Minimum wage

[cpwill]

dys·gen·ic
disˈjenik/
adjective
adjective: dysgenic

exerting a detrimental effect on later generations through the inheritance of undesirable characteristics.

re: GENETICS

Tell me again that Murray is not relying on GENETICS.

You really ought to look things up before you rant about them.

Dysgenic Pressure is that which causes negative traits to become more widely expressed than in the original mix. The Pressure is the Subject, Dysgenic is the effect. What Murray is discussing the tendency of more-educated/higher-IQ people to have fewer children in modern societies, which, given that IQ is partially inheritable, inevitably means that over time they are a smaller portion of the overall populace. It's the sociological effect that formed the basis for the movie Idiocracy, some of whose predictions are currently coming true in the Trump Presidential Campaign.

It is a cultural argument about birthrates.

Which is why he points out that "Women of all races and ethnic groups follow this pattern in similar fashion.".

I found the page you quoted. Here it is in full:





FFS, the man just gave credence to the liberal argument that past inequality does extend into causing current and future inequality. You'd think liberals would be cheering that. :roll: But no. Because he points out data that is inconvenient to liberals as well, he must be smeared as a racist.



I realize it is intellectually easier and more emotionally gratifying to scream "RACIST" at people who point out inconvenient data. But just because idiot college students get away with it there doesn't mean you're going to be able to have it stand up here.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

given that IQ is partially inheritable

Lets make this clear, this is an argument on GENETICS...mixed with the notion that GENETIC inferiority is displayed (via IQ) by certain RACES/ETHNICITIES that are reproducing at "too high" of a level. It is EUGENICS with a sly smile, it is based on faulty, misrepresented data from racists and is used to justify reduced levels of social funding.

 

[Ganesh]

I'm posting a link to a review of the Murray book, because I think there are some excellent points made about this topic, in addition to the book.

"...In a global economy, companies have little motivation to think nationally, they just look at median wages paid by geography and move labor to where it's cheapest and automate whatever's left behind, resorting only to paying a living wage to human beings where there's no other option. Fishtown is learning what the "Global Citizen" has for a standard of living. To the worker in China or Mexico who didn't have running water in their home, being offered a job with a bed and a shared bathroom in a dormitory next to a factory and earning $220 a month for a 60 hour workweek is a massive improvement in living standards. To the guy in the trailer in Fishtown, it will be a massive downgrade of living standards...."



Amazon.com: Martin Focazio's review of Coming Apart: The State of White America, ...

 

[cpwill]

Lets make this clear, this is an argument on GENETICS...mixed with the notion that GENETIC inferiority is displayed (via IQ) by certain RACES/ETHNICITIES that are reproducing at "too high" of a level. It is EUGENICS with a sly smile, it is based on faulty, misrepresented data from racists and is used to justify reduced levels of social funding.

No, it isn't. The argument is that cultural decisions don't merely effect individual results, they effect the children of those who make those decisions, and society at large. He isn't saying that blacks or Mexicans are genetically inferior people which is why he stated that Women of all races and ethnic groups follow this pattern in similar fashion. Because what he is discussing is falling birthrates for higher educated women.

The actual argument itself is pretty basic:

1. Higher educated women in modern society tend to have fewer kids
2. Educational achievement is linked to cognitive ability
3. Cognitive ability is partially inheritable, and partly social (linked, in a cycle, with socialized educational focus), both of which are generally controlled by your parents

A+B=C: If those who are more educated produce relatively fewer children over time, they will make up less of the populace, over time. These harmful effects will be most pronounced where smaller portions educated to at the beginning of this cultural phenomenon of higher educated women having fewer kids, but is present across all of Western culture, and effects women of all races and ethnicities in that culture about the same.




Now, I realize that you saw the "G" word, assumed "Conservative+Genetics=Racism", jumped on it, and are wedded to your preferred reality in which people who point out inconvenient data with regards to the failures of the Welfare State to help the people it claims to are all big ole racist meanies. But when Murray explicitly makes an argument that impacts all races and ethnicities, and then points out that minorities are hardest hit that isn't a racist argument, any more than it is when people argue that they suffer more from a failing education system, problems with the penal system, or freaking global warming.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

No, it isn't. The argument is that cultural decisions don't merely effect individual results, they effect the children of those who make those decisions, and society at large. He isn't saying that blacks or Mexicans are genetically inferior people which is why he stated that Women of all races and ethnic groups follow this pattern in similar fashion.


Now, I realize that you saw the "G" word, assumed "Conservative+Genetics=Racism", jumped on it, and are wedded to your preferred reality in which people who point out inconvenient data with regards to the failures of the Welfare State to help the people it claims to are all big ole racist meanies. But when Murray explicitly makes an argument that impacts all races and ethnicities, and then points out that minorities are hardest hit that isn't a racist argument.

His argument of "dysgenics" is BASED ON FAULTY DATA FROM RACIST SOURCES, it does not matter what he writes beyond this basic point, the evidence he has to support this has come from folks with a long history of eugenic/racist beliefs. You continue to ignore the BASIS of his data.

 

[cpwill]

His argument of "dysgenics" is BASED ON FAULTY DATA FROM RACIST SOURCES,

I've seen that claim before too, and it also has problems.


But I accept your implicit admission that he has not made a racist argument, given that he pointed to a trend in which he stated that women of all races and ethnic groups follow this pattern in similar fashion.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I've seen that claim before too, and it also has problems.


But I accept your implicit admission that he has not made a racist argument, given that he pointed to a trend in which he stated that women of all races and ethnic groups follow this pattern in similar fashion.

That line is proof by you that he IS making an argument of GENETICS explaining IQ differences, that is your concession. If that was the ONLY thing he ever wrote on RACE...then you might have won your argument. But unfortunately, it isn't. You keep forgetting that the passages I posted, which you have expanded upon, were posted to show that his argument was one of GENETICS....which you were trying to deny.

 

[Ganesh]

The truth is that less than 3% work for the federal MW and any state or city can demand a higher MW. Capitalism (or at least our version of it) requires that 97% (or more) get a higher wage than the federal statutory minimum, most with other benefits as well. You failed to address why the lowest skilled, entry level worker deserves more for their minimal "contribution to society" and yet their employer (rather than society) deserves to be forced to pay them more for doing no more.

The minimum wage, it's true, is but one lever to assert social policy, but it is a significant one. The MW sets a floor that then influences other modestly paid work. Your 3% (4.3% by my reading) also doesn't include those now earning slightly more that would be affected by an increase. Your version of capitalism actually makes very little requirements about how much people get paid, it usually comes down to who has the most power and influence.

As for what people deserve, that of course is highly subjective. The libertarian thinks some CEOs are worth hundreds of millions. Many would disagree. Is a hamburger flipper "worth" $15/hr? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is that it is not up to a bunch of myriad fiefdoms, where some businessman feels himself king because he has obtained a franchise, bought a business, or climbed up to management in a corporation, to decide how society runs. That is up to us- all of us. When there are no rules, or only feeble ones, people tend to make their own, and not surprisingly do so in ways that are to their benefit, and not necessarily any one else' s. That's why we have government, a concept libertarians find so difficult to understand.

Keep in mind that most are in those entry level, low skilled positions briefly and are not, by any means, working for $1/day. A full time US MW worker makes over 50% more than the world's median income - that alone is an amazing testament to the strength of our economic system. So, yes, that is the society I want.

I see. So ttwtt, I've hired you for a 2 year contract, and as you are just going to be with us briefly, your pay will be $20,000/yr. Fair enough? There are actually quite a few jobs around today that don't exactly require rocket scientists. Your libertarian view that all should compete against themselves can, and often does, mean a race to the bottom in which all lose in the end, except for a fortunate few at the very top of the spectrum. This is especially true today with ever less need for labour, and consequently ever more competition for good jobs and a living wage.

