national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad?

[Rudd-O]

Statists have a great fondness for Goldilocks "arguments" because they deny absolute truths and allow them to bicker endlessly and theatrically about how hot the soup should be, inflating their own self importance.

Let's be a statist for ten seconds guys. Would you rather live in a world where you are raped not at all, or a world with rape ten times as its current prevalence? I think we can all agree that, obviously, the world with just a little bit of rape (our current world, coincidentally) has the right amount of rape, because we couldn't possible think that no rape is good, amirite? those people saying that rape is always wrong are just stupid because, you know, sometimes bitch asked for it.

[Richy_T]

Let's put this in a perspective that maybe you can understand. Would you rather live in a world with zero CO2 in the atmosphere, or ten times the current amount that is currently in the atmosphere?

That is actually an argument for letting the market determine the wage for a specific labor, you know that, right? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is self-regulated by the animals and plants. It's not "decided" and enforced by some regulatory agency. CO2 levels increase, more plants take advantage of that CO2, reducing the levels and increasing oxygen.

Price floors cause surpluses in every other good which you set them for. Why would they not cause surplus in labor?

Human beings could not live in an atmosphere with zero CO2 (or is that your point?).

Yes, that's his point. We actually need a small amount of CO2 to trigger our breathing response. Too much, or too little, and we suffocate.

Yep, I see that now. Apples & oranges really. If my posts disappear from this thread, it's because it looks just too daft to keep appearing in my new-replies list. Feel free to quote for posterity...

[Richy_T]

More aged workers who need a higher wage to sustain themselves would have to differentiate themselves from these teenage workers in order to compete.  Experience would be the large factor here, perhaps with ability to work a full-time, non-flexible schedule being a close second.  Those are valuable traits to many companies wishing to hire, traits for which they very well may be willing to pay a significant amount higher to attract non-teenagers to the positions.

Being willing to turn up every day counts for a lot too. Also commitments so that you don't just walk out when the job gets crappy.

[Rudd-O]

it's worth noting that the idea that we suffocate in an environment or an atmosphere without co2 is wrong -- we do not suffocate, we do breathe, even el 100% oxygen, because the body is producing co2 as you breathe so there's always enough co2 to in the lungs to trigger your respiration reflex.

FirstIdiot can't even get his analogies right. Not even that. I loled. plus the analogy is stupid because it doesn't capture minimum wage and its economic implications.

[myrkul]

it's worth noting that the idea that we suffocate in an environment or an atmosphere without co2 is wrong -- we do not suffocate, we do breathe, even el 100% oxygen, because the body is producing co2 as you breathe so there's always enough co2 to in the lungs to trigger your respiration reflex.

Veeery slowly. We might be OK at night, but during the day, I'd wager you'd have to spend half your time remembering to breathe.

[bb113]

Did you read the paper I posted? The one about not finding any correlation between wage floors and unemployment rates?

Can you explain why there is no correlation, when the basic law of supply and demand says there should be?

Flawed research.

So I actually did look at the paper...

1) That paper does not make the claim First Ascent says it does (it claims to have detected publication bias, not "no correlation")
2) That paper is flawed research, and this has been reported in the literature. However it looks like they accidentally came to the correct conclusion
(they had a 50-50 chance of doing this)
3) The claim first ascent is making is supported by other different literature, in fact the same literature that debunks that first paper.

See:
Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis
Hristos Doucouliagos and T. D. Stanley
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x
47:2 June 2009 0007–1080 pp. 406–428


Welcome to the confused world of academia.

[FirstAscent]

Let's put this in a perspective that maybe you can understand. Would you rather live in a world with zero CO2 in the atmosphere, or ten times the current amount that is currently in the atmosphere?

That is actually an argument for letting the market determine the wage for a specific labor, you know that, right? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is self-regulated by the animals and plants. It's not "decided" and enforced by some regulatory agency. CO2 levels increase, more plants take advantage of that CO2, reducing the levels and increasing oxygen.

Actually, the markets, absence regulation are causing excessive warming. It's regulations which are needed to prevent humanity from over polluting. But I don't expect your conspiracy believing clique to buy into that.

[myrkul]

Let's put this in a perspective that maybe you can understand. Would you rather live in a world with zero CO2 in the atmosphere, or ten times the current amount that is currently in the atmosphere?

That is actually an argument for letting the market determine the wage for a specific labor, you know that, right? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is self-regulated by the animals and plants. It's not "decided" and enforced by some regulatory agency. CO2 levels increase, more plants take advantage of that CO2, reducing the levels and increasing oxygen.

Actually, the markets, absence regulation are causing excessive warming. It's regulations which are needed to prevent humanity from over polluting. But I don't expect your conspiracy believing clique to buy into that.

