productive.
Price controls kill innovation. Innovators of all types, yes that includes those evil corporations and inventors, have much less incentive to create because the return will be stifled by price caps and un-competitive competition (the most effective means of making expensive things worth making in a price control system is to eliminate patents and royalties on expensive goods so that more producers can create an oversupply). Example, I create a new pill that cost my company $5billion to research. To make it worth my time I have to recoup that research cost inside the price of the pill. In other words, the pill might take only 5 dollars to make, but I spent so much researching it that I have to charge $30 per pill to make it worth doing. A price control system would hand out my patents to the drug, causing the prices to fall due to oversupply (since the new makers would not have to research they can sell it for less). The point here is that bussineses that invest in research do not stay in bussiness long unless they can recoup their costs when they sell their product. This is why free markets fuel innovation, and closed markets with price controls do not. People were talking about how fantastic Cuba is, what a joke. Without innovations from free markets Cuba would still be blood-letting. There they price control their healthcare and buy innovations from America (via a 3rd party like China or Japan, who buy from us freely). Without those innovations their system would be horrible.

Tell me, do you have no flaws? Do you ever overeat sometimes? Sleep in? Lose your temper? Act irrationally? Tell a lie?

I for one do all of those things. But I DON'T expect other people to pay for the mistakes that I make. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in this world?? Must we place every one of our faults on the government and other taxpayers' shoulders?? :headbang:

God made us imperfect. Not many can resist their natural impulses indefinitely.

Tell me, do you have no flaws? Do you ever overeat sometimes? Sleep in? Lose your temper? Act irrationally? Tell a lie?

God desires us to walk in holy ways following in His commandments, but He realizes that we are rebellious and fall into sin and wickedness, but this doesn't mean we should enshrine these human failings in our law.

If you do sin, at least bail yourself out of it, and don't expect others to do it for you. This doesn't mean God wouldn't expect other people to have some compassion for you and help you out, but what I object to is the idea that you are somehow entitled to their help.

You are guaranteed none if you want your fellowman to raise them for you.

WHo said anything about raising them for you? Would Jesus liken the amount of money someone has to their ability to raise children?

Most of the people here that are arguing for a higher minimum wage don't even know anyone who gets it. It just means that a job that someone might hire for a few bucks an hour, just won't offer it because it's not worth it for the higher wage. So some kid with only a few skills won't get a job.

Assumptions. How do you know what the people here are like? You're just pulling stuff from your ass.

And maybe that kid not getting a job will motivate them to GO TO SCHOOL.

WHo said anything about raising them for you? Would Jesus liken the amount of money someone has to their ability to raise children?

Assumptions. How do you know what the people here are like? You're just pulling stuff from your ass.

And maybe that kid not getting a job will motivate them to GO TO SCHOOL.

Yes, he would, because Jesus had high standards for His followers. He did have compassion on sinners, but with the idea that you would stop sinning and follow Him, not that you would continue to sin.

There would a blossoming in low end jobs if we abolished the minimum wage. Which I think is good because it would allow people to prove themselves to their employer and possibly get promoted.

I for one do all of those things. But I DON'T expect other people to pay for the mistakes that I make. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in this world?? Must we place every one of our faults on the government and other taxpayers' shoulders?? :headbang:

So, people who are poor are stupid and lazy and it's all their fault? The rich have no problem making taxpayers pay for their shit either (subsidies, infrastructure, stadiums, etc..) In fact, they have more direct influence and contact with the government. Does the government bail YOU out when you go bankrupt? Does the government make agreements with foreign countries to help YOUR job out? Can YOU hire a representative to arrange quid pro quo agreements with legislators? Can YOU hire a legal team to help you avoid taxes and legal consequences? Can YOU get yourself heard on television (the airwaves are supposedly owned by THE PEOPLE as a whole,) practically any time you want?

Sorry, but the rich and powerful get more directly from the government than any of the poor or middle classes. And you're going to bitch and moan about someone doing something to even that out? Bullshit.

So, people who are poor are stupid and lazy and it's all their fault? The rich have no problem making taxpayers pay for their shit either (subsidies, infrastructure, stadiums, etc..) In fact, they have more direct influence and contact with the government. Does the government bail YOU out when you go bankrupt? Does the government make agreements with foreign countries to help YOUR job out? Can YOU hire a representative to arrange quid pro quo agreements with legislators? Can YOU hire a legal team to help you avoid taxes and legal consequences? Can YOU get yourself heard on television (the airwaves are supposedly owned by THE PEOPLE as a whole,) practically any time you want?

Sorry, but the rich and powerful get more directly from the government than any of the poor or middle classes. And you're going to bitch and moan about someone doing something to even that out? Bullshit.

That's why we need to shrink government. Corporations should not be getting public funds either. If we shrink government, the need for corporations to have lobbyists to protect them from intrusive government regulation will also disappear.

Yes, he would, because Jesus had high standards for His followers. He did have compassion on sinners, but with the idea that you would stop sinning and follow Him, not that you would continue to sin.

Everyone is a sinner and no one is capable of living without sin. Plus, having children while married is not a sin, and is, in fact, encouraged.

There would a blossoming in low end jobs if we abolished the minimum wage. Which I think is good because it would allow people to prove themselves to their employer and possibly get promoted.

That's the theory put out by capitalists who can afford lobbying firms. The opposite is true in practice. You can say "this will happen" all you want, but it's not what HAS happened.

There's been a lot of talk in the U.S. recently about rasing the minimum wage. Conventional wisdom has it that a rise in minimum wages corresponds with the loss of jobs. Now supposedly there are studies that refute this principle. I'm curious how the anti-minimum wage people would respond to these studies.

I believe the example they cite is the rise in both minimum wages and employment in the 90s. While I haven't done extensive research on the studies, I propose that a possible explanation is that number one, the U.S. economy was expanding in the 90s all the way up to the dot-com bust and two, that very few people actually get paid minimum wage, so the effect of the raises was negligible.

I'm whole-heartedly against the minimum wage in principle, but in terms of utilitarian benefit to society, I'm open to hear arguments because of the latest suggestions that the conventional wisdom on this issue is wrong.


people need to make a modicum of income so that they only have to work 2 jobs to pay their bills.

try to rent a home on 1 income,at minimum wage!

try to rent a home on 2 incomes at mimimum wage!

i make 3 x the minimum wage,and i cant pay all my bills.

i am a devout capitalist...but puhleese..dont try to sell me what your trying to.

i understand that the big guys need the heli pad...and the ceo's need to make 212x the pay of the the guy making them rich..and i am a died in the wool capitalist...but at some point..the deck is stacked against the little guy..and that's bullshit...just because your great grandpop stole a bunch of land off the indians(in america) or your dad was lorded in england..does not give you the right to keep your foot on the neck of someone smarter and tougher...and not just born into money.

maybe it is sour grapes for me...but i doubt it,as i am pretty comfortable,but the moneyied families...and i mean rockafellers and the like...their kids did nothing but roll a fortune over,,,which i could do..

at the least..these hegomists could give the working stiff a living wage,not try to extract every cent out of everything...must be in the blood i guees.

thats why i will take free market over socialism anyday,at least in capitalism..i got a shot at taking your wealth...if you fuck up.

socialism is bullshit.

That's why we need to shrink government. Corporations should not be getting public funds either. If we shrink government, the need for corporations to have lobbyists to protect them from intrusive government regulation will also disappear.

Actually, if we shrink government, the need for lobbyists increases as it becomes more difficult to get access. It becomes a more valuable commodity and the stakes go up.

You really need to live a little, kid.

Everyone is a sinner and no one is capable of living without sin. Plus, having children while married is not a sin, and is, in fact, encouraged.



That's the theory put out by capitalists who can afford lobbying firms. The opposite is true in practice. You can say "this will happen" all you want, but it's not what HAS happened.

People are always expected to raise their own children. When did the societal raising of children become the norm? Have you been reading the Origins of the Family by Friedreich Engels?

On the sub-minimum wage lows, believe me, they will come out of the woodwork. For example, but not limited to, Joe who owns the small Cafe down the block might hire you to greet customers for a few bucks, but he won't hire you if the wage required is to high because it's not an essential function.

The whole point is that the government shouldn't "step-in" and take over the determination of wages. Let people decide how much they want to pay someone else. If you don't like the pay, don't take the job.

So, people who are poor are stupid and lazy and it's all their fault? The rich have no problem making taxpayers pay for their shit either (subsidies, infrastructure, stadiums, etc..)

No, you yourself said...people who have flaws, people who overeat, people who sleep in, people who lose their temper, people who tell lies...
You set up the example not me, so don't go throwing a hissy fit.

The fact that the rich get other taxpayers to pay for their shit, I don't like it either. But guess what, the rich are not the only lobby groups around. That's what unions are for, right? So you can get rich people to pay for your shit.

