Total Posts:106|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Minimum Wage Reason for Employment

collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2010 11:44:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://i47.tinypic.com...
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2010 11:45:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
unemployment lol
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2010 12:16:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What's to explain? The picture explains it all.

Minimum wage is why classical unemployment exists in our society. I don't understand why anyone could possibly be for people not working and receiving unemployment and welfare benefits vs working for a lower wage and receiving supplementary unemployment and welfare benefits.

Benefits to eliminating minimum wage: More people workng. Less welfare and unemployment taxes, better economic efficiency, businesses more efficient. Goods cheaper.
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2010 12:21:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There are no liberals on this site that are for the minimum wage? Come on!
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2010 12:30:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
AskBob is correct.

- Reasoning
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 10:38:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
There are plenty of liberals on the site who support the minimum wage, but vanishingly few who will attempt to defend it in a debate. My last challenge on the topic http://www.debate.org... was finally accepted by an opponent who argued one round then forfeited. Previous challenges expired without getting an opponent. I conclude it is held as an article of faith, not a consequence of reasoning.

I'd be happy to reissue a challenge to anyone who wants to defend the minimum wage.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 12:07:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 10:38:17 AM, RoyLatham wrote:

I'd be happy to reissue a challenge to anyone who wants to defend the minimum wage.

I might take you up on that in a couple of weeks.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 2:20:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Economists have argued that the higher wage causes spill-over effects sufficient to employ those whose jobs were lost, but if that were a legitimate argument, all goods, like bread and such, should be sold at higher prices for the spill-over effects, because the extra money made by the grocer is spent, allowing more wealth to circulate to the point where all the bread not sold is sold. It's a load of BS for two reasons:
-Both employers and employees spend money.
-If all money is just spent in larger quantities, the result is inflation.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:07:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 2:20:41 PM, wjmelements wrote:
-If all money is just spent in larger quantities, the result is inflation.

The minimum wage isn't increasing the money supply. There will still be the same amount of money in circulation regardless. Besides, how do you know the money is being spent, and not saved, invested, or slid under the cushion?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:16:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 2:20:41 PM, wjmelements wrote:
-If all money is just spent in larger quantities, the result is inflation.

Inflation: any increase in the economy's supply of money not consisting of an increase in the stock of the money-metal.

The definition is from "What has Government Done to Our Money" by Murray Rothbard.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:24:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:07:28 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/9/2010 2:20:41 PM, wjmelements wrote:
-If all money is just spent in larger quantities, the result is inflation.

The minimum wage isn't increasing the money supply. There will still be the same amount of money in circulation regardless.
Price inflation != monetary inflation. This "inflation" comes from shifting burdens and from higher wages. When this happens without an increase in money supply, it is congruent to monetary deflation.

Besides, how do you know the money is being spent, and not saved, invested, or slid under the cushion?
Way to restate my other point.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:26:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:16:27 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/9/2010 2:20:41 PM, wjmelements wrote:
-If all money is just spent in larger quantities, the result is inflation.

Inflation: any increase in the economy's supply of money not consisting of an increase in the stock of the money-metal.

The definition is from "What has Government Done to Our Money" by Murray Rothbard.

That definition is begging the question. Inflation has always meant an across-the-board increase in prices. You are defining monetary inflation.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:27:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:24:37 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Price inflation != monetary inflation. This "inflation" comes from shifting burdens and from higher wages. When this happens without an increase in money supply, it is congruent to monetary deflation.

Employers have less money. Employees have more money. The money supply stays the same. Why would there be price inflation?

Besides, how do you know the money is being spent, and not saved, invested, or slid under the cushion?
Way to restate my other point.

"Both employers and employees spend money." --- How is my point in any way related to this point?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:33:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:27:27 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/9/2010 3:24:37 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Price inflation != monetary inflation. This "inflation" comes from shifting burdens and from higher wages. When this happens without an increase in money supply, it is congruent to monetary deflation.

Employers have less money. Employees have more money. The money supply stays the same. Why would there be price inflation?

Not repeating myself.

Besides, how do you know the money is being spent, and not saved, invested, or slid under the cushion?
Way to restate my other point.

"Both employers and employees spend money." --- How is my point in any way related to this point?

In any way? To start, the money is being spent, saved, invested, or slid under the cushion by either party, so there is no spill-over effect.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:35:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:26:09 PM, wjmelements wrote:
That definition is begging the question. Inflation has always meant an across-the-board increase in prices. You are defining monetary inflation.

False.

"Inflation originally referred to increases in the amount of money in circulation. For instance, when gold was used as currency, the government could collect gold coins, melt them down, mix them with other metals such as silver, copper or lead, and reissue them at the same nominal value." - Wikipedia[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:36:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:27:27 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/9/2010 3:24:37 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Price inflation != monetary inflation. This "inflation" comes from shifting burdens and from higher wages. When this happens without an increase in money supply, it is congruent to monetary deflation.

Employers have less money. Employees have more money. The money supply stays the same. Why would there be price inflation?

If MV=PQ, then the idea is that a minimum wage would increase V thereby increasing PQ.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:38:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:35:05 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/9/2010 3:26:09 PM, wjmelements wrote:
That definition is begging the question. Inflation has always meant an across-the-board increase in prices. You are defining monetary inflation.

False.

"Inflation originally referred to increases in the amount of money in circulation. For instance, when gold was used as currency, the government could collect gold coins, melt them down, mix them with other metals such as silver, copper or lead, and reissue them at the same nominal value." - Wikipedia[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia War
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Monetary inflation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For increases in the general level of prices, see inflation.
Monetary inflation is the term used by some economists to differentiate direct inflation in the money supply (or debasement of the means of exchange) from price inflation which they view as a result or necessary outcome of the former.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:38:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:33:01 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 3/9/2010 3:27:27 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/9/2010 3:24:37 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Price inflation != monetary inflation. This "inflation" comes from shifting burdens and from higher wages. When this happens without an increase in money supply, it is congruent to monetary deflation.

Employers have less money. Employees have more money. The money supply stays the same. Why would there be price inflation?

Not repeating myself.

Non sequitur then. Shifting burdens =/= price inflation.

In any way? To start, the money is being spent, saved, invested, or slid under the cushion by either party, so there is no spill-over effect.

Lol. If there's no spill-over effect, then how is there price inflation?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:39:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:36:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/9/2010 3:27:27 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/9/2010 3:24:37 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Price inflation != monetary inflation. This "inflation" comes from shifting burdens and from higher wages. When this happens without an increase in money supply, it is congruent to monetary deflation.

Employers have less money. Employees have more money. The money supply stays the same. Why would there be price inflation?

If MV=PQ, then the idea is that a minimum wage would increase V thereby increasing PQ.

We have a winner.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:41:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:38:47 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/9/2010 3:33:01 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 3/9/2010 3:27:27 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/9/2010 3:24:37 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Price inflation != monetary inflation. This "inflation" comes from shifting burdens and from higher wages. When this happens without an increase in money supply, it is congruent to monetary deflation.

Employers have less money. Employees have more money. The money supply stays the same. Why would there be price inflation?

Not repeating myself.

Non sequitur then. Shifting burdens =/= price inflation.

If a higher wages across the board cause higher prices across the board, then we just come back to the point that you like to throw big words around and drive explanations out of people and call them wrong without explanations yourself.

In any way? To start, the money is being spent, saved, invested, or slid under the cushion by either party, so there is no spill-over effect.

Lol. If there's no spill-over effect, then how is there price inflation?

The price inflation negates any "spill over" effect. Read up on Neo-Keynesian arguments for the minimum wage and learn what a spill over effect is.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:44:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:36:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
If MV=PQ, then the idea is that a minimum wage would increase V thereby increasing PQ.

If the employer had the same amount of money as the employees, then this would work. However, the employer has more money than the employees. Therefore, the employer can spend more money than even a bunch of employees put together.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:46:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:44:59 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/9/2010 3:36:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
If MV=PQ, then the idea is that a minimum wage would increase V thereby increasing PQ.

If the employer had the same amount of money as the employees, then this would work. However, the employer has more money than the employees. Therefore, the employer can spend more money than even a bunch of employees put together.

WTF?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:47:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:41:49 PM, wjmelements wrote:
If a higher wages across the board cause higher prices across the board

You're assuming this.

then we just come back to the point that you like to throw big words around and drive explanations out of people and call them wrong without explanations yourself.

What? I'm not the one making claims of truth, you are.

The price inflation negates any "spill over" effect. Read up on Neo-Keynesian arguments for the minimum wage and learn what a spill over effect is.

Ad hominem. Also, I'm Con- Minimum Wage. You're just giving terrible arguments against the minimum wage.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:50:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:46:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:
WTF?

MV=PQ

V equals velocity of money. You assume that that a minimum wage will cause more money to spent in a shorter amount of time. This is un-founded, first off. Secondly, the employer loses the money that would have if the minimum wage did exist, which negates the velocity of money spent by the minimum wage earning employees.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:51:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I like how the post was set up in order to gaud liberals and progressives into the argument, but it ends up being a scrapping between two libertarians and a pseudo-anarchist. xD
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:53:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:50:01 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/9/2010 3:46:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:
WTF?

MV=PQ

V equals velocity of money. You assume that that a minimum wage will cause more money to spent in a shorter amount of time. This is un-founded, first off. Secondly, the employer loses the money that would have if the minimum wage did exist, which negates the velocity of money spent by the minimum wage earning employees.

Explain this: "If the employer had the same amount of money as the employees, then this would work." - Nags.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:53:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:50:01 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/9/2010 3:46:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:
WTF?

MV=PQ

V equals velocity of money. You assume that that a minimum wage will cause more money to spent in a shorter amount of time. This is un-founded, first off. Secondly, the employer loses the money that would have if the minimum wage did not exist, which negates the velocity of money spent by the minimum wage earning employees.

Fixed.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:54:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:53:00 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Explain this: "If the employer had the same amount of money as the employees, then this would work." - Nags.

By "this" I meant your argument.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 3:56:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 3:54:03 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/9/2010 3:53:00 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Explain this: "If the employer had the same amount of money as the employees, then this would work." - Nags.

By "this" I meant your argument.

And how, pray tell, would an equivalence in cash holdings between the employer and employee change the scenario?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran