NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm absolutely certain there has never been a topic on the foolishness of a minimum wage or minimum wage in general here on NSG so I have decided to start one. Perhaps I'll do a thread after this on the topic no one seems to have the stomach to broach–abortion.

A while back there was quite a bit of talk in the real world about raising the minimum wage both federally and at a state level in Minnesota, some were even pushing for a living wage to be the standard and this got me wondering about why we bother with one at all? A minimum wage does little more than distort the market/the value of various goods and services.

If the minimum wage is raised then wouldn't businesses have to raise their prices to remain in the black? Just how long would a living wage stay a living wage? And why should every 16 year old fry-cook get a wage he could live off of? Just how much living should this living minimum wage allow?

I say that enough is never enough. We must do everything we can to level the playing field. Minimum wage should be set at $400/hour. Who's with me?

omg there's something wrong with the free market!

I'm absolutely certain there has never been a topic on the foolishness of a minimum wage or minimum wage in general here on NSG so I have decided to start one.

You're living in a fools paradise! Of course there has been several. This will go the way of those.

We do need a Minimum wage, but the level of that wage should be based on a part time teenager.

Minimum wage shouldn't just be abolished, we should go back to the good old days when the common serf knew the value of hard work, and in return nobility made sure he stayed mostly fed and somewhat housed. You didn't hear all this talk of unemployment and welfare back then.

We do need a Minimum wage, but the level of that wage should be based on a part time teenager.
Sooo $400/hour? My computer wasn't cheap back then.

Minimum wage shouldn't just be abolished, we should go back to the good old days when the common serf knew the value of hard work, and in return nobility made sure he stayed mostly fed and somewhat housed. You didn't hear all this talk of unemployment and welfare back then.

as long as we don't go past mostly, I can get behind this.

as long as we don't go past mostly, I can get behind this.

Sweet!

I guess that means I've got to go out and buy a whalebone corset or a 30-pound dress or something. Luckily I am already pale and prone to fainting, so I've got that going for me, which is nice.

Sweet!

I guess that means I've got to go out and buy a whalebone corset

Hot.


Luckily I am already pale and prone to fainting, so I've got that going for me, which is nice.

Caddyshack reference. +50 points.

Sweet!

I guess that means I've got to go out and buy a whalebone corset or a 30-pound dress or something. Luckily I am already pale and prone to fainting, so I've got that going for me, which is nice.

You'll need to brush up on your mutton skills, too.

If the minimum wage is raised then wouldn't businesses have to raise their prices to remain in the black? Just how long would a living wage stay a living wage?

That's actually a good question, one which I would like to see answers for.


I say that enough is never enough. We must do everything we can to level the playing field. Minimum wage should be set at $400/hour. Who's with me?

I think everyone should get a $400/hour wage, but some people should get more $400/hour than others.

Sooo $400/hour? My computer wasn't cheap back then.

I employ some people. I could get behind this.

But I'm only going to pay them $400/hr for the first hour. The other 59 hours per week are at no cost.

Well, you know what they say, "free market is the earthly embodiment of celestial perfection". We must fight hard every day to protect this noble cause against the barbarisms of liberals and their regulation.

Americans minimum wage is stuck in the eighties anyway.

The minimum wage is $12 an hour here, and there's calls to raise it to $15. The US has an insane wage gap.

My personal opinion is that the government, in consulation with business and labour, should set the wage level in each sector. This would fall in times of economic hardship to increase productivity and allow companies to keep on more workers, and rise in times of economic success when companies can afford to pay workers more without going bust. Only trouble is, unions don't like it when wages have been decreased, but maybe union leaders would be more likely to recognise the difficulties the company is suffering if they were involved in detailed consultation.

A minimum wage does little more than distort the market/the value of various goods and services.
Too bad for you that this "little more" makes the difference between living and not, as you yourself explain here below.

And why should every 16 year old fry-cook get a wage he could live off of?

So your point is that some jobs are so lowly that the workers who take them should not earn enough to live.

Yet your beloved market wants people who take those jobs.

I smell contraddiction.
And I also hear someone chanting "Slagt ham! Kristenmand Søn har dåret Dovregubbens venste Mø!"

