LOki
Refusenik   SSHOLE |
Posts: 483 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
2/26/2006 at 14:52 |
The minimum wage is the minimum rate a worker can legally be paid (usually per hour) as set by statute. It is different from the lowest wage determined by the forces of supply and demand in a free market.
In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.
In other words: anybody whose work is not worth the minimum wage set by the government, shall not be employed. Nobody would support any minimum wage law if it were written precisely that way.
So, as an example, an industrious coffee shop owner is forced by the government to pay each employee, regardless of competence or worth, no less than $5.15 to pour coffee and wipe down counters. This means that if there are two employees whose job descriptions are objectively worth $1.00/hr (like pouring coffe and wiping counters for instance) the employer is still obligated to pay them each $5.15/hr--unfair to the employer--and, if one of the two employees' work is worth twice what the other's is, the worth-less employee still gets the same minimum wage as the worthy employee--unfair to the worthy.
But that's not the end of the unfairness--let's say this coffee shop owner works it out so that between the good worker and the slacker he can get $10.30 of work out of them, breaking even. What that means is that the good worker is not only being over-worked and under-paid, but until the slacker decides to step up productivity some, there's no chance for a raise since his productivity is being stolen to subsidize the slacker's slacking habits--which, of course, does nothing to motivate this bong-smoke socialist to do anything but slack off some more.
The injustice is not over yet. Let's assume we are just talking about someonewho really wants to work, and not some glue-huffing retard who thinks his dedication to wearing black fingernail polish, rather than work is merit enough for a rock star's paycheck. Lets also say that welfare pays the equvalent of $3.50/hr. What minimum wage says is that even if this guy who wants to work, wanted to work for $5.00/hr, he would be a criminal for doing so, as well as his employer. That despite the agreement between them that the job is worth $5.00/hr, the government rolls in and declares that this workers effort are worth nothing--so much so in fact, that they are willing to pay him $3.50/hr to do nothing! Not only does this guy get less than he could earn, we don't even get the benefit of his services--the job is not being done, or if it is, it's being done by some poor schlep who's desperately trying hard enough to merit his $11k/year job so he doesn't have to be a $7k/year welfare recipient himself--or, this work being done by someone, like you perhaps, who is getting paid well in excess of the minimum wage because your effort merits it, but now your productivity suffers because you are scrubbing the men's room urinals instead of the actual job you were hired for. Then you wonder why you get no raise despite the fact that you're doing both your job and that of the janitor.
So, the result now,is that we have this cup of coffee that costs a quarter in materials, and has to cost the consumer $5.00 to cover the artificially inflated wages of this apathetic, nose-ringed, angst ridden, hemp activist beverage pourer with sanctimonious delusions of socal entitlement.
In order to cover that $5.00 cup of coffee, the guy who actually earns $5.15/hr must be paid $25.00/hr because that's just about where 1 cup of premium coffee, brewed using the best equipment available, served competently and courteuosly should rate against the wages of someone who's work is worth $5.15--that is ~1/5, or ~$1.00. Thanks to minimum wage, your 5-spot is worth only a buck.
You should also be able to predict from this, that the employer of this coffee drinker must inflate the costs of their services to cover the artificially inflated wages of his employees as well, all which continues to erode the value of the 5-spot--not only the 5-spots being spent, but also the 5-spots being use for wages. The real insidious part of minimum wage infaltion is that it works not only to devalue wages, but it also increases prices at the same time. So the government give the minimum wage recipient a raise--they end up giving everyone else a raise too, while making everything more expensive to buy with a minimum wage; provided employers can still sell enough $5.00 lattes to keep paying minimum wage employees--otherwise: crack whore; the unregulated labor force!
That's right, there's an unregulated labor force out there: prostitution, cock fighting, drug dealing, gun running, child pornography, slavery, burgulary--not to mention "undocumented foriegn laborers." Why are there so many Mexicans and Southeast Asians working under the table in the U.S.? Is it because they have a penchant for exploitation? Hell no! They're here because some jobs are really worth less than $5.15/hr, and they're willing to take that wage, and that's more than they'd make in the country where they were being exploited.
