national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad?

[hazek]

Yes, I am not able to make inductive arguments based upon assumptions.

I agree, so far from my reading of what you've said, you clearly aren't able to do so.

hazek is talking to you about what a free market can accomplish.  You deny what he says simply based on a claim that "a free market is a myth".  If you actually understood argumentation, you would know that your response is entirely nonsequitorial -- it doesn't actually argue anything that disproves what hazek said.  That is to say: you are not even talking with him, you're talking past him.

So, how about responding to the aaaaaaaaaargument? www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLODu02R_gA&feature=youtu.be&t=17m13s

Heh I don't think he will get it. I actually see this happen all the time. People make an assumption they think is fact but no one really conceded to that and then they draw conclusions based on it.

cbeast assumes that because we haven't had something in the past, we can't have it in the future. He thinks such an assumption is fact when in reality it's completely wrong. Anything new, any political system, philosophy, or basic goods or services, ANYTHING you want to pick that we have today, we can point to a time in the past when they were just a "crazy" theory. So not only is he making the mistake to think I conceded to his assumption, but the assumption is false.

Saying a market regulated strictly by consumption i.e. a free market is "Utter nonsense!" because we haven't had a pure macro economic example yet is fallacious precisely because the fact that haven't had something yet is irrelevant.

Now this is no way means that the counter argument of it being possible is automatically true, it just means it's not false for that reason. We can then look at micro examples and see if we can detect elements of such markets on a smaller scale to get an idea of whether or not it could be possible. And anyone who honestly examines the world can find plenty of examples in their own personal life where they are a participant in a market that is regulated strictly by consumption (such as dating, buying bread..) which I'd argue is a very good indicator that it is possible on a macro level as well.

But of course all of this is above his head so what I'm doing here is really talking to everyone who is interested and can understand this.

[cbeast]

Yes, I am not able to make inductive arguments based upon assumptions.

I agree, so far from my reading of what you've said, you clearly aren't able to do so.

hazek is talking to you about what a free market can accomplish.  You deny what he says simply based on a claim that "a free market is a myth".  If you actually understood argumentation, you would know that your response is entirely nonsequitorial -- it doesn't actually argue anything that disproves what hazek said.  That is to say: you are not even talking with him, you're talking past him.

So, how about responding to the aaaaaaaaaargument? www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLODu02R_gA&feature=youtu.be&t=17m13s

Heh I don't think he will get it. I actually see this happen all the time. People make an assumption they think is fact but no one really conceded to that and then they draw conclusions based on it.

cbeast assumes that because we haven't had something in the past, we can't have it in the future. He thinks such an assumption is fact when in reality it's completely wrong. Anything new, any political system, philosophy, or basic goods or services, ANYTHING you want to pick that we have to today, we can point to a time in the past when they were just a "crazy" theory. So not only is he making the mistake to think I conceded to his assumption, but the assumption is false.

Saying a market regulated strictly by consumption i.e. a free market is "Utter nonsense!" because we haven't had a pure macro economic example yet is fallacious precisely because the fact that haven't had something yet is irrelevant.

Now this is no way means that the counter argument of it being possible is automatically true, it just means it's not false for that reason. We can then look at micro examples and see if we can detect elements of such markets on a smaller scale to get an idea of whether or not it could be possible. And anyone who honestly examines the world can find plenty of examples in their own personal life where they are a participant in a market that is regulated strictly by consumption (such as dating, buying bread..) which I'd argue is a very good indicator that it is possible on a macro level as well.

But of course all of this is above his head so what I'm doing here is really talking to everyone who is interested and can understand this.

This is like talking about religion. I know that you have a hypothesis that CA can create a free market. I just think you are setting your sights too low. Markets are not theory. It reminds me of the scene with Rodney Dangerfield in "Back to School" discussing widgets in a business lecture. The theory of a free market is like listening to creationists using entropy as a reason against evolution in order to promote their religion. Things are far too complex to even care about a free market. I'm just trying to help. Go ahead and worship whatever you want. I look at Bitcoin as a transitional step toward breaking civilization away from the crutch of money and create artificial intelligent agents. Only technology promotes progress.

[Rudd-O]

Hazek,

Well said.

I insist you come on to our radio show to discuss philosophy and organized aggression ("government").  You'd make a helluva guest.

