national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad?

[Rassah]

I made one example to demonstrate that human psychology plays a role. There are other factors too. Like smiles on the employees' faces.

A service provided to the customer, which may increase sales if it's a service desired by those customers, and which also follows strict economic rules? (Notice how underpaid employees often refuse to provide that service)

The incentive for employers to create jobs with value.

You'll have to be more specific

Are you familiar with David Seigel (douchebag of the year).

Yes. Is he "the economy" or a significant part of it? And what does a small attempt to affect a political situation have to do with economics, or minimum wage? (ther than just his specific company now having possible issues of employees wanting to gtfo) Will this now change the way Hilton, Sheraton, Sandals, Disney Resorts, Best Western, Wyndham, DoubleTree, Royal Plaza, Holliday Inn, Hyatt, Ritz-Carlton, Atlantis, or any other resort companies do business, and change the resorts market in any way? If not, why bring it up?

[FirstAscent]

I made one example to demonstrate that human psychology plays a role. There are other factors too. Like smiles on the employees' faces.

A service provided to the customer, which may increase sales if it's a service desired by those customers, and which also follows strict economic rules? (Notice how underpaid employees often refuse to provide that service)

The incentive for employers to create jobs with value.

You'll have to be more specific

Are you familiar with David Seigel (douchebag of the year).

Yes. Is he "the economy" or a significant part of it? And what does a small attempt to affect a political situation have to do with economics, or minimum wage? (ther than just his specific company now having possible issues of employees wanting to gtfo) Will this now change the way Hilton, Sheraton, Sandals, Disney Resorts, Best Western, Wyndham, DoubleTree, Royal Plaza, Holliday Inn, Hyatt, Ritz-Carlton, Atlantis, or any other resort companies do business, and change the resorts market in any way? If not, why bring it up?

I think his response after the election was rather telling.

[Rudd-O]

By the way, the question of whether minimum wage laws are good or bad doesn't really have an objective answer.

See, this is the kind of claim that I called "armchair economics" a few comments ago.  It's an argument from economic ignorance.

Can you reason with a person who insists that what is well-known is unknown or unknowable?  NO.  It's like arguing facts with a creationist -- he'll just deny them and call you "arrogant".

Ostracize, people.  Point out ignorance and hostility, then move on.  Reasoning is for reasonable people.  You don't reason with mules -- you shouldn't reason with people who insist on remaining ignorant.

[myrkul]

By the way, the question of whether minimum wage laws are good or bad doesn't really have an objective answer.

See, this is the kind of claim that I called "armchair economics" a few comments ago.  It's an argument from economic ignorance.

But Rassah's got a good point:

A job is worth a certain amount. If you put in a price floor for the job, it will be moved where there is no price floor. So the people who are destitute and need jobs to survive will get them. In that way, these laws take the jobs from those in 1st world nations who want them, and give them to those in 3rd world nations who actually need them (good?).

So, they're bad for the nation enacting them, but good for developing nations and international trade. Of course, this benefit is usually ruined by tariffs and other import taxes. Shooting themselves in both feet, as it were.

[Rudd-O]

By the way, the question of whether minimum wage laws are good or bad doesn't really have an objective answer.

See, this is the kind of claim that I called "armchair economics" a few comments ago.  It's an argument from economic ignorance.

But Rassah's got a good point:

A job is worth a certain amount. If you put in a price floor for the job, it will be moved where there is no price floor. So the people who are destitute and need jobs to survive will get them. In that way, these laws take the jobs from those in 1st world nations who want them, and give them to those in 3rd world nations who actually need them (good?).

So, they're bad for the nation enacting them, but good for developing nations and international trade. Of course, this benefit is usually ruined by tariffs and other import taxes. Shooting themselves in both feet, as it were.

Yes, he does have a good point.  He's just been insistent all the time that there's no way to deduce the effects of wage price floors.  Yet there is, and he proves so in the very second paragraph by giving out a deduction of that which he calls impossible.  He contradicts himself in the same post.  How is that logical?

[myrkul]

By the way, the question of whether minimum wage laws are good or bad doesn't really have an objective answer.

See, this is the kind of claim that I called "armchair economics" a few comments ago.  It's an argument from economic ignorance.

But Rassah's got a good point:

A job is worth a certain amount. If you put in a price floor for the job, it will be moved where there is no price floor. So the people who are destitute and need jobs to survive will get them. In that way, these laws take the jobs from those in 1st world nations who want them, and give them to those in 3rd world nations who actually need them (good?).

