|
VitalSigns posted:So instead of a discussion of the trade-offs and benefits of the minimum wage you get reasoning along the lines of "cars are unsafe at any speed, if you drove 65,000,000,0000 mph you'd destroy a whole city!" But it works well at winning over people who think like children. It's entirely possible to have a $100 minimum wage, it's not a wholly unreasonable/impossible situation as the 65,000,000,0000 mph scenario. The problem is that the bad things minimum wage opponents allege would almost certainly happen. The point of extrapolating progressive moralizations is that you can pull them onto the same set of assumptions as you. Once you get someone to admit that a $100 minimum wage would result in inflation and dramatic economic effects, it's simply a matter of negotiation. It's the same way that bringing bigamy into the conversation about gay marriage pulls a progressive off the platform of "consenting adults should be able to do what they want", and bringing up prostitution will quickly cause a retreat from the position of "women should be able to do what they want with their bodies".
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
yes, people do use fallacies to make bad arguments, you are correct about that
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Wait what, I thought you were agreeing with me. If you can't tell the difference between orders of magnitude and you think "if something is true for 10X, it must be true for all X" is sound reasoning, then may I recommend for you a career in literary analysis or art critique or basically anything that's not construction or engineering or economics or has anything to do with reasoning about the real world.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
See this wire that's rated for 115 volts. Watch me put 1150 volts across it. Oh my god, my house burned down, electricity is too dangerous yall, never use it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yes, people do use fallacies to make bad arguments, you are correct about that Those aren't fallacies at all. VitalSigns posted:Wait what, I thought you were agreeing with me. If you fundamentally agree with the concept of "the more you increase salaries, the more negative effects there will be on the economy", it's simply a matter of negotiation from there, and easy to introduce doubt in order to shut down the talks of any increase. Fighting against progressive reforms is easy once you've gotten someone to abandon an emotional or faith-based argument like "You must hate poor people if you don't support my minimum wage proposal"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It also tends to be frustrating to argue against, because (like Libertarianism and Conservatism), it's based on child-level reasoning that isn't suited for talking about the real world. The real world of course has trade-offs and there's no reason to assume the point of maximum benefit must lie at some extreme. But to a child, if mommy lies once then mommy is a liar and can never be trusted again, or if one thing in the Bible is metaphor then it's all a lie therefore earth must have been literally created in seven days beginning on a certain Monday 6,000 years ago. If you allow gay marriage then you're saying gay marriage is good and the next step is to force everyone to get gay married at gunpoint, etc etc. I think its more along the lines of illustrating by hyperbole that "increasing minimum doesn't have bad economic effects" is a really dumb argument. Of course there is a point where raising the minimum wage causes ill effects , and saying "well why don't we raise it to 100$ then!" is a attempt to forcing people who are attempting to hand-waive potential ill effects away to admit there is a point where it is a bad idea and justify why their stated preference is not going to cause that. For the record I think $15 is too high for a federal minimum wage, It'd probably be appropriate for where I live, but I've lived in parts of the country before where $15 would be absurdly high based on median wage and cost of living and would probably seriously gently caress small businesses.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
on the left posted:Those aren't fallacies at all. they are, actually Jarmak posted:I think its more along the lines of illustrating by hyperbole that "increasing minimum doesn't have bad economic effects" is a really dumb argument. Of course there is a point where raising the minimum wage causes ill effects , and saying "well why don't we raise it to 100$ then!" is a attempt to forcing people who are attempting to hand-waive potential ill effects away to admit there is a point where it is a bad idea and justify why their stated preference is not going to cause that. "drinking too much water kills you, drinking water therefore has bad health effects" -someone who thinks they are making a good argument but in reality is making a bad argument
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I think its more along the lines of illustrating by hyperbole that "increasing minimum doesn't have bad economic effects" is a really dumb argument. Of course there is a point where raising the minimum wage causes ill effects , and saying "well why don't we raise it to 100$ then!" is a attempt to forcing people who are attempting to hand-waive potential ill effects away to admit there is a point where it is a bad idea and justify why their stated preference is not going to cause that. This is just your gut-feel and has no basis in fact. It's essentially the same as the Laffer curve: just because an inflection point exists with diminishing returns beyond that doesn't mean you're free to just pull its location out of your rear end. The minimum wage was $11/hr in today's money back in the 1960s and it was not a problem for small businesses at all. At the very least you should agree that we should raise it back to its 1965 level and peg it to inflation.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
i mean you realize this is why people believe the laffer curve is an actual thing and not just a vacant rhetorical point
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Obama's socialist food stamp program tries to ensure that the poor get 2500 calories per day but I think that's too much because if you force feed someone 25,000 calories per day they'll die. Therefore food stamps are poisoning the poor and instead we should let the free market settle on a good and proper ration for the unemployed (zero calories per day sounds about right)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:they are, actually $100 an hour would result in a massive pay increase that would in no uncertain terms raise the standard of living of anybody with a job that paid under $100 an hour though. If you are arguing that the minimum wage increase is for worker benefit, it makes no sense to stop at $15 an hour. The only reason to stick to a "reasonable" minimum wage is because you are concerned about economic effects that are mostly irrelevant to non-workers.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
Okay, I agree that it is reasonable to assume that somewhere between $7.25 and $100 there lies a local maximum of social benefit beyond which further increases in the minimum wage would be a net negative. What conclusion do you draw from this.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay, I agree that it is reasonable to assume that somewhere between $7.25 and $100 there lies a local maximum of social benefit beyond which further increases in the minimum wage would be a net negative. What conclusion do you draw from this. From there, it's easy to negotiate down to the point where no action is taken.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
on the left posted:$100 an hour would result in a massive pay increase that would in no uncertain terms raise the standard of living of anybody with a job that paid under $100 an hour though. If you are arguing that the minimum wage increase is for worker benefit, it makes no sense to stop at $15 an hour. The only reason to stick to a "reasonable" minimum wage is because you are concerned about economic effects that are mostly irrelevant to non-workers. ok "your proposal is too reasonable, if it wasn't reasonable, it would be unreasonable. your move, liberals  "
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:ok Why do you oppose a higher minimum wage, do you hate poor people?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
on the left posted:Why do you oppose a higher minimum wage, do you hate poor people? i don't oppose a higher minimum wage, though
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
on the left posted:From there, it's easy to negotiate down to the point where no action is taken. This is just a touch too self-aware to be serious.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is just a touch too self-aware to be serious. If you are trying to get what you want, move the argument to from emotional appeals about the poor to complex statistical analysis where most people are out of their depth and the people who know what they are doing are generally on your side.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is just your gut-feel and has no basis in fact. It's essentially the same as the Laffer curve: just because an inflection point exists with diminishing returns beyond that doesn't mean you're free to just pull its location out of your rear end. Saying that $15 isn't a problem is just as much gut feel unless there's been some studies looking at that number specifically that you're basing this off. Barring that I'm basing my judgement on living off various wages in various parts of the country. I think 12 pegged to inflation is a very reasonable number at the federal level, certain states and municipalities should be much higher then that.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Saying that $15 isn't a problem is just as much gut feel unless there's been some studies looking at that number specifically that you're basing this off. i hate to break it to you, but all economics is a judgement call based on individual values since money is an abstract concept and convenient fiction we use to regulate transactions between individuals and groups of individuals $15 is a figure which largely matches the living wage for a large proportion of individuals who work for minimum wage, which is nice, as it alleviates poverty among people who have jobs but are poor. whether or not you think society needs to help people who have jobs which don't pay them enough to have a decent life is one of those gut decisions boner confessor fucked around with this message at 07:53 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Saying that $15 isn't a problem is just as much gut feel unless there's been some studies looking at that number specifically that you're basing this off. Barring that I'm basing my judgement on living off various wages in various parts of the country. This is true, the minimum wage has never been raised to $15 in America so we don't know what effects will appear. Although, there's a bit of a catch-22 here isn't there? We wouldn't have as much information as we do about the minimum wage if we weren't willing to try it and then measure the effect. Had we approached it the way you want, we never would have had the opportunity to discover that minimum wages in the neighborhood of $10 didn't have the negative effects its opponents claimed they would. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:53 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is true, the minimum wage has never been raised to $15 so we don't know what effects will appear. Although, there's a bit of a catch-22 here isn't there? We wouldn't have as much information as we do about the minimum wage if we weren't willing to try it and then measure the effect. Had we approached it the way you want, we never would have had the opportunity to discover that minimum wages in the neighborhood of $10 didn't have the negative effects its opponents claimed they would. I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm going off my best judgement and could very well be wrong. Though to be pedantic I think anything short of $11 isn't really discovering anything because as you pointed out it's ground we've tread before.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
it's really easy to be all "higher wages are going to gently caress small business across rural america" when rural america is already hosed by lack of economic prospects and a shift to the service economy that all but guarantees structural poverty and economic collapse in places that simply don't matter to a global economy
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's really easy to be all "higher wages are going to gently caress small business across rural america" when rural america is already hosed by lack of economic prospects and a shift to the service economy that all but guarantees structural poverty and economic collapse in places that simply don't matter to a global economy You say this like it's some sort smokescreen instead of a very real reason to be concerned.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Though to be pedantic I think anything short of $11 isn't really discovering anything because as you pointed out it's ground we've tread before. But it wasn't the first time we did it, is my point. The fed sets inflation targets anyway so if we find we've set the minimum wage too high all we have to do is wait for the real value to gradually erode to whatever real value we decide is best. But we shouldn't just assume businesses can't handle it. Taxes are lower, productivity is higher, and profits are at record highs, businesses have plenty of money. And even that's making a big assumption that the minimum wage actually is a net negative to small business' finances. You know who make up a large customer base? People who currently make less than $15/hr. Maybe small business will benefit if money is removed from the dead smaug-hoards global companies are sitting on and gets in the hands of potential customers instead.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate why businesses large and small will be hosed by this proposed minwage increase when it didn't the last ten times, despite predictions of economic Armageddon.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You say this like it's some sort smokescreen instead of a very real reason to be concerned. turns out that rural america is going to be hosed with or without minimum wage increases so you may as well increase the minimum wage if it has the short term effect of improving the lives of the working poor arguing otherwise is a good way to hide behind poor people (that you don't actually care about) in order to advocate for the status quo, of people who work actual jobs but don't get paid enough to participate in the economy
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:turns out that rural america is going to be hosed with or without minimum wage increases so you may as well increase the minimum wage if it has the short term effect of improving the lives of the working poor You're literally arguing that we should gently caress over poor people because who cares they're hosed anyways, and then trying to turn that into some sort of "you hate poors" ad-hom.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate why businesses large and small will be hosed by this proposed minwage increase when it didn't the last ten times, despite predictions of economic Armageddon. We must never learn from history. Just because the Chicago school has been empirically wrong on every frightening prediction about every minimum wage increase doesn't mean we should be skeptical of their claims this time and go get proof instead!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You're literally arguing that we should gently caress over poor people because who cares they're hosed anyways, and then trying to turn that into some sort of "you hate poors" ad-hom. If you're concerned with what 30-40 years of neoliberalism have done to rural areas and small business, why are you embracing neoliberal planks like "let's not have a living wage"? "Gosh neoliberalism is terrible, let's listen to them they sound like serious people with real solutions"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You're literally arguing that we should gently caress over poor people because who cares they're hosed anyways, and then trying to turn that into some sort of "you hate poors" ad-hom. actually, i've said that increasing the pay given to poor people is a good thing, not a bad thing. i'm not sure how making poor people get higher pay, is bad, in reality i mean maybe it's obvious to you, and i'm just not understanding, how it actually hurts the working poor, to increase the amount of money they make per hour that they work. i would think a higher wage is intuitively a positive thing, but maybe i'm missing something, here
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
man, you know what would really suck for me, as someone who gets paid minimum wage? getting paid more. that would just put me in an awful position. i wouldn't know what to do with all this money. it's a good thing i get paid a small, comprehensible amount of money. shucks, i'd like to get paid less, but it's illegal!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:You do know some teenagers have to be breadwinners right? This is a huge, huge point right here. I've worked with young people who couldn't legally drink who had children of their own. The other side is usually a disabled parent or relative.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
It's actually brilliant. First you adopt trade and taxation policies that gently caress small business and drain off the wealth of the country into the pockets of a few robber barons. Then you tell them it's all greedy poor people's fault and win support for policies that gently caress the poor.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
Armani posted:This is a huge, huge point right here. I've worked with young people who couldn't legally drink who had children of their own. The other side is usually a disabled parent or relative. I believe the usual refrain is "we shouldn't subsidize bad life choices" because after all child mortality has been too low in America for too long. Then those same people wonder why they can't afford to send their own kids to school.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is just your gut-feel and has no basis in fact. It's essentially the same as the Laffer curve: just because an inflection point exists with diminishing returns beyond that doesn't mean you're free to just pull its location out of your rear end. D&D consistently asserts the left-wing Laffer curve all the time: the idea that increasing wages will always fuel growth because it increases demand enough to offset additional costs. quote:i mean you realize this is why people believe the laffer curve is an actual thing and not just a vacant rhetorical point
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
Typo posted:D&D consistently asserts the left-wing Laffer curve all the time: the idea that increasing wages will always fuel growth because it increases demand enough to offset additional costs. By "left-wing laffer curve" you mean mainstream economics right, because it isn't really Marxists that believe you need wages for consumption. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:10 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:By "left-wing laffer curve" you mean mainstream economics right, because it isn't really Marxists that believe you need wages for consumption. There's obviously two effects: 1) The positive effect increased demand have on revenue 2) The negative effect increased labor costs have on profit Both 1) and 2) are real things. The implicit assertion always made in those threads however is that 1) always outweighs 2) Typo fucked around with this message at 09:19 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
Typo posted:The implicit assertion always made in those threads however is that 1) always outweighs 2) This is demonstrably untrue. No one has said "yeah $100/hr would be fine". But since $15/hr is much closer to the values around $11/hr for which we know 1 outweighs 2, I'm not going to assume the opposite is true for $15/hr based on the word of the same economists who were wrong about this every other time we've raised the minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
on the left posted:From there, it's easy to negotiate down to the point where no action is taken. You know what, you've convinced me, let me try. We can't have low tax rates: if you think a 30% rate is better than 40%, then a 20% rate must be better, 10% better still, and 0% best of all. But if tax rates were zero the country would go bankrupt and we'll have no way to stop the Muslim hordes from coming over and killing us all. Therefore taxes must be maximum at all times and never ever allowed to be less than that because that's an unstoppable slippery slope to abolishing all taxes and being converted to Islam by the sword. Am I doing it right?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:40
|
|