|
QuarkJets posted:Actually, it started because someone tried to claim that technology development only happens in places that have access to natural resources, which is a loving dumb idea that is plainly wrong until you start making other stupid claims like "well lack of natural resources is also a natural resource" If you can "easily change" economic conditions everywhere you can easily get an economics Nobel. You can put a university or military base anywhere, not everywhere. Mandating higher wages for disadvantaged locations certainly doesn't make new investment there any more attractive.
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:And access to capital is limited by the fact other regions that are better suited and more developed because of more favorable geography out compete them for that capital. That's a completely artificial restriction at this point, as I've shown you multiple times asdf32 posted:If you can "easily change" economic conditions everywhere you can easily get an economics Nobel. You can put a university or military base anywhere, not everywhere. Mandating higher wages for disadvantaged locations certainly doesn't make new investment there any more attractive. Education is the best way to do that, and the best way to educate people is to provide free and easy access to centers of higher learning, so yes, it's an easy solution to discern. Wrenching money out of the hands of people (conservatives) who don't want poors to be educated is another matter.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Education is the best way to do that, and the best way to educate people is to provide free and easy access to centers of higher learning, so yes, it's an easy solution to discern. Wrenching money out of the hands of people (conservatives) who don't want poors to be educated is another matter. No but you see if everyone is educated then who will I be able to sell my boarderline toxic products too after I have bribed the regulator to let me sell it? Serious answer: Education should be free at all levels and viewed as an investment in the future, anyone who disagrees with this is either greedy or stupid and likely both.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's a completely artificial restriction at this point, as I've shown you multiple times It can change. That's not the same as being artificial. quote:Education is the best way to do that, and the best way to educate people is to provide free and easy access to centers of higher learning, so yes, it's an easy solution to discern. Wrenching money out of the hands of people (conservatives) who don't want poors to be educated is another matter. I agree that direct investment in things like education are ideal policy for addressing poverty and inequality. As opposed to minimum wage...
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
lol if you work for less than 15 dollars an hour
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If the minimum wage is increased substantially then there's a chance that corporations will reduce the hours of work that they demand from the average employee. I don't understand this argument. So you're saying you make less the difference of today's minimum wage and 15 dollars an hour profit from an employee's work? If that is the case then your business model sucks. If it's not the case, you're only hurting yourself further by removing a net financial gain
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I agree that direct investment in things like education are ideal policy for addressing poverty and inequality. As opposed to minimum wage... I mean the ideal policy is the dismantling of the class structure and the reclaiming of the means of production from the bourgeoisie, seeing as the system of capitalism will continue to perpetuate inequality and poverty even with direct investment in open access to education but I'd be happy with this proposal since even it is so far outside the grasp of American society when a comparably small thing like a minimum wage increase is fought tooth and nail. I can only imagine what the backlash for free education would look like: "But then who will flip our burgers at McDonalds? Isn't that unfair to all the people who paid to go to school before?  "
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Methanar posted:I don't understand this argument. The obvious solution in the face of doubling the minimum wage is to cook the burgers half as long.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I mean the ideal policy is the dismantling of the class structure and the reclaiming of the means of production from the bourgeoisie, seeing as the system of capitalism will continue to perpetuate inequality and poverty even with direct investment in open access to education but I'd be happy with this proposal since even it is so far outside the grasp of American society when a comparably small thing like a minimum wage increase is fought tooth and nail. I can only imagine what the backlash for free education would look like: "But then who will flip our burgers at McDonalds? Isn't that unfair to all the people who paid to go to school before? Actually peer reviewers studies have shown capitalism to be superior to socialism. It's confusing I know but in this thread you love economic studies.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Actually peer reviewers studies have shown capitalism to be superior to socialism. Actually they haven't. spoon0042 posted:The obvious solution in the face of doubling the minimum wage is to cook the burgers half as long. Wouldn't it be half the size of a burger? You know, I understand the White Castle model more that way.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Methanar posted:I don't understand this argument. I said that in principle there's a point at which raising labour costs would lead to a reduction in hours worked. I never said that $15 an hour was the point at which this would happen.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I said that in principle there's a point at which raising labour costs would lead to a reduction in hours worked. I never said that $15 an hour was the point at which this would happen. This still doesn't make sense to me though. As long as the difference of today's wage, A, versus tomorrow's wage, B, is less than the profit of one hour of work, C, it's not worth cutting hours. B - A < C I feel the value of B would need to be unrealistically enormous to ever justify cutting hours. So if 15/hr is not that point why is it being discussed?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Probably because people apparently view any amount of money removed from a business' profits is the sign of the apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Actually peer reviewers studies have shown capitalism to be superior to socialism. Please don't start citing Von Mises and Hayek in here.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Companies determine labor needs from what their system design calls for, not by how much labor costs. If your labor costs rise 5% but your next best solution costs 10% more, you eat the 5%.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It can change. That's not the same as being artificial. It's artificial unless you believe that the government shouldn't be allowed to build universities
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It would seem that the unspoken point of disagreement here is whether or not the labour market for minimum wage workers is competitive. I think the people arguing for a big jump in the minimum wage believe (with some merit, I would add) that the labour market is essentially an oligopoly where McDonalds and Wal Mart and similar firms are able to fix the price of labour at an "artificially" low wage. It follows from this that raising the minimum legal wage would mostly bite into corporate profits or into the wages and salaries of upper tier employees. Oligopoly is particularly hard to argue for low skilled positions which span essentially every industry and geographic region. It doesn't fit when the options available to low skill workers include wal-mart and the mom and pop gas station across the street. I have far less choices in my well paid field of computer hardware design than I would if I opened myself up to low wage positions. The fact that low skilled positions have among the highest voluntary turnover is another important clue. Of all things "oligopoly" is one of the hardest to pin on this issue. What I often see is that people want to intertwine fairness with a judgement of whether a market is functioning or not and start looking for signs of oligopoly or dysfunction when labor market outcomes start diverging from what they think is fair. I think that represents a deep deep misunderstanding of how our system works. The reasons for low wages in our existing market environment are patently obvious in my opinion. As an aside as you know I think automation and outsourcing are the things which have been sweeping the rug out from under first world workers for decades. They're the things that have caused increasing inequality and the raft of other problems that come with it. I hope you at least observe some consistency in a stance which is hesitant to accelerate these things.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:What I often see is that people want to intertwine fairness with a judgement of whether a market is functioning or not and start looking for signs of oligopoly or dysfunction when labor market outcomes start diverging from what they think is fair. I think that represents a deep deep misunderstanding of how our system works. The reasons for low wages in our existing market environment are patently obvious in my opinion. There is no platonic ideal of how our labor market/economy should "work." It's created by society, for society. If it's functioning in a manner that doesn't benefit society as a whole, then it can and should be changed. If you want to make the claim that the market shouldn't be fair, then say that instead. Just say the words "I hate poor people." asdf32 posted:As an aside as you know I think automation and outsourcing are the things which have been sweeping the rug out from under first world workers for decades. They're the things that have caused increasing inequality and the raft of other problems that come with it. I hope you at least observe some consistency in a stance which is hesitant to accelerate these things. Inequality has nothing to do with automation or outsourcing. Automation and outsourcing also are largely inevitable and trying to delay them through lovely public policy doesn't even accomplish that.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Stuff. Unsure if willing to commit what will surely be wasted effort but... Off the top of my head - all my domestic costs would go up, not just my labor costs, so my prices would guaranteed go up in response. What happened next would depend a lot on how inflation played out and specifically what that was doing to the budgets of my (institutional) clients (hint: they would be hosed). If need be I could fire a receptionist, a salesperson, a driver, some other contractors doing this and that, probably some admin staff if we're doing less volume, and run a smaller business on high margin low volume specialty items where I could make money without much of a distribution apparatus and only a few local employees. At the very least I would trade out some marginally productive employees for people who, for instance, could speak english and take on broader responsibilities. Right now those people are relatively expensive. When the market finally settled down, maybe they wouldn't be. I'm betting I'd have my pick because while chilean companies are very people-heavy now, when it isn't very expensive and letting someone go is a pain, if labor costs go up they're going to take a second look at who they can cut AND they're going to be reluctant to take chances with new people. Your mistake, and the general mistake of this thread, is to assume that whatever state of affairs prevails now is going to be optimal in a new environment with higher costs. It isn't. archduke.iago posted:There is no platonic ideal of how our labor market/economy should "work." It's created by society, for society. If it's functioning in a manner that doesn't benefit society as a whole, then it can and should be changed. If you want to make the claim that the market shouldn't be fair, then say that instead. Just say the words "I hate poor people." The market is fair in its way. If you have something to offer that's hard to find and you're savvy enough to leverage it you can make a ton of money. If all you can do is what most untrained people can do once they're shown how, you generally can't. If you start a thing it's yours and you control it. If you don't, mostly, you don't. Just because you don't like the dynamic doesn't mean it's not fair.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If you start a thing it's yours and you control it. If you don't, mostly, you don't. Just because you don't like the dynamic doesn't mean it's not fair. Oh okay well the operation of the market is created by the rules we as a society choose to set up through our representatives in government so it's ours and we control it. Just because you don't like that dynamic doesn't mean it's not fair.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
archduke.iago posted:Inequality has nothing to do with automation or outsourcing. Incorrect. Automation and outsourcing allow those who control the means of production to get richer, while loving over people whose jobs are automated or outsourced. The result is an increase in inequality.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh okay well the operation of the market is created by the rules we as a society choose to set up through our representatives in government so it's ours and we control it. Just because you don't like that dynamic doesn't mean it's not fair. LOL. Good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:06
|
|
wateroverfire posted:LOL. Good luck with that. So how many slaves do you trade in?
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:As an aside as you know I think automation and outsourcing are the things which have been sweeping the rug out from under first world workers for decades. They're the things that have caused increasing inequality and the raft of other problems that come with it. I hope you at least observe some consistency in a stance which is hesitant to accelerate these things. But unemployment is low right now (despite us raising the minimum wage in 2009 amid protestations of America-crumbling doom, I might add). The problem is that full-time work doesn't pay enough to survive on, not that people can't find jobs. But if outsourcing is such a problem for you, what are your actual proposals for fixing it? Surely it can't be "oh just pay Americans 50 cents an hour and underbid poor Asian workers and machines forever".