So, they're bad for the nation enacting them, but good for developing nations and international trade. Of course, this benefit is usually ruined by tariffs and other import taxes. Shooting themselves in both feet, as it were.

Yes, he does have a good point.  He's just been insistent all the time that there's no way to deduce the effects of wage price floors.  Yet there is, and he proves so in the very second paragraph by giving out a deduction of that which he calls impossible.  He contradicts himself in the same post.  How is that logical?

He's not directly contradicting himself, he's saying that "good" is hard to nail down when a policy has some benefits to some, and detriments to others. Arguably, they're a good policy when viewed from the right perspective, though they're clearly bad for the economy of the country that enacts them.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that mucking about in the market in any way is bad, because it introduces distortions, and distortions introduce inefficiencies, which waste resources, which, of course, is bad.

[FirstAscent]

Of course, I'm of the opinion that mucking about in the market in any way is bad, because it introduces distortions, and distortions introduce inefficiencies, which waste resources, which, of course, is bad.

Define a distortion in the market without giving an example.

[myrkul]

Of course, I'm of the opinion that mucking about in the market in any way is bad, because it introduces distortions, and distortions introduce inefficiencies, which waste resources, which, of course, is bad.

Define a distortion in the market without giving an example.

A market distortion is any event in which a market reaches a market clearing price for an item that is substantially different from the price that a market would achieve while operating under conditions of perfect competition and enforcement of legal contracts and the ownership of private property.

[FirstAscent]

Of course, I'm of the opinion that mucking about in the market in any way is bad, because it introduces distortions, and distortions introduce inefficiencies, which waste resources, which, of course, is bad.

Define a distortion in the market without giving an example.

A market distortion is any event in which a market reaches a market clearing price for an item that is substantially different from the price that a market would achieve while operating under conditions of perfect competition and enforcement of legal contracts and the ownership of private property.

If the owner of private property suddenly decides the resources on his property are no longer available to the market which were available up until now, has a market distortion occurred?

[myrkul]

Of course, I'm of the opinion that mucking about in the market in any way is bad, because it introduces distortions, and distortions introduce inefficiencies, which waste resources, which, of course, is bad.

Define a distortion in the market without giving an example.

A market distortion is any event in which a market reaches a market clearing price for an item that is substantially different from the price that a market would achieve while operating under conditions of perfect competition and enforcement of legal contracts and the ownership of private property.

If the owner of private property suddenly decides the resources on his property are no longer available to the market which were available up until now, has a market distortion occurred?

No. Market distortions require outside agency. A market participant cannot introduce a distortion, because he is part of the market, not outside it.

[FirstAscent]

Of course, I'm of the opinion that mucking about in the market in any way is bad, because it introduces distortions, and distortions introduce inefficiencies, which waste resources, which, of course, is bad.

Define a distortion in the market without giving an example.

A market distortion is any event in which a market reaches a market clearing price for an item that is substantially different from the price that a market would achieve while operating under conditions of perfect competition and enforcement of legal contracts and the ownership of private property.

If the owner of private property suddenly decides the resources on his property are no longer available to the market which were available up until now, has a market distortion occurred?

No. Market distortions require outside agency. A market participant cannot introduce a distortion, because he is part of the market, not outside it.

Incorrect. An outside agency which is not influencing the market is not part of the market. But upon influencing the market, then that outside agency is part of the market. And don't come back and say that the agency must be a buyer or seller. An event, caused by an outside agency XYZ, which renders property owner Smith's goods no longer fit for sale, has influenced the market. Is XYZ a market participant? Has the market been distorted?

[myrkul]

Of course, I'm of the opinion that mucking about in the market in any way is bad, because it introduces distortions, and distortions introduce inefficiencies, which waste resources, which, of course, is bad.

Define a distortion in the market without giving an example.

A market distortion is any event in which a market reaches a market clearing price for an item that is substantially different from the price that a market would achieve while operating under conditions of perfect competition and enforcement of legal contracts and the ownership of private property.

If the owner of private property suddenly decides the resources on his property are no longer available to the market which were available up until now, has a market distortion occurred?

No. Market distortions require outside agency. A market participant cannot introduce a distortion, because he is part of the market, not outside it.

Incorrect. An outside agency which is not influencing the market is not part of the market. But upon influencing the market, then that outside agency is part of the market. And don't come back and say that the agency must be a buyer or seller. An event, caused by an outside agency XYZ, which renders property owner Smith's goods no longer fit for sale, has influenced the market. Is XYZ a market participant? Has the market been distorted?