A closer look at your comparison of US to world MW workers reveals little amazement, and merely confirmation of what we might well have expected. When PPP is taken into account, the US is about in the middle of other industrial countries. The ones it is ahead of, as we might expect, are the developing nations, or those problematic for one reason or another. The ones it is behind are the modern, established, liberal democracies most similar to the US. And even that doesn't tell the whole story, as the latter nations also tend to have better social programs and other measures that further level the playing field. The only thing it says about the US economy is that it is much more tolerant of inequality and injustice.

I do believe you though when you say that's the society you want. I just think you will be taken aback if you should ever get it.

Your argument boils down to "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" - a concept not stated by our constitution.

Nonsense. My argument is about social democracy.

How America's Minimum Wage Really Stacks Up Globally - The Atlantic

 

[cpwill]

That line is proof by you that he IS making an argument of GENETICS explaining IQ differences, that is your concession. If that was the ONLY thing he ever wrote on RACE...then you might have won your argument. But unfortunately, it isn't. You keep forgetting that the passages I posted, which you have expanded upon, were posted to show that his argument was one of GENETICS....which you were trying to deny.

Genetics do effect IQ. What he is pointing to is a cultural phenomenon that is agnostic to race or ethnicity, which he makes plain.

 

[Ganesh]

:roll: No one has ever claimed that wages and prices are carved in stone. We have pointed out the effects of price floors.



There are two ways to determine value for a good or service:

1. What people are willing to pay for it.
2. Central authority tries to declare a value.

Now, the interesting thing is, unless government finds a way to mandate purchase under #2, #1 has a way of reasserting itself. Which is why, if we decide to shoot for that $10.10 or $15 MW, we are going to see a lot less demand for our lowest-skill laborers.

There are many factors that go into determination of price, and also into people's "willingness" to pay. If it is a lifesaving operation in question, and consumer x must sell his home and assets, even though he thinks it an outrageous ripoff, he probably will. If the price of home insurance is exorbitant, but consumer x cannot get a mortgage without insurance, then he is likely to pay anyway. If the price of that home is now $800k, whereas it was $600k a few months ago, but is being pumped up relentlessly by speculative hot money, he will often buy anyway, if a home is needed in an area where his employment and/or other priorities are located. In short, in many significant areas, consumer x is along for the ride, with overarching economic trends beyond his control, and willingness but a lone factor.

Authorities often do set prices, and the tendency is for them to hold, and not reassert themselves in any fashion. Taxi or courier services, for example, are often closely regulated as to price, for good reason. Open competition would mean an ever lowering of standards until we had Bangladesh style rickshaws running the streets, as operators raced themselves to the bottom of the heap. Farm marketing boards also, in some locations, strictly regulate price, in order to even out the uncertainties of the environment on food production.

Authorities tend to set such prices or wages to round out the excesses and inefficiencies of the market. So too with the MW. Without it we would eventually have dollar day sweepers, and three dollar a day hamburger flippers, and we would be well on our way back to sharecropping days. Ya's mass'a.

No. Society does not have the right to "determine fairness" for others. Government has claimed for itself the power to price the poor out of the labor market, which it exercises, and is not at all the same thing.

The government is us, and so you are saying that we do not have a right to determine fairness in society? If not us, then who does?

True. Capital, however, exists in competition with labor. So, when you increase the cost of labor, you give capital a marginal advantage.

You know all those self-checkout lines they have at Wal Mart et. al. now? Did you notice when they started rolling those out? It was right after the last MW hike. Wal Mart figured out how to replace 4 register workers with 1 worker capable of keeping 4 lines going.

Now, I wonder what happened to those other three register workers? I'm sure now that MW was raised they all got jobs as our aforementioned dental assistants :roll:

Capital today has more than a marginal advantage over labour. It has a massive advantage. Indeed, that is the central issue of our economy and labour force today. That's one of the reasons we are seeing such a huge divergence in wealth in the economy today. And that is why political solutions will be needed to address the problem, because the market is not going to do it. The market will automate when it makes sense, and otherwise pay as little as possible to workers. With no interventions, we will then proceed to a truly divided society, with a small middle class, some extremely affluent, and a larger group of extremely poor.