Which brings up racism. That's right; the minimum wage is racist. In this country minimum wage means being white is worth no less than $5.15/hr. How does this work? Like this: If 2 prospective employees--one black, one white, but otherwise equal--apply for a minimum wage job, Mr. AryanFront employer can hire white guy with a crew cut and golf shirt at no financial cost--none. He doesn't even have to worry about his competitors picking up the aspiring black worker for less, because they too have to pay him $5.15/hr. If this black worker were allowed to contract his labor for $4.00/hr, or $5.14 even, choosing the white guy would cost RacistJackass $1.15/hr (or $0.01 depending). Moreover, his competitors, if not racist, have the opportunity to hire the black worker at a cost advantage.
If you think this is not the case, you should check out how the white dominated unions in apartheid South Africa complained that the lack of minimum wage regulations led employers to hire cheap black laborers over better trained and better paid white folks. Which, coincidentally was exactly the same argument (check the cogressional record) used by Robert Bacon when he wrote the Davis-Bacon Act (the first minmum wage law) in response to Southern contractors bringing black labor to a federal project in his Long Island district; a labor regulation which forces contractors engaged in government contracts to pay employees union wage scale (unions, which incidently were, at the time, usually exclusively white); effectively barring Southern blacks and immigrants from working on plush, government funded construction projects.
Minimum wage doesn't neccessarily have to be racist; on it's best day, minimum wage is only a state sponsored protection for older, higher paid workers from the competition of anyone who would accept less pay for the same work. The surprise for me was that though I understood that minimum wage and Davis-Bacon were, in observable and measurable effect, racist policies--I just had no idea that they were racist in intent. It's not my intent to describe why I think racism is wrong, so back to this coffee shop owner I've been discussing.
Consider for the moment that a pound of premium coffee only costs the coffee shop owner about the same $5.15 he's paying his internally and eternally disgruntled employee each hour. I say "only" because it most likely comes from a nation without a state inflated minimum wage; if it did, then eveybody from the bean-bag loader on up would have to be subsidized by the coffee drinker, and that half-caf-2%-double vanilla latte with nutmeg and cinnamon would cost $25.00 instead of the extortionate $5.00 already causing wallet anurisms everywhere.
Things could be worse; we could be subject to the ridiculous notions of "Living Wage" proponents. These short sighted assholes believe any job worth doing for 40 hours a week (even if done poorly) is worth a wage one can live on. It's a career. Like pouring fuking coffee for instance. The thrust (in all our asses) is that if someone's intelligence, talent, industriousness, or abition limits their social contribution to pouring coffee, their claim on society for food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, and pension (not to mention esteem, respect, affirmation and validation) should NOT be limited--and that it is morally valid to make that unlimitied claim at (government) gunpoint.
I doubt that anyone could argue that $100k/year is insufficent to cover the substistence of a family of 4, let alone an individual. You don't have to be an economist as savvy as Greenspan to predict that guaranteeing everyone in the country $100k salary would soon lead to rampant inflation and the loss of jobs (like pouring coffee) that no one under any circumstance will pay $100k for--leaving the poor unable to afford a $100.00 box of Rice Krispies, or any thing else for that matter.
Living wage is just the expansion of minimum wage to dumbass proportions. Minimum wage is morally and fiscally bankrupt for the same reasons that Living wage is; and Living wage is morally and fiscally bankrupt as for the exact same reasons that giving everyone in the country $100k salary would be--and ultimately just as impotent.
Artificially devaluing the rewards for productive capacity (by artificially making $1.00/hr worth of work pay any amount more, say $50.00/hr, for instance) requires more money to be printed because buyers and sellers still know what shit is worth regardless of what the government says about the dollars. Printing more money, without also increasing productivity must lead inevitably to inflation. It does so because there is just more money around. Spain discovered this back in the days when gold was the universal meduium of exchange, and they were looting the central and South Americans of all the gold they had. Ripping off the Mayans did not make any Spaniard any more ptoductive--they weren't creating any new wealth. Introducing all that new gold in the Spanish economy did not make every Spanish citizen more wealthy--they just had more gold. Having more gold was of little consolation when it took twice your daily wages in gold to get a day's worth of food.