[hazek]

Hazek,

Well said.

I insist you come on to our radio show to discuss philosophy and organized aggression ("government").  You'd make a helluva guest.

Thanks Maybe one day I'll find the courage to agree to it

[cbeast]

So we agree that minimum wage laws supporting a living wage are good and that business profitability is a complex issue that cannot be narrowed down to one issue like consumer demand. I would love to debate you live just to hear you shouting and ignoring my argument like you are now.

[hazek]

So we agree that minimum wage laws supporting a living wage are good and that business profitability is a complex issue that cannot be narrowed down to one issue like consumer demand. I would love to debate you live just to hear you shouting and ignoring my argument like you are now.

You don't have an argument. When you do, I'll respond to it.

[cbeast]

So we agree that minimum wage laws supporting a living wage are good and that business profitability is a complex issue that cannot be narrowed down to one issue like consumer demand. I would love to debate you live just to hear you shouting and ignoring my argument like you are now.

You don't have an argument. When you do, I'll respond to it.

Your contention is that a free market can exist simply because it can be shown "in theory." I get that. Some people say that when you die they imagine you become pasta sauce for the flying spaghetti monster, because it makes sense to them. I get that too. Arguing hypotheticals is baseless. A free market is nonsense because it is reification. You are imagining an intangible that cannot exist due to the complexities of the Universe. You cannot isolate a mathematical model proof of any sort (not even physics) and apply it to the Universe. Everything we know breaks down. Something as complex as human needs cannot be driven by a simple mathematical model. Even my hypothesis of creating artificial intelligence agents will not solve all human needs, but it will be a helluvalot more efficient than trusting people to make the best choices.

[hazek]

So we agree that minimum wage laws supporting a living wage are good and that business profitability is a complex issue that cannot be narrowed down to one issue like consumer demand. I would love to debate you live just to hear you shouting and ignoring my argument like you are now.

You don't have an argument. When you do, I'll respond to it.

Your contention is that a free market can exist simply because it can be shown "in theory."

Nope, not my argument at all. See, you can't even read, let alone compose an argument.

[ElectricMucus]

Minimum wage makes alot of sense in socialism.

People who would otherwise earn below it are financed by the state. This not only keeps them under control but also those who work for higher wages and who are forced to work harder to supply the workforce otherwise lacking. Because they could be "worse off".

Socialism goes hand in hand with the concept of employment itself. Without it everybody would be providing goods and services as an entrepreneur.

[cbeast]

So we agree that minimum wage laws supporting a living wage are good and that business profitability is a complex issue that cannot be narrowed down to one issue like consumer demand. I would love to debate you live just to hear you shouting and ignoring my argument like you are now.

You don't have an argument. When you do, I'll respond to it.

Your contention is that a free market can exist simply because it can be shown "in theory."

Nope, not my argument at all. See, you can't even read, let alone compose an argument.

I don't see how "a market regulated entirely by consumption" isn't a free market, but replace that phrase and my argument stands.

[Rudd-O]

So we agree that minimum wage laws supporting a living wage are good and that business profitability is a complex issue that cannot be narrowed down to one issue like consumer demand. I would love to debate you live just to hear you shouting and ignoring my argument like you are now.

You don't have an argument. When you do, I'll respond to it.

Your contention is that a free market can exist simply because it can be shown "in theory."

Nope, not my argument at all. See, you can't even read, let alone compose an argument.

I second this.  cbeast has no argument and his behavior here demonstrates that he doesn't know how to compose an argument.

I'm adding him to my ignore list since his comments contribute little value to anyone, so I'd prefer not to be annoyed by them.

[chiropteran]

In a civilized society, good.

[cbeast]

So we agree that minimum wage laws supporting a living wage are good and that business profitability is a complex issue that cannot be narrowed down to one issue like consumer demand. I would love to debate you live just to hear you shouting and ignoring my argument like you are now.

You don't have an argument. When you do, I'll respond to it.

Your contention is that a free market can exist simply because it can be shown "in theory."

Nope, not my argument at all. See, you can't even read, let alone compose an argument.

I second this.  cbeast has no argument and his behavior here demonstrates that he doesn't know how to compose an argument.

I'm adding him to my ignore list since his comments contribute little value to anyone, so I'd prefer not to be annoyed by them.