Does the government bail YOU out when you go bankrupt?
Nope, and to my knowledge it doesn't bail rich people out either. It bails corporations out like Chrysler which is a policy I also disagree with.

Does the government make agreements with foreign countries to help YOUR job out?
Actually it does. I work at the United Nations Budget Divison. :)

Can YOU hire a representative to arrange quid pro quo agreements with legislators? Can YOU hire a legal team to help you avoid taxes and legal consequences?
If I wanted it enough and saved up enough money for it, yes. And for help on minimizing taxes I could use Google or ask a friend of mine for tips.

Can YOU get yourself heard on television (the airwaves are supposedly owned by THE PEOPLE as a whole,) practically any time you want?
Since when is TV owned by 'the people'? Besides, if Star Wars Kid got on TV so can I, if I want to.

Any other conniption fits you wanna throw?

That's the theory put out by capitalists who can afford lobbying firms. The opposite is true in practice. You can say "this will happen" all you want, but it's not what HAS happened.


Pro minimum wage arguments are put out by unions that can hire lobbying firms. Again, inside a mostly free market, corporations are the ones that have to respond to market forces and are thus more accountable for the best interests of the market (average people). Unions are short sighted and very limited in scope.

Actually, if we shrink government, the need for lobbyists increases as it becomes more difficult to get access. It becomes a more valuable commodity and the stakes go up.

You really need to live a little, kid.

Why would the stakes go up if the government wasn't involved all facets of our lives? If the Constitution, as intended, limited government, then there would be very little that the government would be able to do to help any potential lobbyist.

You need to experience the real world, buddy.

Why would the stakes go up if the government wasn't involved all facets of our lives? If the Constitution, as intended, limited government, then there would be very little that the government would be able to do to help any potential lobbyist.

You need to experience the real world, buddy.

Yup. The main people we all want to smash are people like Lay and Skilling who STOLE money. If the government would stop worrying about giving handouts and spent more time hunting down those who lie, cheat or steal, it would do a better job of it.

Pro minimum wage arguments are put out by unions that can hire lobbying firms. Again, inside a mostly free market, corporations are the ones that have to respond to market forces and are thus more accountable for the best interests of the market (average people). Unions are short sighted and very limited in scope.

Because of the demads of stockholders, corporations primarily worry about quarterly numbers, NOT long term economic health.

Because of the demads of stockholders, corporations primarily worry about quarterly numbers, NOT long term economic health.

GOOD! Better if they focus only on the well-being of their own companies. What is an economy but a collection of the companies and individuals doing business in it?

Why would the stakes go up if the government wasn't involved all facets of our lives? If the Constitution, as intended, limited government, then there would be very little that the government would be able to do to help any potential lobbyist.

You need to experience the real world, buddy.

Supply and demand. Less supply of access = more demand. Which means more motivation to lie, cheat and steal.

Tell me, do you want to limit the size of government, or do you want to limit the aspect of government which you personally don't like? I mean, would you be willing to end The War on Drugs? Reduce the Military? Decriminalize assisted suicide? Close down Fire stations? Shut down domestic spying? Stop road maintenance and construction? Relax the building codes? Weapons research? Border protection? The speed limit?

GOOD! Better if they focus only on the well-being of their own companies. What is an economy but a collection of the companies and individuals doing business in it?

No, it's not the well-being of the company, it's the quarterly numbers. There is a difference.

For god's sake, go to school and learn something.

YOu're in your teens, correct?

Tell me, do you want to limit the size of government, or do you want to limit the aspect of government which you personally don't like? I mean, would you be willing to end The War on Drugs? Reduce the Military? Decriminalize assisted suicide? Close down Fire stations? Shut down domestic spying? Stop road maintenance and construction? Relax the building codes? Weapons research? Border protection? The speed limit?

End the war on drugs. Reduce the military and the overseas wars we are undertaking. Shut down domestic spying other than on already known terrorists/criminals. Reduce weapons research to only what's needed to deter potential enemies without waging aggressive wars. Saves a hell of a lot of money.

No, it's not the well-being of the company, it's the quarterly numbers. There is a difference.

For god's sake, go to school and learn something.

YOu're in your teens, correct?

Um no, I'm not in my teens, but thank you for the compliment on my youthful appearance.

When you say they only care about quarterly numbers, I had no idea you speak for all the corporations, partnerships, franchises and sole-proprietorships in the country...or is the world you speak for?

No, you yourself said...people who have flaws, people who overeat, people who sleep in, people who lose their temper, people who tell lies...
You set up the example not me, so don't go throwing a hissy fit.

The fact that the rich get other taxpayers to pay for their shit, I don't like it either. But guess what, the rich are not the only lobby groups around. That's what unions are for, right? So you can get rich people to pay for your shit.

And as long as the rich are being protected at a greater rate than the poor, I see no reason to relax protections for the poor. And the rich can get poor people to do everything for them.


Nope, and to my knowledge it doesn't bail rich people out either. It bails corporations out like Chrysler which is a policy I also disagree with.

But if a major corporation goes under, it can trigger a recession. A recession is bad for everyone. Therefore it's in everyone's best interest if the governemnt intercedes. See, things aren't so simple in the real world.

Actually it does. I work at the United Nations Budget Divison. :)

Right. And I'm Mr Rogers.

If I wanted it enough and saved up enough money for it, yes. And for help on minimizing taxes I could use Google or ask a friend of mine for tips.

Lol. Right.


Since when is TV owned by 'the people'? Besides, if Star Wars Kid got on TV so can I, if I want to.

Public airwaves. Broadcast radio and television both. Stations only rent it from the government who "administrate" it for us. You didn't even know that?

Any other conniption fits you wanna throw?

Any other ignorance you want to display?

And as long as the rich are being protected at a greater rate than the poor, I see no reason to relax protections for the poor. And the rich can get poor people to do everything for them.

You're the one who sounds like a teenager. Cut the sweeping generalizations. Do you do everything Dick Cheney says? Thought not. So I guess at least the rich can't get one person to do everything for them.

But if a major corporation goes under, it can trigger a recession. A recession is bad for everyone. Therefore it's in everyone's best interest if the governemnt intercedes. See, things aren't so simple in the real world.

Right. Things aren't so simple in the real world. Meaning your government intervention has not been and would not be as benevolent or effective as you and I want it to be. But companies' desire to survive...I put more trust in that.

Right. And I'm Mr Rogers.
I do. So yes it can be done.

Lol. Right.
Yes, that can be done too. Although I personally would prefer a flat tax that would be more difficult to evade with deductions.

Public airwaves. Broadcast radio and television both. Stations only rent it from the government who "administrate" it for us. You didn't even know that?

Correct. If that's what you meant. But that doesn't translate to meaning we are all guaranteed our 15 minutes on TV.

Any other ignorance you want to display?

Just yours chump.

I for one do all of those things. But I DON'T expect other people to pay for the mistakes that I make. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in this world?? Must we place every one of our faults on the government and other taxpayers' shoulders?? :headbang:

Because, unlike all those other things, having a child is a "mistake" that lasts a lifetime. And I don't think paying someone minimum wage is "bailing" them out. It's not even close to bailing them out.

Because, unlike all those other things, having a child is a "mistake" that lasts a lifetime. And I don't think paying someone minimum wage is "bailing" them out. It's not even close to bailing them out.

Right. Better way of bailing them out would be educating them about contraception, which you and I agree on.

You're the one who sounds like a teenager. Cut the sweeping generalizations. Do you do everything Dick Cheney says? Thought not. So I guess at least the rich can't get one person to do everything for them.

At least admit that your generalizations are equally as sweeping. Also, I didn't say that the rich can get ANYONE to to EVERYTHING for them. I just said thgat the rich can afford to get SOMEONE to do EVERYTHING for them. If Cheney offered $15 an hour, SOMEONE would wipe his ass for it.

Right. Things aren't so simple in the real world. Meaning your government intervention has not been and would not be as benevolent or effective as you and I want it to be. But companies' desire to survive...I put more trust in that.


Why? A business is no more than a collection of idividuals and prone to the exact same foibles as individuals. There is nothing inheritly noble about business or money.

Yes, that can be done too. Although I personally would prefer a flat tax that would be more difficult to evade with deductions.

I'd support a flat tax if it were a wealth and not an income tax.




Correct. If that's what you meant. But that doesn't translate to meaning we are all guaranteed our 15 minutes on TV.

But the airwaves are ours. How come we don't get a cut of the profits? The rich are using something that, by law, is ours, and yet we gather no benefit from it (except for the endless hours of quality entertainment, that, by your definition, the poor shouldn't be enjoying anyway.)



Just yours chump.

I'm not the one who has been erroneous with facts. Chump.

Right. Better way of bailing them out would be educating them about contraception, which you and I agree on.

Closing the barn door after the horses have escaped? And wouldn't an education program about contraception be "big government"?

Not wanting to butt in where I'm not wanted, but I think maybe you guys should watch out on the name-calling. I am enjoying reading this thread, and I would really hate to have a Mod lock it for flaming.

Not wanting to butt in where I'm not wanted, but I think maybe you guys should watch out on the name-calling. I am enjoying reading this thread, and I would really hate to have a Mod lock it for flaming.

I think both Sirvvs and I realize that the use of the word "chump" and "kid" is being used with good humor and is not even close to the end-all-be all of our arguments.

End the war on drugs. Reduce the military and the overseas wars we are undertaking. Shut down domestic spying other than on already known terrorists/criminals. Reduce weapons research to only what's needed to deter potential enemies without waging aggressive wars. Saves a hell of a lot of money.

I find myself in agreement.

I think both Sirvvs and I realize that the use of the word "chump" and "kid" is being used with good humor and is not even close to the end-all-be all of our arguments.
The Mods are terrible in their wrath and quick to anger.

I suggest you sacrifice a couple of goats at the Mod Shrine, to cleanse this thread.

End the war on drugs. Reduce the military and the overseas wars we are undertaking. Shut down domestic spying other than on already known terrorists/criminals. Reduce weapons research to only what's needed to deter potential enemies without waging aggressive wars.

Hell, can we just do this stuff no matter what? I mean, even if we aren't going to monkey with minimum wage, this all sounds good to me.

When you say they only care about quarterly numbers, I had no idea you speak for all the corporations, partnerships, franchises and sole-proprietorships in the country...or is the world you speak for?

Okay, at least agree with me this much. A stockholder has different priorities with regards to results than, say, the owner of a small, family-owned business. The "bottom line" is sometimes at odds with how healthy a business' long-term outlook is.

Closing the barn door after the horses have escaped? And wouldn't an education program about contraception be "big government"?

I didn't say I would want the government to do it. I just said preventing unwanted pregnancy is better than trying to bail people out after they've already made a mistake.

At least admit that your generalizations are equally as sweeping. Also, I didn't say that the rich can get ANYONE to to EVERYTHING for them. I just said thgat the rich can afford to get SOMEONE to do EVERYTHING for them. If Cheney offered $15 an hour, SOMEONE would wipe his ass for it.

I try not to make generalizations and if I have, I shouldn't have either. And regarding Cheney's ass wiper, as long as Cheney in no way forced him to do it against his will, I see no problem with that. Though I hate Cheney. There's more decent asses to wipe.

Why? A business is no more than a collection of idividuals and prone to the exact same foibles as individuals. There is nothing inheritly noble about business or money.

That's precisely my point. It's not about being noble. You and I as individuals should be noble and moral. But if we're talking about public policy we're talking about law, which does not and should not require you to be noble. I still hold that I'd rather depend on companies' desire to survive (and hence, continuing provision of goods and jobs) than on government regulation on behalf of the little guy. Neither is perfect but you have to make a choice. The effectiveness of government regulation vs. free markets and consumers just a very basic flashpoint liberal and conservative economists will always disagree on.


But the airwaves are ours. How come we don't get a cut of the profits? The rich are using something that, by law, is ours, and yet we gather no benefit from it (except for the endless hours of quality entertainment, that, by your definition, the poor shouldn't be enjoying anyway.)

I never said the poor shouldn't be enjoying TV. I don't even get your whole point here about the rich monopolizing the media. The media is actually traditionally liberal. It's not like the poor don't have their voices heard in news reports, talk shows...or even movies. I just doubt the feasibility of guaranteeing everyone time on TV.

Hell, can we just do this stuff no matter what? I mean, even if we aren't going to monkey with minimum wage, this all sounds good to me.

Hehe, me too. The US criticizes the UN for wasting taxpayers' money and while I agree the UN can be rather wasteful and corrupt all the way down to the way its staff are managed, the US government wastes ridiculous amounts compared to the UN and is equally, if not more corrupt.

Because of the demads of stockholders, corporations primarily worry about quarterly numbers, NOT long term economic health.

Quarterly number are used as a tool to reflect how well a comany is doing... current profits FROM SELLING THINGS. They have to worry about selling things. And its not like they only look 3 months in advance. Companies dish out 30 year bonds to buyers and they do research that will take years to turn into a viable product. If 3 month periods were all they cared about no car company would EVER develop a new car model, because that takes more than 3 months.
of course they are concerned about economic health, their bussiness depends on it and drives it, especially of the long term variety.

I didn't say I would want the government to do it. I just said preventing unwanted pregnancy is better than trying to bail people out after they've already made a mistake.

Bailing people out occasionally leads to stability, which is one of the main purposes of government.

I try not to make generalizations and if I have, I shouldn't have either. And regarding Cheney's ass wiper, as long as Cheney in no way forced him to do it against his will, I see no problem with that. Though I hate Cheney. There's more decent asses to wipe.

"Force" is sometimes a subtle and pervasive thing.

That's precisely my point. It's not about being noble. You and I as individuals should be noble and moral. But if we're talking about public policy we're talking about law, which does not and should not require you to be noble. I still hold that I'd rather depend on companies' desire to survive (and hence, continuing provision of goods and jobs) than on government regulation on behalf of the little guy. Neither is perfect but you have to make a choice. The effectiveness of government regulation vs. free markets and consumers just a very basic flashpoint liberal and conservative economists will always disagree on.

WHereas I belive in balance. One way to balance the power of the rich is for people to exercise their democratic power to get what they want. Checks and balances.

I never said the poor shouldn't be enjoying TV. I don't even get your whole point here about the rich monopolizing the media. The media is actually traditionally liberal. It's not like the poor don't have their voices heard in news reports, talk shows...or even movies. I just doubt the feasibility of guaranteeing everyone time on TV.

The "liberal media" is largely a myth. And it's certainly a generalization to say it is.

Hehe, me too. The US criticizes the UN for wasting taxpayers' money and while I agree the UN can be rather wasteful and corrupt all the way down to the way its staff are managed, the US government wastes ridiculous amounts compared to the UN and is equally, if not more corrupt.

Power corrupts. That's why there needs to be checks on power, now matter HOW that power manifests.

Quarterly number are used as a tool to reflect how well a comany is doing... current profits FROM SELLING THINGS. It's only a tool, and sometimes it's a very inaccurate tool.

They have to worry about selling things. And its not like they only look 3 months in advance.

Some stockholders DO only look at 3 months. Because they can always bail at any time.

Companies dish out 30 year bonds to buyers and they do research that will take years to turn into a viable product. If 3 month periods were all they cared about no car company would EVER develop a new car model, because that takes more than 3 months.

I never said that's the ONLY thing they worry about. I'm just saying the wants and expectations of someone who just wants their current stocks to go up CAN be very different from someone who is in it for the long haul or who actually has a skill/talent/calling to make or sell something to the best of their ability.

of course they are concerned about economic health, their bussiness depends on it and drives it, especially of the long term variety.

Some business make more profit during times of instability and hardship. Their concern is rarely what's best for the big picture. Some business profit when they encourage waste. A classic example is a pharmaceutical company who sells pallatives. If a cure for a disease whose symptoms they treat is developed, then they will lose money. Their self interest is in that disease never being cured (until, of course, they get it themselves.) Likewise, their stockholders would object if their business shifted from repeat customers to a one-time sale.

Some stockholders DO only look at 3 months. Because they can always bail at any time.

Yes, but short-term shareholders have only a small effect on the company and its decisions. Any decent executive doesn't let stock performance motivate their decisions, because the stock will perform far better if the company's long term health is assured than if it isn't. Also, the biggest owners are the executives and various financial companies; neither of them have any incentive to flip stocks on a quarterly basis due to the sheer amount of losses they suffer from taxes and the effect on the stock in the short term.

Okay, at least agree with me this much. A stockholder has different priorities with regards to results than, say, the owner of a small, family-owned business. The "bottom line" is sometimes at odds with how healthy a business' long-term outlook is.
Why is this? A stockholder is an owner, just as mom or pop is an owner. They both want their company to turn a net profit. The only thing that matters in business IS the bottom line. Net profits are what makes a business grow. GE or Lockheed might develop a new product line with that profit, while Mom and Pop might hire a new clerk. It's just a difference in scale, that's all.

Why is this? A stockholder is an owner, just as mom or pop is an owner. They both want their company to turn a net profit. The only thing that matters in business IS the bottom line. Net profits are what makes a business grow. GE or Lockheed might develop a new product line with that profit, while Mom and Pop might hire a new clerk. It's just a difference in scale, that's all.

A company's stocks can still go up when it's losing money.

A company's stocks can still go up when it's losing money.
Not for very long and not very often. I think you are looking for exceptions and I'm sure you'll find one or two, but they hardly prove anything.

A company's stocks can still go up when it's losing money.

Not forever; it's usually in the very short term. The best example is, of course, the dot-com bubble of the 1990's.