 

[Ganesh]

No, he would do it when he believed it was wise and likely to be profitable to do so. Capital is not without cost, any more than labor is.




Now who is being simplistic?

No. He has several options. Among which are:

1. A higher MW will bring out more workers unattached to the workforce who have higher skill sets and social capital, who are capable of earning the higher wages. He can replace some of his lower-skill workers with them.

I don't really follow this. Your McDonald's manager is going to go out and get, what, Chef Andre to do the burgers, because he might as well if he is going to pay out all of $15/hr?

2. Illegal aliens come effectively without wage restrictions or tax burdens. So he can replace some of his lower-skill workers with them.

Perhaps, until the police show up at the door.

3. Some tasks may have been worth accomplishing at a lower cost, that are not worth accomplishing as much at a higher rate of cost. Take, for example, bringing in shopping carts. It keeps the parking lot looking nice, especially if you have the people who bring them in pick up trash etc. while they are out there. Overall it helps the business, but only marginally. But you don't have to do it as much - you can reduce your parking-lot-care by a significant amount while maintaining enough carts in the building for the people who are shopping at any given time. So, as the price rises, you cut down to requirements, because the service is no longer worth the price. So some don't have to even be replaced.

Yes, there may be some jobs that are not worth doing. And maybe they shouldn't be done, if that is the case. Where I live, shopping carts are returned by store employees that make somewhat better than minimum wage. Lot cleaning is done by a contractor paying union wages. It seems to work ok.

4. Capital is now relatively more advantageous because it's price has remained the same while the price of the labor against which it competes has risen. So he can replace some of his lower-skill workers with capital (Piggly Wiggly, for example, can buy more shopping carts, and McDonalds can buy automated ordering machines).

The cost of money has gone down in recent years, as interest rates have dropped. Money also now buys more in the way of technology, as computer software has continued it advance. The price of labour in the US has not increased, but been more of less stagnant for quite some time.

Workers are being replaced by technology, but it is not because of outrageous wage demands by workers. It is because the cost savings are huge, and would be even if workers here were making slave wages. Even China, for example, is starting to automate some industries, even with its $300/month workers. When McDonalds finds a software solution that allows it to dump its employees, and is salable to the public, you can bet they will do it, even with $5/hr labour costs.

No, we will end up with a $6 big mac, and an increasingly unemployed low-skill work force unable to buy that big mac.

Let's look at your reasoning here. Your libertarian McDonald's manager must now pay his workers $15/hr. He is ticked off that the peons could get so uppity, but there you are. It's now the law. What to do? He ain't going to sell his BMW, and his mistress needs a new fir coat. Pass the costs along, that's the ticket. Big Macs go from $5 to $7, starting next week. That should more than cover it.

Is this the end of McDonald's as we know it? Those with a reasonable income who take the kids to McDonald's are very unlikely to stop because of the price change. Those who are most sensitive to such price changes, have, in large measure, now more disposable income. I'll grant you that it does make some change. It nudges society in a certain direction, towards a more high wage, high price economy. Precedent has shown us this is not such a bad thing. The Scandinavian countries, Australia, and others tend to fit that description, and they are doing just fine.

It is a judgment, and it is one that government makes, which does not mean they are entitled to it. Government should not be in the business of kicking poor people out of work.

Nope, it should be in the business of keeping people employed, ensuring a just society, and providing solutions for those unemployed by causes beyond their control.

 

[Absentglare]

Genetics do effect IQ. What he is pointing to is a cultural phenomenon that is agnostic to race or ethnicity, which he makes plain.

Genetics do effect IQ?

How did you manage to solve nature versus nurture, genetics vs environment?

Or are you saying how chimpanzees have a lower IQ than humans ?