The real irony is that those who propose these "wage justice" ponzi schemes do so for the alleged benefit of the poor; yet inflation can benefit the rich that these assholes are opposed to on their bullshit principles. Inflation benefits those who can afford to put their excess wealth into real goods like land, durable goods, stocks, and art. So, if these folks have excess stuff to sell, stuff purchased at pre-inflationary prices--stocks perhaps, they not only get to experience capital gains (if the value of the stock grew) but also the profits from the new inflated price structure.
Those who can merely save, get crushed by the fact that the $10.00 they set aside last week is worth only $9.50 this week. In fact, everyone who acts as a lender, wether it's being a savings account holder, health insurance owner, IRA, 401k, homeowner's insurance, bond holding, etc., get shafted because the money you are being payed back with is worth less than the money you contributed, which cuts into, or negates your interest dividend.
So, those who can have a $5.00 cup of coffee (or a $10.00 loaf of bread) and still have money left over are the ones who could invest. They are the ones who can sell their cheaply aquired stock at a profit for no other reason than the government drove the price up. And if they still have that same inflated amount of money when inflation eventually recedes, they realize a government granted windfall that those unable to afford expensive durable goods, stocks, and $17.50 bowls of cornflakes can't. You should now be able to predict what this trickle-up economic policy means for those at the top of the economic food chain--particularly those who are already rich: a big fat unearned raise provided artificially, through the use of force, by the government. Those at the bottom get a wage (if they still have a job) that looks better than the one they had before, but oddly provides so much less. Well done!
Of course, if we were to make the minimum wage $100k/year, in the long run, provided there is no additional government interference, the whole thing would shake out to just about where we are now, except that the same retarded cranks who now gripe that 17k/year is insufficient for the poor, will then claim that 100k/year is insufficient for the poor. So why do we engage in this bullshit? It's because we would like to say, "Human beings, no matter how worthless, are worth something, some minimum." It's a grandiose gesture that a human being's social worth, particiularly to politicians, is equatable to economic worth--despite the fact that determining such worth is so evasive that it has to be established at gunpoint.Too often, we give the benefit of the doubt to folks who support a higher minimum wage. We shouldn't. There are only two reasons someone would support so bad an idea: either they don't realize the economic harm it causes, or they want the harm. After all this, and all this time, I think they want the harm.
____________________
|
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian  SSHOLEPosts: 946 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
2/26/2006 at 15:36 |
"Rock star wages" ??
Maybe their should be a maximum wage for those at the other end of the spectrum.
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
Stump
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 310 Registered: 6/18/2002 Offline
|
2/26/2006 at 16:07 |
Once again a fantastic post Loki, although you must feel extra strong on this one as I counted at least three typos, something I don't recall seeing in any of your other similar posts.
Relate a little story on minimum wages & raises:
When I was bartending for a corporate hotel I had been there two years, second longest of any hourly employee at the time in that department. the pay was actually decent at $7.00/hr supplemented by tips which were damn good since most people were on expense acounts and we learned quick where to tack on 18% gratuity and not say anything then watch people add on to it. I was getting a lot of recoginition from the guests and extra duties from the boss so I approached him about a possible raise. I was turned down, it was corporate policy that hourly employees were paid a department minimum. They only gave a raise when the whole department deserved it or minimum wage went up.
Had they made this more widely known it could have been effective social engineering. In your coffee shop example the slacker could have been driven out by the better workers so that they could acheive that deserved raise. It may also have had the reverse effect however, as mandatory minimum wage tends to, and just caused everyone to be complacent and sink to the same level of stink.
____________________
Life loaded, verifying client data, please wait......... |
| |
dragonstaff
Too old to Rock and Roll...too young to die  SSHOLEPosts: 741 Registered: 8/19/2004 Offline
|
2/26/2006 at 20:00 |
jwalker: Maybe their should be a maximum wage for those at the other end of the spectrum.
This is a much better idea. CEO's 'earning'(?) millions each year, and even here there are some who get more in an hour than I make in a year, is nothing short of obscene. No-one can honestly claim to be worth the GDP of a small African country.
____________________
The Grumpiest Alpha
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit  SSHOLEPosts: 423 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
2/26/2006 at 20:52 |
The more common debate is on changes to minimum wages. This unified view was challenged by empirical research done by David Card and Alan Krueger. In their 1997 book Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (ISBN 0-691-04823-1), they argued the negative employment effects of minimum-wage laws to be minimal if not non-existent (at least for the United States). For example, they look at the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case, Card and Krueger present evidence ostensibly showing that increases in the minimum wage led to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs. That is, it appears that the demand for low-wage workers is inelastic. Also, these authors reexamine the existing literature on the minimum wage and argue that it, too, lacks support for the claim that a higher minimum wage cuts the availability of jobs.
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 the only role of wages is as a cost. If monopsony exists, then an increase in the minimum wage can raise 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.
On the other hand, and 1890's were absolutely wonderful years, weren't they? |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
2/26/2006 at 22:01 |
Dragonstaff:
No one can claim to be worth a small african country, but anyone can claim to be worth more than somebody who is already claiming to be worth more than a small african country. Do you see what I'm trying to say?
Loki: I feel that your argument is unjustified for a few reasons. 1st is the return to the 19th century argument. Your claims about why the minimum wage is bad could also be applied to why restrictions on child labor are bad. There is a certain point in the American psyche, where we don't feel comfortable knowing that people are working for arbitrarily small sums of money. The same goes for the living wage. Especially when we see rich CEOs making tons of money.
I understand this is not a justification of minimum wage, in your sense.
2. You have this figure of welfare being $3.50 an hour. I don't know if that's true. Let's say it is true, and that minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Clearly, if we got rid of the minimum wage, we'd still have welfare putting out a minimum wage of $3.50/hr. The only people who would work for less would be people with too much pride to take welfare. So with minimum wage, we have to look at the people who are getting screwed by it as the people who are capable of working for more money/hr than welfare provides, but are not capable of working for minimum wage. That is, their services are worth more than $3.50 and less than $5.15. How many people is this? I don't know. I guess I could say, if one person is getting fucked because he's losing a dollar per hour, then I'm ok with that. If one million people are getting fucked, maybe I'm not ok. Need numbers.
3. Minimum wage increases inflation marginally. I think you are correct in building your straw man of $100/hr minimum wage, and then destroying it mercilessly. I think moderate increases in minimum wage to keep it consistent with the increasing consumer price index does not have a significant impact on inflation. Additionally, minimum wage has only a marginal effect on the purchasing power of your dollar when you consider coffee from starbucks as a luxurious alternative to brewing it at home every morning. If you think about the labor costs of growing coffee beans, refining them, packaging them, shipping them to the supermarket, stocking them on the shelves, and then selling them, I think you'll find that minimum wage is not a terrible burden. I don't have the figures, but I would GUESS that if we got rid of minimum wage, and all the laborers in that long chain I described made $2 less, you would not notice the price difference.
4. Claim: the minimum wage decreases our export deficit by increasing the purchasing power of American citizens. I'm not necessarily saying this is true, I just heard it somewhere. What's a trade deficit? Who's a trade deficit? Why does it matter? Does minimum wage really reduce the trade deficit, or what? I knew this stuff at one point, or at least I thought I knew it, back when I was taking a macroecon class. Maybe you have some thoughts.
____________________
I disagree. |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 483 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
2/26/2006 at 23:37 |
Mofo:
The more common debate is on changes to minimum wages. This unified view was challenged by empirical research done by David Card and Alan Krueger. In their 1997 book Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (ISBN 0-691-04823-1), they argued the negative employment effects of minimum-wage laws to be minimal if not non-existent (at least for the United States). For example, they look at the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case, Card and Krueger present evidence ostensibly showing that increases in the minimum wage led to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs. That is, it appears that the demand for low-wage workers is inelastic. Also, these authors reexamine the existing literature on the minimum wage and argue that it, too, lacks support for the claim that a higher minimum wage cuts the availability of jobs.