Way to mix your analogies, and bring in your agenda at the same time. You want to try again? Hint: we're actually talking about wages here, not global warming climate change. Let's ignore for the moment the pollution argument, before or against. Before humans started doing that, would you agree that the environment regulated itself?

[FirstAscent]

Let's put this in a perspective that maybe you can understand. Would you rather live in a world with zero CO2 in the atmosphere, or ten times the current amount that is currently in the atmosphere?

That is actually an argument for letting the market determine the wage for a specific labor, you know that, right? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is self-regulated by the animals and plants. It's not "decided" and enforced by some regulatory agency. CO2 levels increase, more plants take advantage of that CO2, reducing the levels and increasing oxygen.

Actually, the markets, absence regulation are causing excessive warming. It's regulations which are needed to prevent humanity from over polluting. But I don't expect your conspiracy believing clique to buy into that.

Way to mix your analogies, and bring in your agenda at the same time. You want to try again? Hint: we're actually talking about wages here, not global warming climate change. Let's ignore for the moment the pollution argument, before or against. Before humans started doing that, would you agree that the environment regulated itself?

I never mentioned climate change until you brought up the fish example analogy. What a hypocrite you are. And apparently a dumbfuck as well if you didn't recognize that my CO2 example stemmed directly from your own actions.

[myrkul]

Let's put this in a perspective that maybe you can understand. Would you rather live in a world with zero CO2 in the atmosphere, or ten times the current amount that is currently in the atmosphere?

That is actually an argument for letting the market determine the wage for a specific labor, you know that, right? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is self-regulated by the animals and plants. It's not "decided" and enforced by some regulatory agency. CO2 levels increase, more plants take advantage of that CO2, reducing the levels and increasing oxygen.

Actually, the markets, absence regulation are causing excessive warming. It's regulations which are needed to prevent humanity from over polluting. But I don't expect your conspiracy believing clique to buy into that.

Way to mix your analogies, and bring in your agenda at the same time. You want to try again? Hint: we're actually talking about wages here, not global warming climate change. Let's ignore for the moment the pollution argument, before or against. Before humans started doing that, would you agree that the environment regulated itself?

I never mentioned climate change until you brought up the fish example analogy. What a hypocrite you are. And apparently a dumbfuck as well if you didn't recognize that my CO2 example stemmed directly from your own actions.

Instead of ad hominem attacks, would you like to respond to the argument? Specifically: Before humans started polluting/attempting to regulate that pollution, would you agree that the environment regulated itself?

[Rassah]

Yes I missed your lesson on where supply/demand curves break down. Rather, if you had such a lesson, I didn't see it.

That's unfortunate.

Perhaps you can help by pointing it out? I likely missed it because I confused it with just another random debate post.

No, I am asking you what the "other factors" you mentioned you knew are making the unemployment rate stay stable despite the cost of labor being increased.

Perhaps because the minimum wage floor puts enough money in the lowest wage earners' pockets that they can actually become (to a point) effective participants in the economy, which in turn helps drive the economy.

For that to be true, you would have to assume that raising the minimum wage does not increase the cost of products&services, and does not raise the price of everything at the same time as well (I.e. a min wage earner earning $5, then getting wages raised to $7, will still be earning an equivalent of $5 when adjusted by the resulting inflation).

There's a balance in everything.

Ah, I remember examining and looking for that balance in one of my economics classes. We still used supply/demand/price/quantity graphs to find out where it was and what overall effect it has.

[FirstAscent]

Let's put this in a perspective that maybe you can understand. Would you rather live in a world with zero CO2 in the atmosphere, or ten times the current amount that is currently in the atmosphere?

That is actually an argument for letting the market determine the wage for a specific labor, you know that, right? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is self-regulated by the animals and plants. It's not "decided" and enforced by some regulatory agency. CO2 levels increase, more plants take advantage of that CO2, reducing the levels and increasing oxygen.

Actually, the markets, absence regulation are causing excessive warming. It's regulations which are needed to prevent humanity from over polluting. But I don't expect your conspiracy believing clique to buy into that.

Way to mix your analogies, and bring in your agenda at the same time. You want to try again? Hint: we're actually talking about wages here, not global warming climate change. Let's ignore for the moment the pollution argument, before or against. Before humans started doing that, would you agree that the environment regulated itself?

I never mentioned climate change until you brought up the fish example analogy. What a hypocrite you are. And apparently a dumbfuck as well if you didn't recognize that my CO2 example stemmed directly from your own actions.

Instead of ad hominem attacks, would you like to respond to the argument? Specifically: Before humans started polluting/attempting to regulate that pollution, would you agree that the environment regulated itself?

They're not ad hominem attacks. Can you comprehend that? They're forum posts containing text which describe your character. There is nothing about the written observations which relate to the validity or invalidity of your argumentation. Rather, they simply are observations of your behavior.

Now, regarding your question about environmental pollution, did you not just say that you did not want to go down that road? You just accused me of bringing it into the argument.

Knock it off with your hypocritical attitude, and stop with your accusations of me conflating issues, and then you yourself immediately picking up that line of argumentation in your next post (or next sentence, for that matter). Once you can address your own problems regarding posting, we can discuss.

[FirstAscent]

For that to be true, you would have to assume that raising the minimum wage does not increase the cost of products&services, and does not raise the price of everything at the same time as well (I.e. a min wage earner earning $5, then getting wages raised to $7, will still be earning an equivalent of $5 when adjusted by the resulting inflation).

You need to demonstrate some things to follow that line of logic. They are:

- The efficiency of $5 workers vs. $8 workers
- The operating margins of the company
- The law of diminishing returns regarding more workers
- The quality of service or products using cheaper labor

[myrkul]

Let's put this in a perspective that maybe you can understand. Would you rather live in a world with zero CO2 in the atmosphere, or ten times the current amount that is currently in the atmosphere?

That is actually an argument for letting the market determine the wage for a specific labor, you know that, right? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is self-regulated by the animals and plants. It's not "decided" and enforced by some regulatory agency. CO2 levels increase, more plants take advantage of that CO2, reducing the levels and increasing oxygen.

Actually, the markets, absence regulation are causing excessive warming. It's regulations which are needed to prevent humanity from over polluting. But I don't expect your conspiracy believing clique to buy into that.

Way to mix your analogies, and bring in your agenda at the same time. You want to try again? Hint: we're actually talking about wages here, not global warming climate change. Let's ignore for the moment the pollution argument, before or against. Before humans started doing that, would you agree that the environment regulated itself?

I never mentioned climate change until you brought up the fish example analogy. What a hypocrite you are. And apparently a dumbfuck as well if you didn't recognize that my CO2 example stemmed directly from your own actions.

Instead of ad hominem attacks, would you like to respond to the argument? Specifically: Before humans started polluting/attempting to regulate that pollution, would you agree that the environment regulated itself?

They're not ad hominem attacks. Can you comprehend that? They're forum posts containing text which describe your character. There is nothing about the written observations which relate to the validity or invalidity of your argumentation. Rather, they simply are observations of your behavior.

Now, regarding your question about environmental pollution, did you not just say that you did not want to go down that road? You just accused me of bringing it into the argument.

Knock it off with your hypocritical attitude, and stop with your accusations of me conflating issues, and then you yourself immediately picking up that line of argumentation in your next post (or next sentence, for that matter). Once you can address your own problems regarding posting, we can discuss.

Witness, everyone, the forum sociopath in his natural habitat. Notice how he avoids answering the question, for he knows he has overstepped his ability to debate. Notice how he switches from debating the issues to debating the character of the poster. Proof positive that he has no argument; else he would advance it.

I say again: Remove humans, and your preconceptions about their effects on the environment. Does the environment regulate itself?

[Rassah]

it's worth noting that the idea that we suffocate in an environment or an atmosphere without co2 is wrong -- we do not suffocate, we do breathe, even el 100% oxygen, because the body is producing co2 as you breathe so there's always enough co2 to in the lungs to trigger your respiration reflex.

FirstIdiot can't even get his analogies right. Not even that. I loled. plus the analogy is stupid because it doesn't capture minimum wage and its economic implications.

Please give him some (A LOT of) credit; at least he's not cunicula.

[FirstAscent]

They're not ad hominem attacks. Can you comprehend that? They're forum posts containing text which describe your character. There is nothing about the written observations which relate to the validity or invalidity of your argumentation. Rather, they simply are observations of your behavior.

Now, regarding your question about environmental pollution, did you not just say that you did not want to go down that road? You just accused me of bringing it into the argument.

Knock it off with your hypocritical attitude, and stop with your accusations of me conflating issues, and then you yourself immediately picking up that line of argumentation in your next post (or next sentence, for that matter). Once you can address your own problems regarding posting, we can discuss.

Witness, everyone, the forum sociopath in his natural habitat. Notice how he avoids answering the question, for he knows he has overstepped his ability to debate. Notice how he switches from debating the issues to debating the character of the poster. Proof positive that he has no argument; else he would advance it.

I say again: Remove humans, and your preconceptions about their effects on the environment. Does the environment regulate itself?

When you are ready to discuss, let me know, and I will be happy to discuss. Let me know.

[myrkul]

They're not ad hominem attacks. Can you comprehend that? They're forum posts containing text which describe your character. There is nothing about the written observations which relate to the validity or invalidity of your argumentation. Rather, they simply are observations of your behavior.

Now, regarding your question about environmental pollution, did you not just say that you did not want to go down that road? You just accused me of bringing it into the argument.

Knock it off with your hypocritical attitude, and stop with your accusations of me conflating issues, and then you yourself immediately picking up that line of argumentation in your next post (or next sentence, for that matter). Once you can address your own problems regarding posting, we can discuss.

Witness, everyone, the forum sociopath in his natural habitat. Notice how he avoids answering the question, for he knows he has overstepped his ability to debate. Notice how he switches from debating the issues to debating the character of the poster. Proof positive that he has no argument; else he would advance it.

I say again: Remove humans, and your preconceptions about their effects on the environment. Does the environment regulate itself?

When you are ready to discuss, let me know, and I will be happy to discuss. Let me know.

Does asking a question not indicate a willingness to discuss? Very well, let me explicitly state it. I am willing to discuss. Please answer the question: Is the environment (ignoring human intervention, either way) self-regulating?

Prediction: you will refuse to answer, deflecting, because you know that the truth hurts your argument.

[Rassah]

For that to be true, you would have to assume that raising the minimum wage does not increase the cost of products&services, and does not raise the price of everything at the same time as well (I.e. a min wage earner earning $5, then getting wages raised to $7, will still be earning an equivalent of $5 when adjusted by the resulting inflation).

You need to demonstrate some things to follow that line of logic. They are:

- The efficiency of $5 workers vs. $8 workers

I'm saying you are using nominal values, when the real value of those is the same. The efficiency of a worker earning $5 in year 1 is the same as the efficiency of a worker earning $8 in year 2 when adjusted for the 60% inflation caused by the rise in that wage. Now, I'll grant you that the inflation jump won't be in the entire economy. As i mentioned previously, high level services and products used by wealthy people will probably not be affected, but things used by those same minimum wage earners, like fast food, bread, milk and other produce, discount store prices, and other businesses like that will be.

- The operating margins of the company

In a perfectly competitive market, margins, and thus profits, are zero. A lot of the companies that have minimum wage workers are in industries with enormous competition. McD's has Burger King, White Castle, Hardee's, Checkers/Rally's, Wendy's, Arbys, Roy Rogers, and even Taco Bell to compete against if you include substitutions. Thus I expect their margins to be tiny, pennies per hamburger (close to $0.13 for a BigMac back in 2001, no idea what now). Small margins = raise prices or reduce costs (employees)

- The law of diminishing returns regarding more workers

This is almost irrelevant, as any company that hopes to compete would keep only the workers it needs. Companies don't hire more employees just to give someone a job. Those that do that are beaten out on price and fail.

- The quality of service or products using cheaper labor

Again, irrelevant, because the quality of the product or service is what you are selling, not what you are giving away for free. The reason Checkers/Hardee's can charge more than McD's for their burgers and still stay in business is because they provide more quality burgers. It is NOT because they pay their employees more, and the employees choose to make better burgers as a "thank you" to the company. So, if the quality of your product sucks, yes, you can hire more competent employees and pay them a higher wage (which wouldn't have anything to do with minimum wage laws), but then you would have to include that increased cost in your product, or go broke. And if the quality of your product sucks compared to your competitor, but you are both paying the same wages, then obviously something else is wrong. And if your product just plain sucks, then no amount of well paid employees will help you anyway.

Let me know where I've missed something

[FirstAscent]

When you are ready to discuss, let me know, and I will be happy to discuss. Let me know.

Does asking a question not indicate a willingness to discuss?

Let's revisit what you said a few posts back:

Way to mix your analogies, and bring in your agenda at the same time. You want to try again? Hint: we're actually talking about wages here, not global warming climate change. Let's ignore for the moment the pollution argument, before or against. Before humans started doing that, would you agree that the environment regulated itself?

Given your above statement, I see an insistence on your part to stick to wages, despite you bringing up the fish analogy, and then you have the nerve to say my CO2 argument is irrelevant, and then state you wish to ignore the pollution argument, and then you wish to continue with discussion on the environment.

It doesn't work that way.

Very well, let me explicitly state it. I am willing to discuss. Please answer the question: Is the environment (ignoring human intervention, either way) self-regulating?

So you're willing to discuss. I already know that. But am I willing to discuss if you dictate the questions which can be asked immediately after telling me what I should or should not bring up? I don't think so.

Prediction: you will refuse to answer, deflecting, because you know that the truth hurts your argument.

Regarding the answer to the question you're asking, in actuality, the truth does not hurt my argument in the least.

[FirstAscent]

Let me know where I've missed something

The wages paid to In n Out Burger employees, the fresh materials used in their products, and the fact that their products cost less than McDonalds.