 

[Ganesh]

You really ought to look things up before you rant about them.

Dysgenic Pressure is that which causes negative traits to become more widely expressed than in the original mix. The Pressure is the Subject, Dysgenic is the effect. What Murray is discussing the tendency of more-educated/higher-IQ people to have fewer children in modern societies, which, given that IQ is partially inheritable, inevitably means that over time they are a smaller portion of the overall populace. It's the sociological effect that formed the basis for the movie Idiocracy, some of whose predictions are currently coming true in the Trump Presidential Campaign.

It is a cultural argument about birthrates.

Which is why he points out that "Women of all races and ethnic groups follow this pattern in similar fashion.".

I found the page you quoted. Here it is in full:

View attachment 67192799



FFS, the man just gave credence to the liberal argument that past inequality does extend into causing current and future inequality. You'd think liberals would be cheering that. :roll: But no. Because he points out data that is inconvenient to liberals as well, he must be smeared as a racist.



I realize it is intellectually easier and more emotionally gratifying to scream "RACIST" at people who point out inconvenient data. But just because idiot college students get away with it there doesn't mean you're going to be able to have it stand up here.

Jeez, I only had to get one paragraph into that quote get a flavour of this far right nutbar. The the brave, hard working, imaginative, self starting, high IQ immigrant previously seen is superior to more recent arrivals because, uh......they were white, for the most part? Talk about ethnic stereotyping. Talk about a lack of understanding of human psychology and development. Talk about racial bias. Talk about ignorance of history. And you are defending this guy?

 

[Absentglare]

Jeez, I only had to get one paragraph into that quote get a flavour of this far right nutbar. The the brave, hard working, imaginative, self starting, high IQ immigrant previously seen is superior to more recent arrivals because, uh......they were white, for the most part? Talk about ethnic stereotyping. Talk about a lack of understanding of human psychology and development. Talk about racial bias. Talk about ignorance of history. And you are defending this guy?

I may never understand how people continue to cite these blatantly racist studies for any reason.

Further, the audacity to proclaim that racism is not racist is bizarre.

 

[cpwill]

Jeez, I only had to get one paragraph into that quote get a flavour of this far right nutbar. The the brave, hard working, imaginative, self starting, high IQ immigrant previously seen is superior to more recent arrivals because, uh......they were white, for the most part? Talk about ethnic stereotyping. Talk about a lack of understanding of human psychology and development. Talk about racial bias. Talk about ignorance of history. And you are defending this guy?

I accept your implicit admission that you can't actually demonstrate your point.

And the immigrant origin continent currently most likely to send over high academic achievers and small business owners isn't Europe, but Asia. So no, not white :roll:

 

[David_N]

I accept your implicit admission that you can't actually demonstrate your point.

And the immigrant origin continent currently most likely to send over high academic achievers and small business owners isn't Europe, but Asia. So no, not white :roll:

You do realize you're admitting the study is racist?

 

[cpwill]

I don't really follow this. Your McDonald's manager is going to go out and get, what, Chef Andre to do the burgers, because he might as well if he is going to pay out all of $15/hr?

...sort of. He will hire labor whose value added is worth that $15, rather than lose money on his employees. These will be those workers with higher amounts of social capital, support resources, and soft skills. For example: upper middle class teenagers and moms v lower-income high school dropouts, or anyone with a history of drug abuse. Or he will hire workers who can interact better with capital. For example: workers capable of keeping 4 automated order lines running, allowing him to let the 4 people capable of keeping 1 line running go.

Perhaps, until the police show up at the door.

:lol: 12 million illegal aliens in this country says the odds of that are vanishingly low.

Yes, there may be some jobs that are not worth doing. And maybe they shouldn't be done, if that is the case.

See - this is why I have trouble buying the argument that people are trying to raise the minimum wage in order to help the poor. Because their response to the poor losing their jobs due to that policy eventually boils down to "oh well, **** them, then.".

The price of labour in the US has not increased, but been more of less stagnant for quite some time.

Actually the price of labor has continued to climb - you are thinking of wages. Remember that the Price of Labor includes non-wage benefits, taxes, and regulatory costs.

Workers are being replaced by technology, but it is not because of outrageous wage demands by workers. It is because the cost savings are huge, and would be even if workers here were making slave wages.

Low skill workers are replaced by capital and high-skill workers when it becomes profitable to do so (when the cost savings are serious, if not huge). Hiking the cost of labor up advantages capital, making those cost savings either appear, or grow.

In previous times, those workers would have been utilized in different businesses, fields, and areas. They would have been reallocated inside the economy. Since you have created a high price floor, however, you have effectively shut them out of the workforce. Many of them won't be able to get new jobs, as you will have raised the cost of entry to something greater than they can make.

When McDonalds finds a software solution that allows it to dump its employees, and is salable to the public, you can bet they will do it, even with $5/hr labour costs.

Sure. And if capital costs extended over the operational period come to (for example) $12 an hour, they won't do it until someone artificially hikes the price of labor to higher than that.

Your libertarian McDonald's manager

His ideology is irrelevant. It is profit/loss that matters. You are claiming he will willingly, endlessly, take a loss on labor because we told him to. He won't, because he has options.

must now pay his workers $15/hr. He is ticked off that the peons could get so uppity, but there you are. It's now the law. What to do?

He has a variety of options, some of which are discussed above.

Pass the costs along... Big Macs go from $5 to $7, starting next week. That should more than cover it.

No, because demand is sensitive to price for both labor and big macs. So big mac sales will drop as will demand for low-skilled labor.

Those with a reasonable income who take the kids to McDonald's are very unlikely to stop because of the price change.

If something I purchased that I didn't have to jumped 40% in price overnight, you can bet your bonnet I'd go to other options. I can make hamburgers myself just fine.

It nudges society in a certain direction, towards a more high wage, high price economy. Precedent has shown us this is not such a bad thing. The Scandinavian countries, Australia, and others tend to fit that description, and they are doing just fine

Yeah - having massive oil fields and the largest sovereign wealth fund does help, as does the ability to limit the supply of labor by keeping out illegal immigrants.

Nope, it should be in the business of keeping people employed, ensuring a just society, and providing solutions for those unemployed by causes beyond their control.

Sure, and if we wanted to do that we would get rid of the MW altogether. The MW wasn't created to help the poor, it was created to help get rid of undesirables.

 

[cpwill]

Authorities often do set prices, and the tendency is for them to hold, and not reassert themselves in any fashion. Taxi or courier services, for example, are often closely regulated as to price, for good reason. Open competition would mean an ever lowering of standards until we had Bangladesh style rickshaws running the streets, as operators raced themselves to the bottom of the heap. Farm marketing boards also, in some locations, strictly regulate price, in order to even out the uncertainties of the environment on food production.

:lol: no. Deregulation would mean Uber cars taking away the value of the Taxi medallions. Concentrated benefit v diffused costs is why we have such regulations.

Authorities tend to set such prices or wages to round out the excesses and inefficiencies of the market. So too with the MW. Without it we would eventually have dollar day sweepers, and three dollar a day hamburger flippers, and we would be well on our way back to sharecropping days.

No - without MW we would be able to employ those sections of the populace that are currently unemployable, because we wouldn't have priced them out of the market. Minimum wages were intended precisely to harm those sharecroppers who thought they could underbid Decent White Folks trying to raise Decent White Families on Decent White Pay:

Remember that the original controversy over the minimum wage centered on what to do about what Sidney Webb called the "unemployable class." It was Webb's belief, shared by many of the progressive economists affiliated with the American Economic Association, that establishing a minimum wage above the value of the unemployables' worth would lock them out of the market, accelerating their elimination as a class. This is essentially the modern conservative argument against the minimum wage, and even today, when conservatives make it, they are accused of — you guessed it — social Darwinism. But for the progressives at the dawn of the fascist moment, this was an argument for it. "Of all ways of dealing with these unfortunate parasites," Webb observed, "the most ruinous to the community is to allow them unrestrainedly to compete as wage earners."

Ross put it succinctly: "The Coolie cannot outdo the American, but he can underlive him." Since the inferior races were content to live closer to a filthy state of nature than the Nordic man, the savages did not require a civilized wage. Hence if you raised minimum wages to a civilized level, employers wouldn't hire such miscreants in preference to "fitter" specimens, making them less likely to reproduce and, if necessary, easier targets for forced sterilization. Royal Meeker, a Princeton economist and adviser to Woodrow Wilson, explained: "Better that the state should support the inefficient wholly and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind."..​

Ya's mass'a.

The government is us, and so you are saying that we do not have a right to determine fairness in society? If not us, then who does?

Government is not us. We elect representatives who are supposed to provide guidance to government, and who occasionally do so. So long as the regulatory agencies retain rule-making authority, however, the argument that "government is us" is without even theoretical merit, though it would remain without practical merit nonetheless.

Capital today has more than a marginal advantage over labour. It has a massive advantage.

Really? How come you have a job? How come I have a job?

The market will automate when it makes sense, and otherwise pay as little as possible to workers.

It is employers who will rationally seek to purchase the best labor that they can for the least cost, just as it is employees who will rationally seek the best compensation they can get for the work they want. The market is the ever-shifting equilibrium between them, with damage done to both sides when we put in idiotic things like price controls. Employers will lean more on capital when it becomes more profitable for them to do so. For example, in the wake of a MW hike to $15.

 

[Kushinator]

The MW wasn't created to help the poor, it was created to help get rid of undesirables.

:lol:

Minimum wages were created as a means to reduce exploitation of the low skill labor market. Outside of your appeal to emotion ("ohh the poor poor!"), what is your opposition to a MW?

 

[cpwill]

Minimum wages were created as a means to reduce exploitation of the low skill labor market.

:shrug: you are free to read the portions that you decided not to quote, which demonstrate that the exploitation that was intended was eugenic in nature. MW laws were intended for much the same purpose as the Davis-Bacon Act: to keep all them-there colords with their willingness to work for lower wages from Terkin Er Jerbs. Without the Jerbs, and with a good program of sterilization, they'd naturally reduce as a populace, lowering the cost to society of maintaining them.

Outside of your appeal to emotion ("ohh the poor poor!"), what is your opposition to a MW?

My opposition to the MW is primarily based on the fact that I believe (and this is supported, though I recognize there is dispute over the extent to which it occurs) that price floors in the labor market have similar effects as price floors elsewhere - to artificially reduce demand. The MW and hikes to the MW damage the poorest of the poor and our most vulnerable population by locking them out of the legitimate job market. I believe this is morally atrocious and abusive, though I would not ascribe those intents to those who support the MW/MW Hikes.

I have a secondary opposition to the MW, which is that I do not believe that the government should be setting prices. I believe that this distorts the market, leads to less effective allocation of resources, produces strong negative externalities, and reduces overall growth; whether it be prices for labor, prices for housing, prices for food, or prices for gasoline.



[[LATER EDIT]] I would like to point out that I deeply enjoy the fact that David_N has "liked" your post mocking concern for the poor.

 

[David_N]

:lol:

Minimum wages were created as a means to reduce exploitation of the low skill labor market. Outside of your appeal to emotion ("ohh the poor poor!"), what is your opposition to a MW?