Benjamin Zycher:
Looking just at Burger King restaurants, for instance, the Card/Krueger survey data show employment declines in two of three Pennsylvania zip codes, while the payroll data show employment increases in all three zip codes. Neumark and Wascher conclude that the questions used by Card and Krueger were too vague to generate precise information. For example, the survey asked how many "full-time" and "part-time" employees a restaurant had. But it didn't define either those terms (40 hours a week? 30?) or the relevant time period (within the last week? month? year?), leaving different restaurant managers to define the question differently. In short, using the actual payroll data instead of the survey "guesstimates" effectively refutes the Card/Krueger findings yielded by the New Jersey/Pennsylvania "natural experiment."
See also: Neumark, David and William Wascher, The Effect of New Jersey's Minimum Wage Increase on Fast-food Employment: A Re-evaluation using Payroll Records. National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, 1995.
Mofo:
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 the only role of wages is as a cost. If monopsony exists, then an increase in the minimum wage can raise 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. Just as there is no such thing as a coercive monopoly in a free market, there is no such thing as a coercive monopsony in a free market either--and for the exact same reasons. Coercive monoposony is wrong, and the solution is not to add further wrong to the problem with minimum wages--the solution is to get rid of the coercive monopsony.
____________________
|
| |
government_death_robot
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 908 Registered: 4/23/2004 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 00:22 |
You guys are good at this game.
____________________
bwned. |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 00:37 |
What's a monopsony?
____________________
I disagree. |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint  SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 01:45 |
What's a monopsony?
Google, bitch |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 01:50 |
I know about google. I was trying to make a point that monopsony is a word that I don't know, and probably lots of other people.
Let's keep it real, ladies and gentlemen.
____________________
I disagree. |
| |
JohnLenin
Putting the semen in amusement  SSHOLEPosts: 1017 Registered: 7/8/2005 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 03:03 |
dinozoa: I know about google. I was trying to make a point that monopsony is a word that I don't know, and probably lots of other people.
Let's keep it real, ladies and gentlemen.
Are you even qualified to keep it real?
____________________
Marf> omg <3 u 4 ever |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 946 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 03:05 |
dinozoa: I know about google. I was trying to make a point that monopsony is a word that I don't know, and probably lots of other people.
Let's keep it real, ladies and gentlemen.
Oh please - don't be so persuvious.
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
middle_age_man
Mostly Harmless  SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 1/11/2005 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 03:18 |
I’d think that a cup of coffee is set at that price for reasons other than simple wages. The typical commercial space in an average sized city is $94 - $125 sq. ft. The finishing on the interior was likely 90% financed along with the equipment. After you add insurance and utilities you have an incredibly high monthly overhead to meet.
I would add further that $5 cups of coffee are what the market seems to bear. We are living in an age where people demand $50 t-shirts emblazoned with corporate branding so a $5 cup of coffee is just another trapping of pseudo affluence.
____________________
" Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy."
George Carlin |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 03:23 |
$5 cups of coffee
Unless you're the type of douche who goes to Starbuck's and orders a double-half-caf-mochachino or whatever-the-fuck, where are you getting $5 cups of coffee? You can go to any local coffee shop and get regular coffee for like $1.25.
Also, inflation and the cost of living have risen in the past few years, but not the minimum wage. I wonder if there was an accompanying shift in unemployment. If unemployment went down, I'd guess that Loki is right. |
| |
Dumbskull
I'm assuming the position!  SSHOLEPosts: 1896 Registered: 4/22/2004 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 03:26 |
You do not understand monopsony yet you turn around and bust out with a great big multisyllable persuvious?
WOW; did you just shit that one out?
____________________
Easier to get into than a community college. |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 03:39 |
There is no google or dictionary.com entry for persuvious. You are a festizio. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 946 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 04:37 |
Dumbskull: You do not understand monopsony yet you turn around and bust out with a great big multisyllable persuvious?
WOW; did you just shit that one out?
i've been goobersmacked.
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 04:53 |
Why aren't I qualified to keep it real?
____________________
I disagree. |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 483 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 12:48 |
dragonstaff:
jwalker: Maybe their should be a maximum wage for those at the other end of the spectrum. This is a much better idea. CEO's 'earning'(?) millions each year, and even here there are some who get more in an hour than I make in a year, is nothing short of obscene. No-one can honestly claim to be worth the GDP of a small African country. Demonstrate this. Either of you. I doubt you can, but give it a shot.
dinoza:
Your claims about why the minimum wage is bad could also be applied to why restrictions on child labor are bad. There is a certain point in the American psyche, where we don't feel comfortable knowing that people are working for arbitrarily small sums of money. The same goes for the living wage. "Arbitrary" is quite literally what minimum wage and living wage determined by government fiat is. Thanks for trying.
dinoza:
You have this figure of welfare being $3.50 an hour. I don't know if that's true. Let's say it is true, and that minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Clearly, if we got rid of the minimum wage, we'd still have welfare putting out a minimum wage of $3.50/hr. The only people who would work for less would be people with too much pride to take welfare. So with minimum wage, we have to look at the people who are getting screwed by it as the people who are capable of working for more money/hr than welfare provides, but are not capable of working for minimum wage. That is, their services are worth more than $3.50 and less than $5.15. How many people is this? I don't know. I guess I could say, if one person is getting fucked because he's losing a dollar per hour, then I'm ok with that. If one million people are getting fucked, maybe I'm not ok. Need numbers. a) My welfare at $3.50/hr is pretty accurate. There's not really a check that says "welfare" on it, and qualification for the various public assistance programs that are welfare change what each gets you.
b) In addition to those whose work is worth more that welfare and less than minimum wage, you don't count those getting fuked over who are paying minimum wage for jobs that need to be done and are worth less than minimum wage, and those who are doing jobs worth less than minimum wage but not being paid for it.
c) Welfare is also wrong for the same reasons (and others maybe) that minimum wage is wrong--so add to the "fuked" list those subsidizing welfare.
d) Regardless, why is it "ok" that people get fuked over by the governemnt?
dinoza:
Minimum wage increases inflation marginally. If so, how does that make it acceptable?
dinoza:
I think you are correct in building your straw man of $100/hr minimum wage, and then destroying it mercilessly. Check the definition of strawman against my argument--you're wrong.
dinoza:
Additionally, minimum wage has only a marginal effect on the purchasing power of your dollar when you consider coffee from starbucks as a luxurious alternative to brewing it at home every morning. Are you saying that cumulative inflation and cumulative costs are irrelevant? Are you saying that Starbucks need the additional burden of inflation to curb it's advantage over home-brewed coffee? Are you saying that inflation only affects luxury items?
dinoza:
What's a monopsony? A monoposny is like a monopoly from the other direction. A monopoly is where you have a single seller, or sole source, of a product selling to multiple buyers. Monopsony is where you have a singe buyer, or consumer, of a product who buys from many sellers.
Like monopolies, monopsonies are only bad when they are coercive. And like monopolies, monopsonies can only be coercive with government sanction and assistance.
I think it's not coincidental that labor unions strive to be labor monopsonies and support minimum wage laws.
middle_age_man :
I’d think that a cup of coffee is set at that price for reasons other than simple wages. The typical commercial space in an average sized city is $94 - $125 sq. ft. The finishing on the interior was likely 90% financed along with the equipment. After you add insurance and utilities you have an incredibly high monthly overhead to meet. Commercial space built, maintained, equipped, and serviced by workers whose wages are inflated by minimum wage laws.
On 2006-02-27 at 06:52:44, LOki enjoyed furrysex
____________________
|
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 423 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 17:25 |
Just as there is no such thing as a coercive monopoly in a free market, there is no such thing as a coercive monopsony in a free market either--and for the exact same reasons. Coercive monoposony is wrong, and the solution is not to add further wrong to the problem with minimum wages--the solution is to get rid of the coercive monopsony.
Since when did the term free market apply to the US economy?
Like monopolies, monopsonies are only bad when they are coercive. And like monopolies, monopsonies can only be coercive with government sanction and assistance.
1870's - 1890's in America, 1760-1850 in England; those were periods of the closest any major country has come to Laissez-faire, no? Since 'bad' is a term up to your discretion in politics/economics, you could view the monopolies of that time in different ways, but I'd say they weren't the angels you're making them out to be. (or they could be for all I know)
Off topic: do you support child labor loki?
On 2006-02-27 at 11:26:37, Mofo enjoyed furrysex |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 483 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
2/27/2006 at 23:56 |
Mofo:
LOki:
Just as there is no such thing as a coercive monopoly in a free market, there is no such thing as a coercive monopsony in a free market either--and for the exact same reasons. Coercive monoposony is wrong, and the solution is not to add further wrong to the problem with minimum wages--the solution is to get rid of the coercive monopsony.
Since when did the term free market apply to the US economy? Right. That's my point.
Mofo:
LOki:
Like monopolies, monopsonies are only bad when they are coercive. And like monopolies, monopsonies can only be coercive with government sanction and assistance.
1870's - 1890's in America, 1760-1850 in England; those were periods of the closest any major country has come to Laissez-faire, no? Since 'bad' is a term up to your discretion in politics/economics, you could view the monopolies of that time in different ways, but I'd say they weren't the angels you're making them out to be. (or they could be for all I know) Check into those abusive monopolies yourself and tell me which exactly were not sanctioned, created and/or enforced by the government--then bring me those to examine.
Mofo:
Off topic: do you support child labor loki?
I do not believe in child slavery, nor do I believe in age discrimination in labor--so yes, I support child labor, provided the parents of said children are not using them for slave labor.
____________________
|
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 423 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
2/28/2006 at 01:05 |
You seem more keen on economics, so how was Standard Oil "sanctioned, created and/or enforced by the government"? |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
2/28/2006 at 01:32 |
Oh shit Mofo, you are opening yourself up to rape.
For an interesting read on Standard Oil, I recommend The Prize, by Daniel Yergin. He pretty clearly entails how Standard Oil became an extension of the US government, or vice-versa.
Loki: I don't feel very strongly about the minimum wage, because I'm not clear on if it's necessarily a good thing, because of many of the points that you bring up.
Why is it ok if some people get fucked by the government? You have a point. I don't know.
I still believe considering a $100/hr argument to be a straw man. If you want to talk about minimum wage, consider what it is, not what it hypothetically could be. I don't think anybody in the world wants $100/hr minimum wage.
Starbucks is a luxury. You're attacking minimum wage by saying it inflates the prices of commodities, but I would say that this price offset, for non-labor intensive commodities, is cancelled by the increased purchasing power of minimum wage laborers. I don't have any numbers. What do I know?
I don't support child labor because I don't respect kids abilities to choose to work a job over going to school or whatever. I guess I think they should be given the option to work, if they really want to, because I don't have much respect for public schooling. I don't think this question is easily polarized into "I support child labor" or "I am against it."
____________________
I disagree. |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 423 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
2/28/2006 at 04:33 |
I guess I could be, but past debates have shown that hasn't stopped me yet.
I'll check out the Prize. |
| |
DonQuixote
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 641 Registered: 4/22/2005 Offline
|
2/28/2006 at 05:22 |
Loki,
Why do you care so much about minimum wage laws? Do you own a small business or work a minimum wage job? May I suggest reading the Dali Lama's "Path To Enlightenment". Or at least watching "Fight Club".
Peace out man. Let that anger go and you'll be one step closer to being truly happy (according to buddhist gobledy gook).
One Love,
Don Quixote
That's a Windmill I wouldn't even tilt
____________________
( . )( . ) <--- Boobs. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 946 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
2/28/2006 at 05:27 |
What if it was changed around so it supported our values. How do you feel about a minimum salary for state educators?
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 423 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
2/28/2006 at 05:37 |
jwalker: What if it was changed around so it supported our values. How do you feel about a minimum salary for state educators?
You mean minimum wage?
If you go beyond minimum wage, is working at Sams Club worth then $10/h starting salary?
On 2006-02-27 at 23:38:55, Mofo enjoyed furrysex |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 483 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
2/28/2006 at 12:46 |
Mofo:
You seem more keen on economics, so how was Standard Oil "sanctioned, created and/or enforced by the government"? dinoza:
Oh shit Mofo, you are opening yourself up to rape.
For an interesting read on Standard Oil, I recommend The Prize, by Daniel Yergin. He pretty clearly entails how Standard Oil became an extension of the US government, or vice-versa. Thanks dinoza, few realize that Standard Oil was granted vast preferrential treatment by the U.S. government to establish petrol-fuel technologies (over say, ethanol based fuel technologies) as well as creating a homogenous pipeline distribution infrastructure for dielivery of said petro-fuels. The grants, incentives, sub-market land leases and sales to Standard Oil led to the establishment of petroleulum based fuel sources to be preferred over all others because the government established an unfair market advantage for not only petroleum fuel, but for Standard Oil in particular.
dinoza:
I still believe considering a $100/hr argument to be a straw man. If you want to talk about minimum wage, consider what it is, not what it hypothetically could be. I don't think anybody in the world wants $100/hr minimum wage. I am not saying that minimum wage $100/hr, so I'm not making that straw man; nor am I saying that minimum wage proponents are saying that minimum wage should be $100/hr, so I'm not making that strawman either.
What I am saying is that the princples upon which minimum wage proponents base their argument is inconsistent with the minimum wage being only $5.15/hr, rather than $100.00/hr. I'm saying that for the same reasons harm is done at a $100/hr minimum wage, harm is done at a $5.15/hr minimum wage.
You've made the most common retort to this which is essentially: "Why complain about the $5.15/hr abuse? It's not like it's $100/hr abuse."
I still say why tolerated ANY of this abuse? Why is it good? Why is it acceptable?
dinoza:
Starbucks is a luxury. You're attacking minimum wage by saying it inflates the prices of commodities, but I would say that this price offset, for non-labor intensive commodities, is cancelled by the increased purchasing power of minimum wage laborers. I don't have any numbers. What do I know? Minimum wage inflates EVERYTHING--including non-minimum wage wages. The consequence is that the buying power of the minimum wage is eroded, NOT increased. Everyone gets fuked some by the minimum wage--the only ones who do not get fuked by every means are those who produce value significantly greater than the minimum wage. Minimum wage does the most harm to the very people it's proponents claim it benefits.
SoFukingWhat:
Why do you care so much about minimum wage laws? Do you own a small business or work a minimum wage job? May I suggest reading the Dali Lama's "Path To Enlightenment". Or at least watching "Fight Club".
Peace out man. Let that anger go and you'll be one step closer to being truly happy (according to buddhist gobledy gook). This why you are hated.
jwalker:
What if it was changed around so it supported our values. How do you feel about a minimum salary for state educators? It's wrong for the reasons alredy noted. Also, we already have that system, and it's not working (or at least your introduction of the concept indicates it's not working for you).
____________________
|
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 946 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
2/28/2006 at 16:14 |
LOki: jwalker:
What if it was changed around so it supported our values. How do you feel about a minimum salary for state educators? It's wrong for the reasons alredy noted. Also, we already have that system, and it's not working (or at least your introduction of the concept indicates it's not working for you).
Very funny. What I'm asking you is whether your reasoning is a philosophical absolute, or if you would bend the logic a little where it makes sense.
According to you, state regulations on income would never make sense because of the socio-economic principles that you adhere to like superglue. I point out that in the right context, an incentive towards raising the standard of living for everyone else might outweigh the negatives.
On 2006-02-28 at 10:28:11, jwalker enjoyed furrysex
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
|
