What we need is FAIR markets, not free markets.

[Findeton]

No. just no. Those who would be doing the worst paid jobs get nothing, and the other workers will have to pick up the slack. I have been one of those who had to pick up the slack, so kindly stop spouting your socialist fallacies.

If the job really needs to be done, it will be done. And if it's done in a legal way, they'll give those who get the job at least the minimum wage. If it doesn't really need to be done, then I don't care.

[1714064839]

1714064839

[1714064839]

1714064839

[1714064839]

1714064839

[myrkul]

No. just no. Those who would be doing the worst paid jobs get nothing, and the other workers will have to pick up the slack. I have been one of those who had to pick up the slack, so kindly stop spouting your socialist fallacies.

If the job really needs to be done, it will be done. And if it's done in a legal way, they'll give those who get the job at least the minimum wage. If it doesn't really need to be done, then I don't care.

Let me explain. If you don't get it with this, I'll draw pictures.

Tom and Bob both work for Joe. They get paid $5.25 an hour.

Minimum wage goes up. to $7.25. Joe can't afford to pay them both that rate, so he cuts back. Bob gets laid off.

Now Tom has to do his job, AND the job Bob did, for $7.25 an hour.

Bob gets to go to Unemployment, and receive money stolen from both Joe and Tom. Oh, and everyone else.

[Findeton]

Let me explain. If you don't get it with this, I'll draw pictures.

Tom and Bob both work for Joe. They get paid $5.25 an hour.

Minimum wage goes up. to $7.25. Joe can't afford to pay them both that rate, so he cuts back. Bob gets laid off.

Now Tom has to do his job, AND the job Bob did, for $7.25 an hour.

Bob gets to go to Unemployment, and receive money stolen from both Joe and Tom. Oh, and everyone else.

If Tom gets to do both jobs at the same time, it looks like a productivity increase to me (we are charging per hour, and we are assuming the employer is a law abiding citizen). In your scenario, minimum wage just increased economy's efficiency over the "free market" scenario. This is getting funny.

[Anonymous]

I don't think Findeton deserves to be called an idiot.

[JoelKatz]

Let me explain. If you don't get it with this, I'll draw pictures.

Tom and Bob both work for Joe. They get paid $5.25 an hour.

Minimum wage goes up. to $7.25. Joe can't afford to pay them both that rate, so he cuts back. Bob gets laid off.

Now Tom has to do his job, AND the job Bob did, for $7.25 an hour.

Bob gets to go to Unemployment, and receive money stolen from both Joe and Tom. Oh, and everyone else.

If Tom gets to do both jobs at the same time, it looks like a productivity increase to me (we are charging per hour, and we are assuming the employer is a law abiding citizen). In your scenario, minimum wage just increased economy's efficiency over the "free market" scenary. This is getting funny.

Exactly. If Joe could hire just Tom for $7.25 an hour and get him to do both Tom and Bob's job, he would already be doing that. If somehow he couldn't do that before and now he can, then raising the minimum wage did magic. Tom gets a higher salary. Tom is a more valuable employee. Joe gets the same work done for less money. And Bob is free to work someplace where he can be employed efficiently rather than dragging both Joe and Tom down.

[Findeton]

Wow you're an idiot.

It's you that proposed that scenario, which Atlas (btw, thanks Atlas!) for example might not agree with. If your only arguments to my reasoning are insults, then I might abstain to answering you.

[myrkul]

Suuuuure... Employer gets more profit, only remaining employee gets to do twice as much work for a third more pay, and the other worker gets to live off other people's work. That's 'efficient'.

And that's assuming Tom can actually manage to get his and Bob's job done.

[MoonShadow]

I don't think Findeton deserves to be called an idiot.

Of course not, but his economic illiteracy is frustrating.

[myrkul]

If Joe could hire just Tom for $7.25 an hour and get him to do both Tom and Bob's job, he would already be doing that.

This. Right there. Laws do not make magic. You can not wave your pen and make Tom more efficient.

[NghtRppr]

Banning slavery also causes unemployment.

Slaves weren't employed anymore than cows were employed. They were considered human cattle. The kind of employment we're talking about is voluntary, where people want to work for a price that is offered to them. Forced unemployment is definitely not a good thing for the people being unemployed. The fact they chose a job vs. anything else tells us that they preferred having the job. Forcing them to not work is putting them in a less preferential situation i.e. they are worse off.

[Findeton]

If Joe could hire just Tom for $7.25 an hour and get him to do both Tom and Bob's job, he would already be doing that.

This. Right there. Laws do not make magic. You can not wave your pen and make Tom more efficient.

Of course you can't. But in your scenario you said that "Tom has to do his job, AND the job Bob did, for $7.25 an hour. ". Well, if he achieves that, there's a productivity increase. If he doesn't achieve that, well, he might have to work more hours but supposing the employer respects the law, there's also a maximum for working hours/week.

[myrkul]

If Joe could hire just Tom for $7.25 an hour and get him to do both Tom and Bob's job, he would already be doing that.

This. Right there. Laws do not make magic. You can not wave your pen and make Tom more efficient.

Of course you can't. But in your scenario you said that "Tom has to do his job, AND the job Bob did, for $7.25 an hour. ". Well, if he achieves that, there's a productivity increase. If he doesn't achieve that, well, he might have to work more hours but supposing the employer respects the law, there's also a maximum for working hours/week.

No, if he fails to do that, he'll get fired. Oh, look.. two people living off other people's work, and a Job that's hard to fill, because now it requires a more productive worker which, of course, is rarer.

[Findeton]

If Joe could hire just Tom for $7.25 an hour and get him to do both Tom and Bob's job, he would already be doing that.

This. Right there. Laws do not make magic. You can not wave your pen and make Tom more efficient.

Of course you can't. But in your scenario you said that "Tom has to do his job, AND the job Bob did, for $7.25 an hour. ". Well, if he achieves that, there's a productivity increase. If he doesn't achieve that, well, he might have to work more hours but supposing the employer respects the law, there's also a maximum for working hours/week.

No, if he fails to do that, he'll get fired. Oh, look.. two people living off other people's work, and a Job that's hard to fill, because now it requires a more productive worker which, of course, is rarer.

Yes, the employer needs a more productive worker. But perhaps all workers with an efficiency of $7.25 an hour are already working. And if they are not working, then there's again a productivity increase because someone who was unemployed gets to do the job in a more efficient way.

I'll give you a hint I shouldn't give you because I'm supposedly an idiot.
-One way I see minimum wages actually hurting economy is when because of the minimum wage increase, the work gets totally unprofitable and the job just doesn't get done.
-Another way I see minimum wages actually "hurting" economy is when, because of the minimum wage increase, the employer rises the price of the service to his clients so inflation rises. This anyways represents a wealth redistribution mechanism and, if the minimum wage is not very high, it's not a big problem to me.

[myrkul]

Yes, the employer needs a more productive worker. But perhaps all workers with an efficiency of $7.25 an hour are already working. And if they are not working, then there's again a productivity increase because someone who was unemployed gets to do the job in a more efficient way.

I'll give you a hint I shouldn't give you because I'm supposedly an idiot.
-One way I see minimum wages actually hurting economy is when because of the minimum wage increase, the work gets totally unprofitable and the job just doesn't get done.
-Another way I see minimum wages actually "hurting" economy is when, because of the minimum wage increase, the employer rises the price of the service to his clients so inflation rises. This is anyways represents a wealth redistribution mechanism and, if the minimum wage is not very high, it's not a big problem to me.

If all workers capable of working at $7.25 are already working, raising the minimum wage did nothing except get people not worth $7.25 an hour fired. Jobs don't get done, or get externalized (Ex: Self-checkout lane in the supermarket, or only one cashier at McDonalds with a line that fills the lobby).

If there were surplus workers with $7.25 an hour skills, you've still managed to get more workers fired than hired. Worse, those workers are now on unemployment, getting paid out of stolen funds to do nothing. Either way, you've damaged the economy, and not helped the people you were hoping (ostensibly) to help, the lowest paid workers.

As I said before, the Employer having more bargaining power than the employee is better solved with collective bargaining, not a minimum wage.

[Findeton]

If all workers capable of working at $7.25 are already working, raising the minimum wage did nothing except get people not worth $7.25 an hour fired. Jobs don't get done, or get externalized (Ex: Self-checkout lane in the supermarket, or only one cashier at McDonalds with a line that fills the lobby).

That's the first scenario I described in my last post where minimum wages harm economy. Therefore I agree with that. I must say that under that scenario, perhaps Joe and Tom should study to get more efficient.

If there were surplus workers with $7.25 an hour skills, you've still managed to get more workers fired than hired. Worse, those workers are now on unemployment, getting paid out of stolen funds to do nothing. Either way, you've damaged the economy, and not helped the people you were hoping (ostensibly) to help, the lowest paid workers.

If there were surplus workers with $7.25 an hour skills, then there was a market ineficciency that got resolved. In fact, under that scenario that ineficciency should've been resolved without rising minimum wage as I don't see why the employer would hire two workers for $5.25 an hour instead of one worker with $7.25 an hour if the latter can do both jobs at the same time.  If the worker with  $7.25 an hour skills cannot do the job twice as fast as the ones being paid $5.25 an hour, then what will theoretically happen is that it will take longer to get the job done (it gets externalized you migh say).

[myrkul]

That's the first scenario I described in my last post where minimum wages harm economy. Therefore I agree with that. I must say that under that scenario, perhaps Joe and Tom should study to get more efficient.


If there were surplus workers with $7.25 an hour skills, then there was a market inefficiency that got resolved. In fact, under that scenario that inefficiency should've been resolved without rising minimum wage as I don't see why the employer would hire two workers for $5.25 an hour instead of one worker with $7.25 an hour if the latter can do both jobs at the same time.  If the worker with  $7.25 an hour skills cannot do the job twice as fast as the ones being paid $5.25 an hour, then what will theoretically happen is that it will take longer to get the job done (it gets externalized you might say).

OK, so... It's harmful, or unnecessary, by your own admission. Why, then, do you force it upon people?

[misterbigg]

A true monopoly cannot exist without help from the government in the form of regulations masquerading as consumer "protections."

Microsoft: Was never a true monopoly. Government laws did not give them special treatment.

AT&T and other Telecom providers: Perfect example of a true monopoly. The government uses force to prevent other people from using the radio wave spectrum the way they want.

Cable TV: True monopoly. State and municipal regulations allow only one company to provide the "last mile." (same for telephone land lines).

Oil refineries: Cartel. Government tightly controls when new refineries can be built.

[Findeton]

That's the first scenario I described in my last post where minimum wages harm economy. Therefore I agree with that. I must say that under that scenario, perhaps Joe and Tom should study to get more efficient.


If there were surplus workers with $7.25 an hour skills, then there was a market inefficiency that got resolved. In fact, under that scenario that inefficiency should've been resolved without rising minimum wage as I don't see why the employer would hire two workers for $5.25 an hour instead of one worker with $7.25 an hour if the latter can do both jobs at the same time.  If the worker with  $7.25 an hour skills cannot do the job twice as fast as the ones being paid $5.25 an hour, then what will theoretically happen is that it will take longer to get the job done (it gets externalized you might say).

OK, so... It's harmful, or unnecessary, by your own admission. Why, then, do you force it upon people?

You don't understand what I'm saying there. I'm just saying that if a worker can get the job done for $7.25 an hour, the employer should never hire Joe and Tom for $5.25 an hour and that fact has nothing to do with minimum wage. I'm just saying that in that case your scenario is absurd if your objective is to evaluate the costs of rising the minimum wage.

In other words, you have supposed that here was an agent (the employer) in the economy who was acting in a stupid way. Of course that a rise of the minimum wage can make the market more efficient under that circunstance. But that is related to stupidity, not to minimum wage.

[myrkul]

You don't understand what I'm saying there. I'm just saying that if a worker can get the job done for $7.25 an hour, the employer should never hire Joe and Tom for $5.25 an hour and that fact has nothing to do with minimum wage. I'm just saying that in that case your scenario is absurd if your objective is to evaluate the costs of rising the minimum wage.

Then evaluate the benefits for me. Paint me a scenary.

[Findeton]

You don't understand what I'm saying there. I'm just saying that if a worker can get the job done for $7.25 an hour, the employer should never hire Joe and Tom for $5.25 an hour and that fact has nothing to do with minimum wage. I'm just saying that in that case your scenario is absurd if your objective is to evaluate the costs of rising the minimum wage.

Then evaluate the benefits for me. Paint me a scenary.

I already did, somewhere inside this thread. Find it, I'm sure you are intelligent enough to find it.