The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Should the federal minimum wage be $15 hourly? » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (17 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8..15~16~17 [Next]
Senor Fabuloso
View Profile
Inner circle
1243 Posts

Profile of Senor Fabuloso
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, Senor Fabuloso wrote:
Or do you disagree with the site and in so doing, disagree with my post?

As I have made crystal clear, I completely agree with the site, and completely disagree with you.



LOL But it was I, who posted the site. Now your just arguing for the sake of arguing. I have more important things to do. So teach your class and I'll return, when I can learn something from you.
No matter how many times you say the wrong thing, it will NEVER be right.

If I'm not responding to you? It's because you're a TROLL!
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Oct 30, 2018, Mr Salk wrote:
I suspect a purely economic-discussion with Bill would prove enlightening. But wages and needs are also squishy humanitarian concerns.
It's cold to use economic-theory to justify exploitation.

I didn't realize that I was trying to justify exploitation.

What I'm saying is that while minimum wage laws benefit the minimum-wage workers who keep their jobs, they harm the minimum-wage workers who lose their jobs because employers cannot (or will not) pay the increased wage. And the net result is generally that minimum-wage earners collectively earn less money in toto.

Which is better: Bob and his neighbor George each earn $10 per hour, or Bob earns $15 per hour and George loses his job?
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, Senor Fabuloso wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, Senor Fabuloso wrote:
Or do you disagree with the site and in so doing, disagree with my post?

As I have made crystal clear, I completely agree with the site, and completely disagree with you.

LOL But it was I, who posted the site.

Apparently without understanding that it was saying that you were wrong.
Mr Salk
View Profile
Special user
Tied to
568 Posts

Profile of Mr Salk
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 30, 2018, Mr Salk wrote:
I suspect a purely economic-discussion with Bill would prove enlightening. But wages and needs are also squishy humanitarian concerns.
It's cold to use economic-theory to justify exploitation.

I didn't realize that I was trying to justify exploitation.

What I'm saying is that while minimum wage laws benefit the minimum-wage workers who keep their jobs, they harm the minimum-wage workers who lose their jobs because employers cannot (or will not) pay the increased wage. And the net result is generally that minimum-wage earners collectively earn less money in toto.

Which is better: Bob and his neighbor George each earn $10 per hour, or Bob earns $15 per hour and George loses his job?


Employers will pay the wage-increase and kick it down to consumers. You know it doesn't matter which side gets taxed; the market will shift the balance.

It's always better to be Bob!
This is the tricky part. Are real-wages keeping up with inflation? Depending on the wage and circumstances, either proposition may be preferred.
Is it better for Bob and George to be broke at 10$hr than for Bob to make $15hr and George to be unemployed? Is it better for society to have two struggling desperate people, or one?
I'm arguing there are human-elements that are not clearly solvable by economics.
.


.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27300 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, S2000magician wrote:
...Which is better: Bob and his neighbor George each earn $10 per hour, or Bob earns $15 per hour and George loses his job?

That reads as a part of a Prisoner's Dilemma game. Is there a strategy?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
The Hermit
View Profile
Veteran user
301 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, Mr Salk wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 30, 2018, Mr Salk wrote:
I suspect a purely economic-discussion with Bill would prove enlightening. But wages and needs are also squishy humanitarian concerns.
It's cold to use economic-theory to justify exploitation.

I didn't realize that I was trying to justify exploitation.

What I'm saying is that while minimum wage laws benefit the minimum-wage workers who keep their jobs, they harm the minimum-wage workers who lose their jobs because employers cannot (or will not) pay the increased wage. And the net result is generally that minimum-wage earners collectively earn less money in toto.

Which is better: Bob and his neighbor George each earn $10 per hour, or Bob earns $15 per hour and George loses his job?


Employers will pay the wage-increase and kick it down to consumers. You know it doesn't matter which side gets taxed; the market will shift the balance.

It's always better to be Bob!
This is the tricky part. Are real-wages keeping up with inflation? Depending on the wage and circumstances, either proposition may be preferred.
Is it better for Bob and George to be broke at 10$hr than for Bob to make $15hr and George to be unemployed? Is it better for society to have two struggling desperate people, or one?
I'm arguing there are human-elements that are not clearly solvable by economics.


I love it when we mix emotion with economics. You should stop now. It is not the responsibility of a business to pay a living wage. Never was, never will be. Human elements are never part of the equation. Businesses are created for a market. Jobs are a by product. Sometimes they're good ones, sometimes their not.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, Mr Salk wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 30, 2018, Mr Salk wrote:
I suspect a purely economic-discussion with Bill would prove enlightening. But wages and needs are also squishy humanitarian concerns.
It's cold to use economic-theory to justify exploitation.

I didn't realize that I was trying to justify exploitation.

What I'm saying is that while minimum wage laws benefit the minimum-wage workers who keep their jobs, they harm the minimum-wage workers who lose their jobs because employers cannot (or will not) pay the increased wage. And the net result is generally that minimum-wage earners collectively earn less money in toto.

Which is better: Bob and his neighbor George each earn $10 per hour, or Bob earns $15 per hour and George loses his job?


Employers will pay the wage-increase and kick it down to consumers.

You're assuming that demand for the employer's good/service is price inelastic.