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:LOL. Good luck with that. We did, in 2009 with a $7.25 minimum wage that the usual suspects howled would destroy the recovery. And locality by locality we're doing it again now, to $15/hr 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:We did, in 2009 with a $7.25 minimum wage that the usual suspects howled would destroy the recovery. And locality by locality we're doing it again now, to $15/hr I feel like any noodle vendor could tell you where your thinking is going wrong. Perhaps you should ask them.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
OK, but find me a noodle vendor who was right about the minimum wage in 1997 and 2009, not one of these cranks that predicted doom every time and has been consistently proven wrong, tia
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I feel like any noodle vendor could tell you where your thinking is going wrong. Perhaps you should ask them. wateroverfire posted:Just because you don't like the dynamic doesn't mean it's not fair.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So basically you're saying that theoretical knowledge of axioms and truths trump the mere observation of empirical reality? Does this apply to all fields or only to economic ones? After all-- Show me observations you're not interpreting through a veil of aggressive ignorance and we'll talk I guess?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:31
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Show me observations you're not interpreting through a veil of aggressive ignorance and we'll talk I guess? OK, so what's the market-catamite explanation for the precipitous decline in slave-trading that doesn't involve government or social control of the market?
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Show me observations you're not interpreting through a veil of aggressive ignorance and we'll talk I guess? Can you explain how previous min wage increase effects are being interpreted incorrectly?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So basically you're saying that theoretical knowledge of axioms and truths trump the mere observation of empirical reality? aka libertarianism
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Can you explain how previous min wage increase effects are being interpreted incorrectly? It has been explained several times in this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It has been explained several times in this thread. You mean where everyone that didn't want to pay employees more were all gloom and doom and then nothing happened?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It has been explained several times in this thread. Care to quote an article or any information that shows we're all suffering from mass delusions? We raised minimum wage in the past to no ill effect, but you're claiming we are so delusional that we can't see that it was a failure and our economy is collapsing (or whatever you think is the indicator of failure)?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
It's kind of like how bitcoiners and goldbugs will talk about how the US economy is about to collapse, any day now. All of the previous minimum wage increases have resulted in 30 percent unemployment today, we're just too blinded by statism to see that
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Care to quote an article or any information that shows we're all suffering from mass delusions? We raised minimum wage in the past to no ill effect, but you're claiming we are so delusional that we can't see that it was a failure and our economy is collapsing (or whatever you think is the indicator of failure)? It's called Argument From Ignorance. We can't learn anything from data about previous increases to the minimum wage because none of those wages were $15/hr. We can't learn anything from data about other countries with a (de facto or de jure) minimum wage of $15/r because those countries aren't America. And in a few years when the $15 minimum wage in Seattle, LA, and San Francisco works fine we can't learn anything from that either because no other city is Seattle, LA, and San Francisco. And even if everything were the same, there's some ephemeral jobs-not-created that we can never measure even in principle so it's actually impossible to get the data. Therefore, we have no data. And since you don't have any data, liberals, then my preconceived notions about how things ought to work are true. asdf32 posted:Oligopoly is particularly hard to argue for low skilled positions which span essentially every industry and geographic region. It doesn't fit when the options available to low skill workers include wal-mart and the mom and pop gas station across the street. I have far less choices in my well paid field of computer hardware design than I would if I opened myself up to low wage positions. The fact that low skilled positions have among the highest voluntary turnover is another important clue. Of all things "oligopoly" is one of the hardest to pin on this issue. It does fit if there's no advantage for Wal-Mart to try to outbid the mom & pop because there's a reserve pool of unemployed laborers with little savings only a few weeks away from homelessness. If Mom&Pop are paying $10 for stockboys and Wal-Mart is offering $5, Mom&Pop aren't going to hire thousands of stock boys and leave Wal-Mart up a creek with no workers. They will hire the exact amount they need and the unemployed will have no choice but to deal with Wal-Mart and being on the edge of starvation turns our to be an enormous disadvantage in negotiations. Contrast this to sales, where a price war is likely to happen, because if I underbid my competitors I am happy to sell more and more and take their business if they don't match my price. The fact the we actually have been able to raise the minimum wage without seeing a fall in demand for labor, unlike what happens with chocolate bars and blazers, should be the clue that there's more going on here than simple Econ101 supply and demand graphs with numberless axes. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:44 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The market is fair in its way. If you have something to offer that's hard to find and you're savvy enough to leverage it you can make a ton of money. If all you can do is what most untrained people can do once they're shown how, you generally can't. If you start a thing it's yours and you control it. If you don't, mostly, you don't. Just because you don't like the dynamic doesn't mean it's not fair. How does inherited wealth fit into this vision of savvy bootstrapping?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Every society is a meritocracy, what don't you get about this GoJM?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Every society is a meritocracy, what don't you get about this GoJM?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 06:47
|
|