Is Hazek your Champion? Are you unable to form an opinion of your own? Obviously you did not read my response to the quote you included, so you don't pay attention to the thread discussion. Please do ignore me, I don't want to stoop down to your level.

[Rassah]

Minimum wage laws may decrease employment, since companies won't be able to afford as many workers, but at the same time they may reduce the employee pool, since workers who used to work two jobs, or work two shifts, may now be able to quit their second job/shift, since they now have enough money to cover their expenses. This in turn frees up the job for someone else.
So.... complicated 

[SgtSpike]

Minimum wage laws may decrease employment, since companies won't be able to afford as many workers, but at the same time they may reduce the employee pool, since workers who used to work two jobs, or work two shifts, may now be able to quit their second job/shift, since they now have enough money to cover their expenses. This in turn frees up the job for someone else.
So.... complicated 

To look at it conversely, the worker could have produced twice as much for the same wage, helping to reduce the prices of those services and products he produced, and making things more affordable across the board for people to purchase.

[Lethn]

If they're already working as hard as they can though telling them to work harder isn't going to make much difference and it seems to me a lot of these companies that are failing are poorly managed in the first place, I don't think minimum wage laws do anything either way, what you need is an economy that isn't being constantly tampered with, incompetent employers who keep their wages low to offset the cost of their business while keeping their own wages high would quickly go out of business if people learned about what he was up to and someone else was willing to do better. This is because of course rather than invest it in making the business grow the employer is just taking the profit and this means of course that the business will start to fail if competitors arrive and there isn't enough cash going in the company.

There have even been studies on worker productivity and people have discovered that changing the designs of buildings or putting things like plants etc. in or letting them work more freely increases their productivity, I don't think it's a matter of minimum wage laws being good or bad but rather work conditions. I think if you're being paid peanuts to work in a horrible factory with terrible conditions while they are being paid thousands then you should be able to sue the employer, it shouldn't be about wages at all.

[myrkul]

Minimum wages are a price floor. Price floors are always either ineffective, or detrimental.

A historical (and current) example of a price floor are minimum wage laws; in this case, employees are the suppliers of labor and the company is the consumer. When the minimum wage is set higher than the equilibrium market price for unskilled labor, unemployment is created (more people are looking for jobs than there are jobs available). A minimum wage above the equilibrium wage would induce employers to hire fewer workers as well as allow more people to enter the labor market, the result is a surplus in the amount of labor available. The equilibrium wage for a worker would be dependent upon the worker's skill sets along with market conditions.

So on the balance, minimum wage laws are BAD.

[Rudd-O]

What is it with these armchair economists that say "uh dunno could go either way nobody knows derp"? Do they ignore supply and demand? Do they not know what price controls do to the supply of a resource? Do they think that supply and demand will magically not apply because God or a politician say so? Do they not understand that a minimum wage is a price control? Or do they just not want to accept reality, because they would rather believe populist nonsense?

I am sitting here watching morons debate whether a rock ten pounds in size will fall ten times faster than a rock one pound in size, saying "well, it could go either way" and I feel that Galileo must have felt like I am feeling right now.

God the five dammit, we have all the knowlegde necessary to figure this matter out, right at our fingertips, ann even with that, some people still choose to remain in the Dark Ages.

[hazek]

Do they not know what price controls do to the supply of a resource?

^this and

Do they not understand that a minimum wage is a price control?

^this probably.

And it's not really their fault because no one taught them this, so how could they know? No one taught them how to reason correctly either, so how could they ever figure it out on their own?

The answer is to keep educating, preferably the younger still fairly open to new ideas people.

[cbeast]

An extreme example of no minimum wage laws was the cotton farming industry in the Southern US states before the Civil War. Some people called it good business, but most countries in the world called it immoral. Tens of thousands died over that argument. Before that in France, the aristocracy felt that poor people should eat cake. A new hat removing device was invented to solve that issue.

Maximum wage laws are much better at protecting economic health. Tax incentives to keep business owners from making too much money will incentivize them to reinvest in their business and allow it to grow. Paying workers higher wages spurs competition for better qualified employees. Unrestricted earnings only incentivizes business owners to hoard wealth and cause government to print money in order to drive the economy, causing inflation.

All I can say is this is a troll thread. People that support the argument in favor of an unregulated economy have no historical evidence to support their position. It's pseudoscience.