Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Minimum Wage

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 10:36:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you like freedom: Oppose minimum wage.

If you like low income persons becoming less low in income: Oppose minimum wage, it is literally only capable of prohibiting a person not working from becoming a worker.

If you think your protection racket is politically favored: Support minimum wage. It will bankrupt the low income persons above by prohibiting employment at a price where they are affordable, and may mildly increase the income of your protection racket's members by an amount less than it denied the aforementioned low income persons.

If you're a businessman: Well duhhh. Unles your rival tends to utilize lower valued labor and you do not, in which case see: If you think your protection racket is politically favored.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 6:51:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 10:36:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you like freedom: Oppose minimum wage.

Freedom to be sick, hungry, and live under a bridge.
If you like low income persons becoming less low in income: Oppose minimum wage, it is literally only capable of prohibiting a person not working from becoming a worker.


"Less low in income?" Just when I thought your logic couldn't get much worse, you provided even worse grammar.

If you think your protection racket is politically favored: Support minimum wage. It will bankrupt the low income persons above by prohibiting employment at a price where they are affordable, and may mildly increase the income of your protection racket's members by an amount less than it denied the aforementioned low income persons.

Translation of "where they are affordable": slave-labor wages. Ignore the fact that CEOs earn about 475 times that of the average worker relative to 42 times in 1981, ignore the fact that corporate profits as a percentage of GDP have skyrocketed, ignore the fact that productivity has doubled since 1967 yet median wages have been flat, ignore the fact that taxes are near historic lows, ignore the fact that lack of demand -- not lack of supply -- is the chief obstruction to business expansion as cited by the business community themselves, etc.

tldr; ignore all the facts and still this thesis is hardly plausible.

If you're a businessman: Well duhhh. Unles your rival tends to utilize lower valued labor and you do not, in which case see: If you think your protection racket is politically favored.

"Lower valued labor?" So prices or wages are proxies for value? So you're even going to deny basic microeconomic models of game theory?

Of course the minimum wage should be increased. There are countless studies verifying empirically that any negative impact is either (1) overstated by right-wing hacks (see the quoted post) (2) misrepresented entirely by those without even the most basic understanding of economics or (see quoted post) or (3) negligible vis-a-vis the gains.

Income inequality is a real thing, and a minimum wage increase is one path -- admittedly a small one -- toward rectifying it.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 12:03:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 6:51:06 AM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:36:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you like freedom: Oppose minimum wage.

Freedom to be sick, hungry, and live under a bridge.
Freedom from men pointing guns at you.

If you like low income persons becoming less low in income: Oppose minimum wage, it is literally only capable of prohibiting a person not working from becoming a worker.


"Less low in income?" Just when I thought your logic couldn't get much worse, you provided even worse grammar.
I have never heard of a rule in grammar prohibiting such a construction.


If you think your protection racket is politically favored: Support minimum wage. It will bankrupt the low income persons above by prohibiting employment at a price where they are affordable, and may mildly increase the income of your protection racket's members by an amount less than it denied the aforementioned low income persons.

Translation of "where they are affordable": slave-labor wages
Slave labor wages are typically zero, it is why folks seek to enslave.:
Ignore the fact that CEOs earn about 475 times that of the average worker relative to 42 times in 1981
Indeed, it is wise to ignore relative figures in discussions of absolute well being.

ignore the fact that lack of demand -- not lack of supply -- is the chief obstruction to business expansion as cited by the business community themselves, etc.

Lack of demand can be defined in one of two ways. One logically includes lack of supply-- the lack of people both willing and able to supply something in exchange for the first thing. The other, lack of desire for a thing, implies that particular business ought not expand.

"Lower valued labor?" So prices or wages are proxies for value?
It is obvious that some labor will be less valuable than others, and thus can sustain less of a wage before it becomes a loss to hire that person.

game theory
Is a concern only for those seeking to gain at the expense of others. If your justification for supporting minimum wage relies on "game theory," it means you concede that on average purchasing power is lost with minimum wage introduction, you just favor some particular exceptional protection racket

Of course the minimum wage should be increased. There are countless studies verifying empirically that any negative impact is either (1) overstated by right-wing hacks (see the quoted post) (2) misrepresented entirely by those without even the most basic understanding of economics or (see quoted post) or (3) negligible vis-a-vis the gains.
There never has been and never will be a controlled experiment in economics.


Income inequality is a real thing
Well duh. That's not even remotely the question.

and a minimum wage increase is one path -- admittedly a small one -- toward rectifying it.
You seem to be using the word "thing" where you mean to say "problem." Those are different words.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.