The minimum wage needs to go. If the Free Market & employeers are so ruthless and cut throat, why doesn't every job in America just pay it's employees the bare minimum wage to maximize profit while still following the law? Because even with a minimum wage, the free market is able to work. If we were to get rid of it, I doubt it would make much of a difference. Though I think you would need to get rid of a lot more regulation in order to see the true benefit of a free market.

I agree with the OP too that I'd love to see a minimum wage of $400/ hour. That is a wage I can learn to live on.

A minimum wage does little more than distort the market/the value of various goods and services.
Just to clarify, what do you mean by value?

I feel that a negative income tax would created the intended result of a minimum wage far more effectively.

Though I think you would need to get rid of a lot more regulation in order to see the true benefit of a free market.


Ah, the benefit of a freer market. I guess that's why the US economy is performing so good lately.

Americans minimum wage is stuck in the eighties anyway.

The minimum wage is $12 an hour here, and there's calls to raise it to $15. The US has an insane wage gap.
And that is because of the structure of the US economy, of the nature of the businesses that operate there and so on. It's not a question of legal minimum wages - just check how many people actually receive it and nothing more.

Ah, the benefit of a freer market. I guess that's why the US economy is performing so good lately.
Dude, this isn't some third-rate newspaper headline. Bringing the free market and the financial crisis together only works for stupid people, and none of us are that dumb.

Ah, the benefit of a freer market. I guess that's why the US economy is performing so good lately.

no no no, don't you understand, the free market always works better.

Until it doesn't.

Sure, why should companies be responsible for the survival of their employees? Seems totallt unfair, they should be allowed to pay people a pittance. There are enough out there who would do the work for even less, after all.
See, that's the good thing about illegal immigrants. They are sensible enough to work for pennies.

I say we abolish the minimum wage and reinstate peonage. We'd be valuing labor much more accurately and that would make the market more efficient.

Necessary Soundtrack for Thread (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yKdSFVZa9I)

Personally, I'm a fan of economic liberty. However, I'm more of a fan of social liberty.

To that end, I think that a certain standard of living is a right necessary to protect our other rights. I wish the minimum wage was higher. It isn't easy to feel free when you can't even feel comfortable.

Businesses have the purpose of making as much profit as possible. The minimum wage is a way of inserting some sort of moral obligation to its employees, which they ought to have but isn't strictly necessary for them to function.

As to whether the minimum wage affects inflation, yes I can't see how it wouldn't. But the degree to which it does depends on a whole host of economic factors, not just how high it is.

To say "A minimum wage does little more than distort the market/the value of various goods and services" presupposes there is some sort of 'proper' value, but how can you define that?!
It's no more a distortion than supply, demand, materials costs, marketing costs, rent of commercial property, prices of other services, an owner deciding they want to make another 3% profit etc. 'distorts' a 'real' market value.

Americans minimum wage is stuck in the eighties anyway.

The minimum wage is $12 an hour here, and there's calls to raise it to $15. The US has an insane wage gap.

o.O It's $7 an hour here, so if you consider 12 stuck in the 80's, apparently Indiana is stuck in some era slightly after the Civil War- which does not surprise me.

But, yes, minimum wage should always be, regardless of area, set to a level where one can support themselves on the wages of a normal work week. The problem with saying that the free market will ensure this itself, so long as there is no regulation is that, well, it doesn't; I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. We can SEE that this does not happen, so why do people persist in claiming it does.

I say we abolish the minimum wage and reinstate peonage.
Well, Cabra seems to agree with you.

Seriously, companies aren't responsible for the survival of their employees because their employees are their own independent, sovereign human beings. An employment contract isn't a marriage, an adoption or anything else of the sort: it's a business transaction, entered into for the purpose of earning a profit for both sides.

Well, Cabra seems to agree with you.

Seriously, companies aren't responsible for the survival of their employees because their employees are their own independent, sovereign human beings. An employment contract isn't a marriage, an adoption or anything else of the sort: it's a business transaction, entered into for the purpose of earning a profit for both sides.

That ignores any disparity of power between the two parties. Then a contract can become nothing more than blackmail.

Well, Cabra seems to agree with you.

Seriously, companies aren't responsible for the survival of their employees because their employees are their own independent, sovereign human beings. An employment contract isn't a marriage, an adoption or anything else of the sort: it's a business transaction, entered into for the purpose of earning a profit for both sides.

Way to go to spot irony.

No, companies aren't strictly responsible for the survival of their employees, but they are responsible to some degree for their welfare.
That's why we have work safety laws, regulations as to sick pay, holidays, etc., etc.
You could agrue that it is in the interest of an employer to have reasonably healthy, happy (as in, not constantly overworked and bogged down with money worries) employees, for the simple reason that this will increase the ability of the worker to provide better work. But companies tend to be even more short-sighted than politicians, so laws are required to some extend.

minimum wage stops people being exploited (or rather tries to) much like working hours and other dandy things

the guy making my fries doesn't really have any ability to give himself leverage in terms of how much hes paid for his work, he could be earning a pittance and he would still have to work there because hes stuck

Well, Cabra seems to agree with you.

Seriously, companies aren't responsible for the survival of their employees because their employees are their own independent, sovereign human beings. An employment contract isn't a marriage, an adoption or anything else of the sort: it's a business transaction, entered into for the purpose of earning a profit for both sides.

Exactly; which is why labor unions are so important.

Exactly; which is why labor unions are so important.

The vast majority of companies (now) fairly compensate their workers without union interference. As long the government still retains its ability to influence and regulate employment issues via the legal system, modern unions will be redundant and inefficient organizations which benefit a few people at the expense of society and their constituency.

That being said, there was a time when unions were necessary, back when the government had no control and the companies would hire thugs to beat up people who brought serious issues to light.

That ignores any disparity of power between the two parties. Then a contract can become nothing more than blackmail.
No contract is ever made with both parties having exactly the same knowledge or ability to choose alternatives. So in effect, all contracts involve some degree of "blackmail".

We have laws already that forbid people to use force, intimidation, misrepresentation and even the withholding of certain types of important information. We don't need any more than that to make employment contracts "fair".

You could argue that it is in the interest of an employer to have reasonably healthy, happy (as in, not constantly overworked and bogged down with money worries) employees, for the simple reason that this will increase the ability of the worker to provide better work. But companies tend to be even more short-sighted than politicians, so laws are required to some extend.
Do you really think so? I mean, there is a market mechanism at work here, if workers who get extra benefit really work that much better, the companies which offer them will be outperforming those who don't and over time, we should see these benefits become standard practice.

But the fact of the matter is that for some workers, the extra value to the company just isn't there - the work that is being done then doesn't get any better because of benefits offered to the worker. Were this the case at any point, we'd end up forcing the company to hurt itself. That's where we move from pareto optimality (ie the idea that we can make everyone better off without hurting anyone in the process) to punishing some for the benefit of others. I don't think that's a valid step to make.

Exactly; which is why labor unions are so important.
Just as important as any other price-fixing cartel, I suppose. Great for its members, a bit of a catastrophe for society as a whole.

No contract is ever made with both parties having exactly the same knowledge or ability to choose alternatives. So in effect, all contracts involve some degree of "blackmail".
We have laws already that forbid people to use force, intimidation, misrepresentation and even the withholding of certain types of important information. We don't need any more than that to make employment contracts "fair".

Why is it one step too far? Do you agree with any regulation?

Minimum wage doesn't try and make contracts fair, all it does is try and prevent them from being too unfair. It is a check on the balance of power - I agree that parties will never be equal.

Why is it one step too far? Do you agree with any regulation?
Pareto Optimality is the thing I'm ultimately interested in. To the extent that markets fail to provide this at times, regulations are needed - designed specifically so as to correct the behaviours or information gaps that caused the market failure and no more.

But taking from some to give to others is the enforcement of a particular set of values by means of force. That's not cool in my book, it doesn't square with what I think humans are and should be or with what makes a livable society.

Pareto Optimality is the thing I'm ultimately interested in. To the extent that markets fail to provide this at times, regulations are needed - designed specifically so as to correct the behaviours or information gaps that caused the market failure and no more.

But taking from some to give to others is the enforcement of a particular set of values by means of force. That's not cool in my book, it doesn't square with what I think humans are and should be or with what makes a livable society.

ahh pseudo-anarchists. You're all so cute. Misguided as fuck though, but cute.

Abolish minimum wage! Who cares if the majority of the people are dying of starvation, as long as it's not me?!

But taking from some to give to others is the enforcement of a particular set of values by means of force. That's not cool in my book, it doesn't square with what I think humans are and should be or with what makes a livable society.

Some might define business extracting labour at low value by means of coercion because of the state of the market, and keeping the difference as profit, is just like that.

Why is it cool for business to do this but not governments?

Sweet!

I guess that means I've got to go out and buy a whalebone corset

Buy me one too while you're at it? *hopeful*

The vast majority of companies (now) fairly compensate their workers without union interference. As long the government still retains its ability to influence and regulate employment issues via the legal system, modern unions will be redundant and inefficient organizations which benefit a few people at the expense of society and their constituency.

That being said, there was a time when unions were necessary, back when the government had no control and the companies would hire thugs to beat up people who brought serious issues to light.

So you're arguing that the government does a good enough job of protecting workers' interests that workers should not worry about protecting themselves? Hm. Not what I expected from you, but OK.




Just as important as any other price-fixing cartel, I suppose. Great for its members, a bit of a catastrophe for society as a whole.

This may be a boring and tired old argument, but I don't understand why when the diverse owners of a company band together and hire someone to maximize their return, it's a worthy thing for society as a whole, but when the diverse workers at a company band together and hire someone to maximize their return, it's a "bit of a catastrophe". Never made sense to me. Seems like it's a fairer system than setting a minimum wage based on some politician's sense of fairness.

The vast majority of companies (now) fairly compensate their workers without union interference.

That being said, there was a time when unions were necessary, back when the government had no control and the companies would hire thugs to beat up people who brought serious issues to light.

Yes, now that those days are over, unions are largely unnecessary. I know that, as a member of the California Teacher's Association, most of our meetings are spent scheming up ways to wrangle more office supplies from the state and discussing our vacation homes in Oahu. We just don't know what to do with all the free time we have from being dealt with fairly and paid a decent living wage for our work.

ahh pseudo-anarchists. You're all so cute. Misguided as fuck though, but cute.

.... what?

.... what?

He said

ahh pseudo-anarchists. You're all so cute. Misguided as fuck though, but cute.

ahh pseudo-anarchists. You're all so cute. Misguided as fuck though, but cute.

My 'what' was an expression of confusion, confused at things like labelling NL an anarchist, when nothing he said indicated anything of the sort, in fact he specifically said that regulations was needed at times. I'm also confused at the 'misguided as fuck' statement, I presume NL is pretty well informed on the economy, you know, with him majoring in economics and all.

My 'what' was an expression of confusion, confused at things like labelling NL an anarchist, when nothing he said indicated anything of the sort, in fact he specifically said that regulations was needed at times. I'm also confused at the 'misguided as fuck' statement, I presume NL is pretty well informed on the economy, you know, with him majoring in economics and all.

It was an attempt of humor. :(

It was an attempt of humor. :(

I know, but I felt I needed to elaborate anyway.

It was an attempt of humor. :(

If it makes you feel any better, I laughed. :)

Pareto Optimality is the thing I'm ultimately interested in. To the extent that markets fail to provide this at times, regulations are needed - designed specifically so as to correct the behaviours or information gaps that caused the market failure and no more.

But taking from some to give to others is the enforcement of a particular set of values by means of force. That's not cool in my book, it doesn't square with what I think humans are and should be or with what makes a livable society.

Why are you ok with using force to impose pareto optimality? Why do you wish to impose your values on society, these values being whatever mix of property rights and civil liberties you consider to be the true rights and liberties?

From what I have read about the empirical research on the minimum wage in the US increases in the minimum wage have small negative to small positive employment effects. This is largely because any increase in the minimum wage that is politically feasible to enact is pretty moderate. Since it does reduce poverty and decreases the usage of public subsidies I'm all for minimum wages and the increases thereof.

Abolish it.

Don't abolish it.

Retain it.







Gee, this simple posting style isn't so bad.

Gee, this simple posting style isn't so bad.

tl; dr levels are at an all time low!

Yes, now that those days are over, unions are largely unnecessary. I know that, as a member of the California Teacher's Association, most of our meetings are spent scheming up ways to wrangle more office supplies from the state and discussing our vacation homes in Oahu. We just don't know what to do with all the free time we have from being dealt with fairly and paid a decent living wage for our work.

Ryadn, honey, wake up. You've got 150 more essays to grade and we've got to sell more plasma to make rent.

I'm absolutely certain there has never been a topic on the foolishness of a minimum wage or minimum wage in general here on NSG so I have decided to start one. Perhaps I'll do a thread after this on the topic no one seems to have the stomach to broach–abortion.

A while back there was quite a bit of talk in the real world about raising the minimum wage both federally and at a state level in Minnesota, some were even pushing for a living wage to be the standard and this got me wondering about why we bother with one at all? A minimum wage does little more than distort the market/the value of various goods and services.

If the minimum wage is raised then wouldn't businesses have to raise their prices to remain in the black? Just how long would a living wage stay a living wage? And why should every 16 year old fry-cook get a wage he could live off of? Just how much living should this living minimum wage allow?

I say that enough is never enough. We must do everything we can to level the playing field. Minimum wage should be set at $400/hour. Who's with me?

Gee. At $400/hour, you just might get the CEO-to-worker ratio back to 40:1 like it was back in 1980. It's 350:1 now.

Abolish it.

No.

No.

Whyever not?

Allow the market to determine wages.

Whyever not?

Allow the market to determine wages.

The market determined that CEOs who run their companies into the ground are entitled to $20M+ in bonus money on top of salaries which range from $5M to $70M a year.

Fuck the market.

Whyever not?

Allow the market to determine wages.

Society is the market. We have, through our elected representatives, already done so.

The market determined that CEOs who run their companies into the ground are entitled to $20M+ in bonus money on top of salaries which range from $5M to $70M a year.

Fuck the market.

Fantastic isn't it? Oh the benefits of a good education.

Society is the market. We have, through our elected representatives, already done so.

"Society" is not coterminous with a free economic market; "society", in as much as it is a valid entity at all, is a composite organism of which it's economy is a component.

Whyever not?

Allow the market to determine wages.

Because the market would fail.

The consumer would not see a benefit as any savings would be absorbed by the businesses.

Low cost labor would also great increase the ability of the Walmarts of the world to kill local businesses.

"Society" is not coterminous with a free economic market; "society", in as much as it is a valid entity at all, is a composite organism of which it's economy is a component.

The free market is a concept. It does not exist.....

The free market is a concept. It does not exist.....

Neither, then, does society, or any of the myriad abstractions and heuristic devices with which we define our milieu.

Whyever not?

Because there would be more instances of poverty without the minimum wage.

"Society" is not coterminous with a free economic market; "society", in as much as it is a valid entity at all, is a composite organism of which it's economy is a component.

The market is all the people involved in the buying and selling of goods and services, no? Sounds like pretty much the same group of people as society to me.

Fantastic isn't it? Oh the benefits of a good education.

The benefits seem to be recession. Oh, so fantastic.

The benefits seem to be recession. Oh, so fantastic.

If you're still earning obscene amounts of money, able then to buy property cheap, yes, it's super.

If you're still earning obscene amounts of money, able then to buy property cheap, yes, it's super.

So you're okay with people making obscene amounts of money for doing effectively nothing or worse than nothing. And you chalk it up to what degree someone might have possibly earned? Looks like someone hit the brown acid. The message did not get through.

Just as important as any other price-fixing cartel, I suppose. Great for its members, a bit of a catastrophe for society as a whole.

Price fixing cartels can only work in a market which is dominated by a small number of suppliers. The labour market, by its very nature, has a massive number of suppliers. Unless just about all of the people working in a particular field are union members, they cannot fix the price of their labour.

If you're still earning obscene amounts of money, able then to buy property cheap, yes, it's super.

Hardly in keeping with the ideals of a free market though, is it? How on earth could it come to pass that the CEO of a company in a nose dive deserves a bonus? Would you tip a waiter who shat in your soup?

Hardly in keeping with the ideals of a free market though, is it? How on earth could it come to pass that the CEO of a company in a nose dive deserves a bonus? Would you tip a waiter who shat in your soup?

Now, now, no fair asking a question that the Germans are more likely to say "yes" to....

So you're okay with people making obscene amounts of money for doing effectively nothing or worse than nothing. And you chalk it up to what degree someone might have possibly earned? Looks like someone hit the brown acid. The message did not get through.

Of course. If a good education did not permit one to become rich through little effort, there'd hardly be a point would there?

Of course. If a good education did not permit one to become rich through little effort, there'd hardly be a point would there?

One doesn't need education for that. Inheritance would suffice.

Neither, then, does society, or any of the myriad abstractions and heuristic devices with which we define our milieu.

Absurd. Society by definition exists; a free market, by definition, does not exist due to the obvious and many interferences and controls by government in said market.

Absurd. Society by definition exists; a free market, by definition, does not exist due to the obvious and many interferences and controls by government in said market.

You answered before I could ;)

I would also add that if all interferences were removed then there would be cheating and curruption rather then taking part in the free market.

As such the "free" market can not exist.

As such the "free" market can not exist.

It depends on what you mean. A true free market is an ideal, but you can have a materially free market that works similarly albeit with risks and downsides.

Here's a question: If free marketers think that employers should be able to pay whatever the fuck they feel like without any consideration for whether people can live on those wages, what do they think about workers refusing to work for less than a certain amount of money without any regard for whether the employers can expand their profit margins while paying those wages? What do they think of workers organizing to establish wage standards for various kinds of jobs by coordinating their negotiation efforts? What do they think of workers using the legal system or the power of the government to enforce the terms of agreements made with employers? Finally, what do they think of workers, in their off-hours guise as consumers, organizing to boycott or otherwise shut down companies that do not pay enough for a person to live? I know that I refuse absolutely to give my money to businesses that do not treat their workers in a way I consider fair. What would the free marketers do about that kind of thing?

Turnabout is fair play, and if you don't want to be screwed over, you should avoid screwing over others. The minimum wage is not a bad thing.

And by the way, there have been numerous increases in the minimum wage, yet I know of no data that shows that it has ever brought about the dire consequences of higher prices and fewer jobs that free marketers predict every single time. Cry wolf much?

That's why we have work safety laws, regulations as to sick pay, holidays, etc., etc.

None of which are morally legitimate, precisely because an employee's welfare is his own concern and responsibility.

Wages and working conditions are a private agreement solely between employer and employee. The government has no morally legitimate authority to interfere.

None of which are morally legitimate, precisely because an employee's welfare is his own concern and responsibility.

Wages and working conditions are a private agreement solely between employer and employee. The government has no morally legitimate authority to interfere.

And how do you determine, exactly, when the government does have the authority to intervene? I've seen you claim that you can "objectively prove" your beliefs from the "first principles of the universe," but I have never seen you do so when asked.

None of which are morally legitimate, precisely because an employee's welfare is his own concern and responsibility.

Wages and working conditions are a private agreement solely between employer and employee. The government has no morally legitimate authority to interfere.

Because that wouldn't be a one-sided society favoring the employer over employee. So moral.

Here's a question: If free marketers think that employers should be able to pay whatever the fuck they feel like without any consideration for whether people can live on those wages, what do they think about workers refusing to work for less than a certain amount of money without any regard for whether the employers can expand their profit margins while paying those wages? What do they think of workers organizing to establish wage standards for various kinds of jobs by coordinating their negotiation efforts? What do they think of workers using the legal system or the power of the government to enforce the terms of agreements made with employers? Finally, what do they think of workers, in their off-hours guise as consumers, organizing to boycott or otherwise shut down companies that do not pay enough for a person to live? I know that I refuse absolutely to give my money to businesses that do not treat their workers in a way I consider fair. What would the free marketers do about that kind of thing?

Umm...that's perfectly fine. What's your point?

And by the way, there have been numerous increases in the minimum wage, yet I know of no data that shows that it has ever brought about the dire consequences of higher prices and fewer jobs that free marketers predict every single time.

In economics, empirical results are meaningless.

This is because it is impossible to have "laboratory conditions" in economics. Just because the total number of jobs does not drop or overall prices do not rise after a minimum wage increase does not mean that the net effect of a minimum wage increase is not reducing jobs and raising prices. Perhaps there were other factors that created jobs and lowered prices enough to offset the consequences of the minimum wage increase, and had the increase not taken effect there would be even more jobs and lower prices.

There are too many variables in real-world economies to be able to use empirical data to conclusively say X caused Y, so all you have is the strength of the theory.

None of which are morally legitimate, precisely because an employee's welfare is his own concern and responsibility.

Wages and working conditions are a private agreement solely between employer and employee. The government has no morally legitimate authority to interfere.

There are a number of reasons why the minimum wage is morally legitimate from the governments role in setting property rights, the laudable goal of reducing poverty, and the notion that hard work should pay off.

In economics, empirical results are meaningless.

Rubbish. The whole notion of a "science" is to have replicable empirical results. Otherwise we're into the realms of philosophy.

This is because it is impossible to have "laboratory conditions" in economics. Just because the total number of jobs does not drop or overall prices do not rise after a minimum wage increase does not mean that the net effect of a minimum wage increase is not reducing jobs and raising prices. Perhaps there were other factors that created jobs and lowered prices enough to offset the consequences of the minimum wage increase, and had the increase not taken effect there would be even more jobs and lower prices.

There are too many variables in real-world economies to be able to use empirical data to conclusively say X caused Y, so all you have is the strength of the theory.

There are constraints in social sciences it is true because of not being able to account for every variable but without real world results theory is meaningless.

There are a number of reasons why the minimum wage is morally legitimate from the governments role in setting property rights,
Wrong. Property rights exist independent of, and are not subject to, the state.

the laudable goal of reducing poverty,
Poverty is not a moral issue. There's nothing inherently wrong with everyone being poor, there's nothing inherently wrong with no one being poor. It's irrelevant.

and the notion that hard work should pay off.
Hard work that no one has any use for shouldn't pay off.

Wrong. Property rights exist independent of, and are not subject to, the state.


Poverty is not a moral issue. There's nothing inherently wrong with everyone being poor, there's nothing inherently wrong with no one being poor. It's irrelevant.


Hard work that no one has any use for shouldn't pay off.

Please proove all the above assertions.

A is A.

Here's a question: If free marketers think that employers should be able to pay whatever the fuck they feel like without any consideration for whether people can live on those wages, what do they think about workers refusing to work for less than a certain amount of money without any regard for whether the employers can expand their profit margins while paying those wages?

Yes, I do believe free market supporters are OK with the concept of "Don't wanna work there? Fine, don't."


And by the way, there have been numerous increases in the minimum wage, yet I know of no data that shows that it has ever brought about the dire consequences of higher prices and fewer jobs that free marketers predict every single time. Cry wolf much?

Question: how much could 5 dollars buy you before these increases, and how much can it buy you now?

A is A.

That disproves all your assertions. :p

A is A.

Ah, back to this again I see.

http://rubenerdshow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/CircularReasoning.png

A is A.

Ah, Randian philosophy. When critical thought and actual moral theses are just too hard.

Wait, so are you people denying the Law of Reflexivity?

Wait, so are you people denying the Law of Reflexivity?

No. We're denying that its proves any of your assertions.

Wait, so are you people denying the Law of Reflexivity?

No, merely your claim that it proves your beliefs.

I mean, what if I said:
Claim: welfare is moral.
Proof: ~~A=A

Ryadn, honey, wake up. You've got 150 more essays to grade and we've got to sell more plasma to make rent.

I've seriously thought about selling plasma. :(

Ah, Randian philosophy. When critical thought and actual moral theses are just too hard.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writing of the eminent russian-american philosopher Ayn Rand.

Bitch.

A is A.

Ok. Let's see your proof.

I've seriously thought about selling plasma. :(
what do they pay for plasma these days?

what do they pay for plasma these days?

http://www.ehow.com/how_110908_sell-plasma.html

Looks like 60, 70 dollars per week max.