So, when a government passes a law that makes the sale of, say, a plant, illegal, thus distorting the price of that plant, they become part of the market?

[FirstAscent]

Of course, I'm of the opinion that mucking about in the market in any way is bad, because it introduces distortions, and distortions introduce inefficiencies, which waste resources, which, of course, is bad.

Define a distortion in the market without giving an example.

A market distortion is any event in which a market reaches a market clearing price for an item that is substantially different from the price that a market would achieve while operating under conditions of perfect competition and enforcement of legal contracts and the ownership of private property.

If the owner of private property suddenly decides the resources on his property are no longer available to the market which were available up until now, has a market distortion occurred?

No. Market distortions require outside agency. A market participant cannot introduce a distortion, because he is part of the market, not outside it.

Incorrect. An outside agency which is not influencing the market is not part of the market. But upon influencing the market, then that outside agency is part of the market. And don't come back and say that the agency must be a buyer or seller. An event, caused by an outside agency XYZ, which renders property owner Smith's goods no longer fit for sale, has influenced the market. Is XYZ a market participant? Has the market been distorted?

So, when a government passes a law that makes the sale of, say, a plant, illegal, thus distorting the price of that plant, they become part of the market?

You are free to draw your own conclusions. I asked you a question though. Is XYZ a market participant? Has the market been distorted? This conversation is not about pot.

[Anon136]

this 3 minute video does a great job explaining pretty much everything you need to know on this subject (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siW0YAAfX6I)

do let me know if you actually watch it, tell me what you think

[FirstAscent]

this 3 minute video does a great job explaining pretty much everything you need to know on this subject (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siW0YAAfX6I)

do let me know if you actually watch it, tell me what you think

I watched it. How come the actions of David Siegel clearly provide counterpoint to the video's content about the cost of goods?

[myrkul]

Incorrect. An outside agency which is not influencing the market is not part of the market. But upon influencing the market, then that outside agency is part of the market. And don't come back and say that the agency must be a buyer or seller. An event, caused by an outside agency XYZ, which renders property owner Smith's goods no longer fit for sale, has influenced the market. Is XYZ a market participant? Has the market been distorted?

So, when a government passes a law that makes the sale of, say, a plant, illegal, thus distorting the price of that plant, they become part of the market?

You are free to draw your own conclusions. I asked you a question though. Is XYZ a market participant? Has the market been distorted? This conversation is not about pot.

I can't answer your question without you answering mine. The type of event that XYZ causes will determine if it is a market action, or a distortion.

Does the government, in your opinion, become part of the market when they pass a law limiting it?

[Rudd-O]

Short video about minimum wage.  Very straightforward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40

[Rassah]

I think his response after the election was rather telling.

Which was?

[Anon136]

this 3 minute video does a great job explaining pretty much everything you need to know on this subject (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siW0YAAfX6I)

do let me know if you actually watch it, tell me what you think

I watched it. How come the actions of David Siegel clearly provide counterpoint to the video's content about the cost of goods?

actually it isnt a counter argument. a rigorous logical argument can not be disproved using empirical data, it is a form of logical fallacy to attempt to do so (sorry i dont remember what the name of the fallacy is) In order to counter a rigorous logical argument you must demonstrate the existence of either a faulty premise or a non sequitur in the argument its self.

With that being said i can still attempt to prove an explanation for this anomaly. (which will of course only be a guess)

Perhaps his unwillingness to fire employees has drawn enough media attention that the positive externality of pro bono advertisement has compensated for the loss he has taken as a result of those employees whos wages are higher than their marginal revenue product.  If this were the case than we would expect the public interest to wane quickly with the 2nd or 3rd or 100th person to attempt what this fellow has done.

As an alternative explanation maybe he as found a way to run his business in such a manner as to have no need for lower skilled employees and by avoiding ever hiring such employees he has managed to never need to fire them.

[Rassah]

Yes, he does have a good point.  He's just been insistent all the time that there's no way to deduce the effects of wage price floors.  Yet there is, and he proves so in the very second paragraph by giving out a deduction of that which he calls impossible.  He contradicts himself in the same post.  How is that logical?

I'm sorry, but you are confusing me with someone else. I've been insisting that there ARE specific effects of wage price floors. My point with "good v.s. bad" was just regarding whom specifically it's good for. Overall, yes it slows down the progress of global economy. But some people do find it good, because they end up being better off at the expense of others.