He doesn't have a valid reason. Studies show different things about the MW from all sides, one thing is clear: Unemployment constantly changes and a MW increase can effect unemployment to some degree, usually adjusting itself as time goes on. Removing the minimum wage simply leaves low skill workers to be exploited for laughable wages, which will then cause them to rely on assistance, which most conservatives want to cut. I always say this, you can't have low wages and a gutted safety net. This is why I can't take conservative discussion on the minimum wage seriously, they're so far out of touch with reality that they truly believe getting rid of the minimum wage will help people, all while cutting the safety net and deregulating. Conservatives, by the very term, always seem to fight against progress, they have for decades.. Women's rights, voting rights, labor unions, the minimum wage, regulations, LGBT rights, higher education, evolution..... I could go on. But that's another point entirely. The minimum wage produces more benefits then negatives, I dare someone to attempt to argue this. Conservatives who oppose the minimum wage might have a valid point if they supported a strong safety net, which would make up for the low wages, which is happening now because WAGES ARE STILL LOW. The MW needs to be adjusted on a state by state basis as well, since, yes, there is a valid point to a $15 MW not working effectively in a place like Kentucky, outside of the cities. From what I can see, wills argument appears to be a ridiculous revision of why the MW was invented, and cherrypicking studies that show some harmful effects while ignoring the greater positive effects of the MW.

 

[Kushinator]

:shrug: you are free to read the portions that you decided not to quote, which demonstrate that the exploitation that was intended was eugenic in nature. MW laws were intended for much the same purpose as the Davis-Bacon Act: to keep all them-there colords with their willingness to work for low wages from Terkin Er Jerbs.

I didn't find anything worth quoting.

My opposition to the MW is primarily based on the fact that I believe (and this is supported, though I recognize there is dispute over the extent to which it occurs) that price floors in the labor market have similar effects as price floors elsewhere - to artificially reduce demand. The MW and hikes to the MW damage the poorest of the poor and our most vulnerable population by locking them out of the legitimate job market. I believe this is morally atrocious and abusive, though I would not ascribe those intents to those who support the MW/MW Hikes.

I have a secondary opposition to the MW, which is that I do not believe that the government should be setting prices. I believe that this distorts the market, leads to less effective allocation of resources, produces strong negative externalities, and reduces overall growth; whether it be prices for labor, prices for housing, prices for food, or prices for gasoline.

You are referring to introductory analysis of supply and demand, where markets are perfectly competitive, goods are homogeneous, there are no substitutes, etc.... When you start to peel away these assumptions, the "artificially reduce demand" argument doesn't hold much... wait, i get it, you still believe all workers are price setters?

:mrgreen:

 

[Kushinator]

He doesn't have a valid reason. Studies show different things about the MW from all sides, one thing is clear: Unemployment constantly changes and a MW increase can effect unemployment to some degree, usually adjusting itself as time goes on. Removing the minimum wage simply leaves low skill workers to be exploited for laughable wages, which will then cause them to rely on assistance, which most conservatives want to cut. I always say this, you can't have low wages and a gutted safety net. This is why I can't take conservative discussion on the minimum wage seriously, they're so far out of touch with reality that they truly believe getting rid of the minimum wage will help people, all while cutting the safety net and deregulating. Conservatives, by the very term, always seem to fight against progress, they have for decades.. Women's rights, voting rights, labor unions, the minimum wage, regulations, LGBT rights, higher education, evolution..... I could go on. But that's another point entirely. The minimum wage produces more benefits then negatives, I dare someone to attempt to argue this. Conservatives who oppose the minimum wage might have a valid point if they supported a strong safety net, which would make up for the low wages, which is happening now because WAGES ARE STILL LOW. The MW needs to be adjusted on a state by state basis as well, since, yes, there is a valid point to a $15 MW not working effectively in a place like Kentucky, outside of the cities. From what I can see, wills argument appears to be a ridiculous revision of why the MW was invented, and cherrypicking studies that show some harmful effects while ignoring the greater positive effects of the MW.

He believes it because he is told to by his ideological gods.

 

[David_N]

He believes it because he is told to by his ideological gods.

I wouldn't say that, I'd simply say conservatives are extremely unrealistic when it comes to the minimum wage.

 

[Kushinator]

I wouldn't say that, I'd simply say conservatives are extremely unrealistic when it comes to the minimum wage.

Will and i go way back.

Trust me, it's the gods.