Often it's not.
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
Ontario, Canada
2962 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Https://www.mi-feed.com.au/shop/roasted-work-horse-flakes/

Who feeds the work horse?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you don't want to deal with social, emotional issues, hire a machine. Even it will breakdown on ya, and without any remorse at all, if you fail to keep it in good working order.
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
Ontario, Canada
2962 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
This situation was created because those who don't want to do their dirty work themselves need to make it necessary for someone else to do it for them. Bottom line. Take the food away, put money in the way, and make 'em work for it, so you profit in time and money. The rich get richer is the name of this game. And it's a social one, of trying to dominate others. Who created money?
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
21263 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Laurie it is not about not wanting to deal with the social and emotional issues of employees. Though people often do use that as a false argument to further their own social goals.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
Ontario, Canada
2962 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2889 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, magicalaurie wrote:
This situation was created because those who don't want to do their dirty work themselves need to make it necessary for someone else to do it for them. Bottom line. Take the food away, put money in the way, and make 'em work for it, so you profit in time and money. The rich get richer is the name of this game. And it's a social one, of trying to dominate others. Who created money?


Money was created because it was too hard to work out the change in barter.

Working for salary pre-dates actual money. The term “salary” comes from “salt,” as Roman soldiers were paid not in money, but in salt.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BAFSrKqIKdc

I’m not formatting this, because I’m on the cellphone and it doesn’t work very well.
"...and if you're too afraid of goin' astray, you won't go anywhere." - Granny Weatherwax
Mr Salk
View Profile
Special user
Tied to
568 Posts

Profile of Mr Salk
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, The Hermit wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, Mr Salk wrote:
I'm arguing there are human-elements that are not clearly solvable by economics.

I love it when we mix emotion with economics. You should stop now. It is not the responsibility of a business to pay a living wage. Never was, never will be. Human elements are never part of the equation. Businesses are created for a market. Jobs are a by product. Sometimes they're good ones, sometimes they’re not.


Agreed. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that businesses do not exploit workers with unsafe or unethical conditions and to set minimum-wages.
Surely the industrial revolution taught us something about workers-rights?

Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, Mr Salk wrote:
Employers will pay the wage-increase and kick it down to consumers.

You're assuming that demand for the employer's good/service is price inelastic.
Often it's not.

If businesses can't survive price-increases due to reasonable wage-increases, that's the fault of the businesses-structure, not the workers. There is no promise of success dependent on the exploitation of cheap-labor. But dang it can build some nice pyramids.
.


.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, Mr Salk wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, Mr Salk wrote:
Employers will pay the wage-increase and kick it down to consumers.

You're assuming that demand for the employer's good/service is price inelastic.
Often it's not.

If businesses can't survive price-increases due to reasonable wage-increases, that's the fault of the businesses-structure, not the workers.

Who said anything about fault?

Do you understand price elasticity?
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
Ontario, Canada
2962 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/01......debunked

"Lars Osberg, a Dalhousie University economics professor and a former president of the Canadian Economics Association, and his colleagues assert, 'Seven … Nobel Prize winners endorse a 40-per-cent increase in the U.S. minimum wage and a former editor of The Economist, the world’s most influential free-market voice, recently called for big minimum-wage hikes to help boost lackluster purchasing power across the industrialized world.'”
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
21263 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Please define "reasonable wage-increases" for us.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5194 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 30, 2018, S2000magician wrote:

I could have sworn that I wrote something.

Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, landmark wrote:
Bill, the form of argument, "Tell all of the people who are unemployed instead of earning, say, $X per hour that they're better off because the minimum wage is $X+n per hour" is not a very good one. X can be replaced by any number > 0, even $.01. That is, your argument results in a conclusion that it is okay if people are paid a penny--since that is better than unemployment.

If we were talking about a change of $0.01, we wouldn't be talking about anything.

The point is that when you set a minimum price that’s above the market equilibrium price (whether it's a minimum wage, a minimum price for milk, or whatever), although the supply is increased, the demand is decreased, and what often happens is that the total amount of money going to suppliers (workers in the case of a minimum wage) is lower. Some are better off, but more are worse off. And for a substantial increase in the minimum price (say, $5 per hour, or so), the net effect is most likely that the minimum wage earners, as a whole, are much worse off.


No, Bill, because demand increases as workers have more disposable income to spend. I think you would be hard pressed to show that workers in States with lower minimum wage floors are better off than those with higher minimums.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, landmark wrote:
I think you would be hard pressed to show that workers in States with lower minimum wage floors are better off than those with higher minimums.

I'm sure I would be.

But that doesn't contradict what I wrote. You're assuming that the equilibrium minimum wage is the same across states. There's no reason to assume that it is and, in fact, lots of reason for it not to be.
Mr Salk
View Profile
Special user
Tied to
568 Posts

Profile of Mr Salk
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote:
Please define "reasonable wage-increases" for us.


It's reasonable that the minimum-wage should pace the CPI to keep up with inflation.
.


.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, Mr Salk wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 31, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote:
Please define "reasonable wage-increases" for us.

It's reasonable that the minimum-wage should pace the CPI to keep up with inflation.

Why?
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Should the federal minimum wage be $15 hourly? » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (17 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8..15~16~17 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL