national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad?

[FirstAscent]

I think his response after the election was rather telling.

Which was?

You don't know? He boasted that Obama's taxes would make his business unsustainable with all of his employees if he was elected. The takeaway is taxes were killing his business. He would have to do layoffs. Or lower their wages.

He was blustering and bluffing and whining, not unlike many here. After the election, his bluff was called. He realized he was a douchebag and gave everyone a raise. And guess what, he's still going to keep his house, which is the largest in America: http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected

Truly douchebag of the year, if ever there was one.

The argument for no minimum wage floor isn't what you think it is. It's about greed and laziness to not run an efficient business.

[Rassah]

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?

OK, I'm sorry, but the curiosity is killing me. Do you actually have a degree in this stuff, or are you spouting bullshit you picked up in other forums? Because what he said was exactly what you said, but more summarized.

[FirstAscent]

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?

OK, I'm sorry, but the curio city is killing me. Do you actually have a degree in this stuff, or are you spouting bullshit you picked up in other forums? Because what he said was exactly what you said, but more summarized.

If I'm spouting bullshit, and it's exactly what myrkul said, then myrkul is spouting bullshit as well. Please correct your assessment of my comments. I'll help you distinguish the difference:

Once an outside agency influences the market, it is part of the market, whether or not it is a buyer or seller, which is exactly what I said, and what you quoted.

[Rassah]

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

Liked.

[Rassah]

You don't know? He boasted that Obama's taxes would make his business unsustainable with all of his employees if he was elected. The takeaway is taxes were killing his business. He would have to do layoffs. Or lower their wages.

He was blustering and bluffing and whining, not unlike many here. After the election, his bluff was called. He realized he was a douchebag and gave everyone a raise. And guess what, he's still going to keep his house, which is the largest in America: http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected

His argument being dumb and having nothing to do with economics because Obama lowered taxes instead of raising them aside, what did his douchebaggery have to do with minimum wage, or economics, or anything for that matter???

If I'm spouting bullshit, and it's exactly what myrkul said, then myrkul is spouting bullshit as well. Please correct your assessment of my comments. I'll help you distinguish the difference:

Once an outside agency influences the market, it is part of the market, whether or not it is a buyer or seller, which is exactly what I said, and what you quoted.

I see. So you are spouting bullshit you just randomly picked up somewhere...

And same question to you: how do you define a market distortion?

[Anon136]

Short video about minimum wage.  Very straightforward.

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

that one is really good also. i love the art design, atmosphere and production values.

[myrkul]

Once an outside agency influences the market, it is part of the market, whether or not it is a buyer or seller, which is exactly what I said, and what you quoted.

So you're saying that a government does become part of the market when it passes a law that limits that market?

[Anon136]

Once an outside agency influences the market, it is part of the market, whether or not it is a buyer or seller, which is exactly what I said, and what you quoted.

So you're saying that a government does become part of the market when it passes a law that limits that market?

this is a semantic argument

[FirstAscent]

You don't know? He boasted that Obama's taxes would make his business unsustainable with all of his employees if he was elected. The takeaway is taxes were killing his business. He would have to do layoffs. Or lower their wages.

He was blustering and bluffing and whining, not unlike many here. After the election, his bluff was called. He realized he was a douchebag and gave everyone a raise. And guess what, he's still going to keep his house, which is the largest in America: http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected

His argument being dumb and having nothing to do with economics because Obama lowered taxes instead of raising them aside, what did his douchebaggery have to do with minimum wage, or economics, or anything for that matter???

Individuals like him are the source of arguing against minimum wage floors.

If I'm spouting bullshit, and it's exactly what myrkul said, then myrkul is spouting bullshit as well. Please correct your assessment of my comments. I'll help you distinguish the difference:

Once an outside agency influences the market, it is part of the market, whether or not it is a buyer or seller, which is exactly what I said, and what you quoted.

I see. So you are spouting bullshit you just randomly picked up somewhere...

No. I'm not spouting bullshit.

And same question to you: how do you define a market distortion?

There's no such thing as a market distortion. Everything affecting market prices are simply affecting market prices.

[myrkul]

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

Liked.

Yes, very clear and concise.

[Rassah]

You don't know? He boasted that Obama's taxes would make his business unsustainable with all of his employees if he was elected. The takeaway is taxes were killing his business. He would have to do layoffs. Or lower their wages.

He was blustering and bluffing and whining, not unlike many here. After the election, his bluff was called. He realized he was a douchebag and gave everyone a raise. And guess what, he's still going to keep his house, which is the largest in America: http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected

His argument being dumb and having nothing to do with economics because Obama lowered taxes instead of raising them aside, what did his douchebaggery have to do with minimum wage, or economics, or anything for that matter???

Individuals like him are the source of arguing against minimum wage floors.

I knew about his "Vote for Romney or else" bullshit, but not about his minimum wage stuff (which isn't even there, since his complaint was about taxes, not minimum wage), thus he wasn't the source of my argument, and thus your claim is invalid.

[FirstAscent]

You don't know? He boasted that Obama's taxes would make his business unsustainable with all of his employees if he was elected. The takeaway is taxes were killing his business. He would have to do layoffs. Or lower their wages.

He was blustering and bluffing and whining, not unlike many here. After the election, his bluff was called. He realized he was a douchebag and gave everyone a raise. And guess what, he's still going to keep his house, which is the largest in America: http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected

His argument being dumb and having nothing to do with economics because Obama lowered taxes instead of raising them aside, what did his douchebaggery have to do with minimum wage, or economics, or anything for that matter???

Individuals like him are the source of arguing against minimum wage floors.

I knew about his "Vote for Romney or else" bullshit, but not about his minimum wage stuff (which isn't even there, since his complaint was about taxes, not minimum wage), thus he wasn't the source of my argument, and thus your claim is invalid.

He gave his employees a raise after the election (and backlash). It demonstrates his insincerity about the expenses his business incurs, one of which is wages.

[asdf]

A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.

[FirstAscent]

A study on how minimum wage floors and increases alter unemployment:

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/SS280/Card-Kruger-AER_Jan95.pdf

[FirstAscent]

A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.

So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws.

[myrkul]

A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.

So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws.

Laws don't create rights.

[FirstAscent]

A market, by definition, requires that property rights are respected. Any entity that initiates force is not a part of the market, but a distorter of it. The use of force is the distortion, fundamentally.

So you're in favor of laws, correct? Because property rights don't exist without laws.

Laws don't create rights.

What creates the right for you to say that this line is the boundary of the land you claim to own? What creates the right for you to say that the the 2 ounces of steel in some gadget you claim is yours is owned by you? Going back to first principles, where did the steel originate from, and how did it enter into a state that allows you to claim you own it?

[myrkul]

Going back to first principles, where did the steel originate from, and how did it enter into a state that allows you to claim you own it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

I own myself, as did the miner, steelworker, etc, and they (and I) freely contracted our labor to, respectively, mine the ore and shape that steel into something I would desire, and earn the money that I would use to buy it.

[augustocroppo]

Laws don't create rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

I own myself, as did the miner, steelworker, etc, and they (and I) freely contracted our labor to, respectively, mine the ore and shape that steel into something I would desire, and earn the money that I would use to buy it.

Oh dear... Here we go again. Myrkul and his daily distortion of well established concepts...

http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Substantive_Law

Substantive Law
The part of the law that creates, defines, and regulates rights, including, for example, the law of contracts, torts, wills, and real property; the essential substance of rights under law.

Could anyone tell Myrkul to free himself from the "Biaspedia" and start to search for independent sources?

[Rudd-O]

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.

OK.