|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:How does inherited wealth fit into this vision of savvy bootstrapping? Inherited wealth is the question on which they immediately flip from "don't whine about not getting things you haven't earned by bootstraps and savvy, no one cares what you think is fair" to "you can't tax inheritance, I deserve dad's money, it's not faaaaaaiiiiir!", it's always funny to watch.
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:11 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Show me observations you're not interpreting through a veil of aggressive ignorance and we'll talk I guess?  It's like you guys living in opposite-world, where employers just keep hiring as many employees as they can afford regardless of how much work is available and the Laffer Curve is real and shows that peak effective corporate tax rates are right around 5% (but better make it 3 just in case)
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
Methanar posted:This still doesn't make sense to me though. Well the argument here is that not every hour of work is equally profitable to the previous one or the next one, and you might see things like stores closing earlier or opening later, closing on certain days and the like. This is likely to be counteracted by business hours drawing in more revenue as a large slice of the population suddenly has more disposable income, and how one chooses to predict the final result is more a function of ideology than anything else.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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. You said oligopoly but argued supply-and-demand instead. Whoops. Prices go up and down in the goods market all the time with with small impact on demand. This is consistent with standard econ which even has a special word to describe it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
Nope I argued that the comparatively small number of employers and their need for only a limited number of unskilled workers coupled with the short time horizon of unemployed people gives employers monopsony power to set prices without having to directly compete against each other, try again.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nope I argued that the comparatively small number of employers and their need for only a limited number of unskilled workers coupled with the short time horizon of unemployed people gives employers monopsony power to set prices without having to directly compete against each other, try again. "their need for only a limited number of unskilled workers" is low demand. So the only thing preventing competition in your example is supply versus demand. Maybe drop that and fit in an allusion to Wal-Mart's size and power. The necessity thing is a dead end until you can deal with the fact that the goods market is the market that actually physically sells necessities and does so competitively all the time (in fact Wal-Mart is a prime example) . Remember this? What are you going to try next here?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's called Argument From Ignorance. A 15 dollar / hr minimum wage honestly isn't that crazy in the richest parts of the country, but the idea of one minimum wage for the whole country has always been incredibly stupid. Minimum wage increases in the past have not affected labor much because the vast majority of the the time the minimum wage is "raised" it is actually just a adjusting it for inflation. For example the 7.25 / hr "raise" didn't do poo poo because it's actually less than what inflation was. A "raise" to 10 / hr would be keeping up with inflation, and should certainly happen. But you can't extrapolate what happens with a cost-of-living adjustment to minimum wage would mean for a an actual raise would do. You also can't extrapolate tiny European economies loaded with natural resources (the nordic model) to the US, it just plain doesn't work sorry.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:"their need for only a limited number of unskilled workers" is low demand. So the only thing preventing competition in your example is supply versus demand. Maybe drop that and fit in an allusion to Wal-Mart's size and power. No it's different from low demand. If there's low demand for chocolate bars, that doesn't give me power as a consumer to set prices. I'm still competing with other consumers and the store can well afford to say "nah we'll wait until someone else comes along" if they estimate that in the long run they'd make more by selling fewer bars at a higher price than lowering the price to sell to me right now and forgoing future profit. The chocolate bars don't care, they're not going to be evicted from their homes along with their children if they're not bought by the 5th of the month. But an unemployed worker can't do that. They can't say "oh no, I'll wait for a better offer because in the long run I'll make more if I hold out for more money." Because rent is due next week, and even if mine isn't, the guy behind me has his rent due next week. Employers don't have to compete against each other, they only have to wait out the unemployed until desperation forces them to take the deal. That's why we need things like laws to keep employers from forcing women to work in firetrap factories with locked exits. And that's why when we raise the minimum wage, we don't see an unemployment effect. And I'll go one further: I'll make a prediction. I predict that studies done in the wake of the recent Seattle, San Francisco, and LA minimum wage increases won't show any significant unemployment effect either. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:51 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
tsa posted:A 15 dollar / hr minimum wage honestly isn't that crazy in the richest parts of the country, but the idea of one minimum wage for the whole country has always been incredibly stupid. Agreed, the living wage should be adjusted for cost of living. $15 ($30,000 a year) might be enough to support a family in Kansas, but New York and San Francisco are obviously going to need something higher. tsa posted:Minimum wage increases in the past have not affected labor much because the vast majority of the the time the minimum wage is "raised" it is actually just a adjusting it for inflation. For example the 7.25 / hr "raise" didn't do poo poo because it's actually less than what inflation was. But according to the "minimum wage causes unemployment" theory, letting the minimum wage fall should have increased employment, but when we compare counties in states that raise it to counties that don't, we don't see a difference. You're going to say "well it wouldn't kick in until it gets above $X", but so what, you have no idea what $X is. tsa posted:But you can't extrapolate what happens with a cost-of-living adjustment to minimum wage would mean for a an actual raise would do Okay can't extrapolate. Fine. On what are you basing your estimation of what happens with an actual raise? Is it on data...or is it on imagination? All this argument says is we don't know what the drawbacks are, if any. But that's no reason not to do it. We can raise it gradually year by year and study the effects, when we start to see significant effects, we can stop and peg it to inflation thereafter, how does that sound. tsa posted:You also can't extrapolate tiny European economies loaded with natural resources (the nordic model) to the US, it just plain doesn't work sorry. So natural resources magically make cashiers and burger flippers work harder or smarter or something so they deserve more money? Hey I've got a question: west Virginia has a buttload of natural resources that people want, why are wages so low there if being loaded with natural resources makes store clerks do $20/hr worth of work? Why can't it work here: the US isn't Somalia. We have a per capita GDP comparable to those countries, what makes you say we're too poor for full-time workers to be able to support a family?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it's different from low demand. If there's low demand for chocolate bars, that doesn't give me power as a consumer to set prices. I'm still competing with other consumers and the store can well afford to say "nah we'll wait until someone else comes along" if they estimate that in the long run they'd make more by selling fewer bars at a higher price than lowering the price to sell to me right now and forgoing future profit. The chocolate bars don't care, they're not going to be evicted from their homes along with their children if they're not bought by the 5th of the month. One thing unemployed workers can do after taking jobs is change jobs. Another thing employers hate is high worker turnover. So no, your idea doesn't make any sense. But you already know that from the previous minimum wage thread, where asdf32 pointed out that the fact that we need food every day doesn't mean that stores can jack up the price of food. Why? Because there are a lot of shops. Same logic here, there are a lot of employers. And your analysis of the starving unemployed man seems to be at odds with the actual demographics of minimum wage workers, who are about as likely to come from upper middle class families as a random person on the street. VitalSigns posted:Agreed, the living wage should be adjusted for cost of living. $15 ($30,000 a year) might be enough to support a family in Kansas, but New York and San Francisco are obviously going to need something higher.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:One thing unemployed workers can do after taking jobs is change jobs. Another thing employers hate is high worker turnover. So no, your idea doesn't make any sense. But you already know that from the previous minimum wage thread, where asdf32 pointed out that the fact that we need food every day doesn't mean that stores can jack up the price of food. Why? Because there are a lot of shops. Same logic here, there are a lot of employers. Okay but in real life employers are able to get people to agree to work in obvious death traps when there aren't laws to stop them, and employees will recognize and protest yet still work there. Generations of people will choke to death from black lung until a critical mass of political will can finally get the government to come down on them and say "no you need to keep your workers from breathing deadly amounts of coal dust". People will complain about building safety, but go to work anyway and be crushed by a collapsing factory. On the other hand, I've yet to hear of a grocery store that's been able to say "you can buy this orange but only if you can withstand eight hours locked in the Perilous Factory Of Fire" so there actually is a difference here, wouldn't you say? Food is a pretty bad example anyway because the government actively controls the price of food to keep, for example, milk sold at below market prices, or puts in price supports to keep farms operating. If grocery stores got together and tried to jack up the price of food, the government would come in and stop them before they touched off bread riots and they know that. Food is probably the worst example you could pick of a "free market" good that "just works" without any government regulation, isn't it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:07 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Libertarians are hilarious. "What about [heavily regulated commodity], huh? Look how well freedom works see we don't need the government!" Hey what was the food situation in America like before government started subsidizing food for the poor, and putting in price supports to keep farmers in business? It was awesome right?   Oh, God right.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Now what if someone pointed out that the "living wage" for a family or a goon wasting all their money on account upgrades will be higher than for a college kid or a teenager working part time? Most people would probably stop there and think "hmm, maybe the government should deal with poverty by helping poor people directly instead of a poorly targeted policy involving companies" but I'm sure you have a very good argument for why single white men from upper middle class families (such as yourself, probably) need this money to survive and why just giving poor families money through things like EITC is politically impossible or whatever it is that you were arguing before. Aren't you in like every GMI thread arguing how we can't give aid directly to the poor because then they won't have any incentive to work, instead we need to get the Job Creators to create good jobs so people have the dignity of work or some poo poo? E: But don't get me wrong, raising the EITC is a great idea, let's totally do that. I would be absolutely down with an EITC that makes it so even a $7.25/hr full-time working parent takes home $30,000 after the EITC is applied, especially if it's paid out monthly like some kind of inverse witholding. Yep I love it, let's do it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:29 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Libertarians are hilarious. "What about [heavily regulated commodity], huh? Look how well freedom works see we don't need the government!" They have pants, one of them even has shoes! And they can afford a crutch! Bah, these people aren't even poor! - Fox News 1931
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it's different from low demand. If there's low demand for chocolate bars, that doesn't give me power as a consumer to set prices. I'm still competing with other consumers and the store can well afford to say "nah we'll wait until someone else comes along" if they estimate that in the long run they'd make more by selling fewer bars at a higher price than lowering the price to sell to me right now and forgoing future profit. The chocolate bars don't care, they're not going to be evicted from their homes along with their children if they're not bought by the 5th of the month. If you're competeing with other customers then demand isn't low. quote:But an unemployed worker can't do that. They can't say "oh no, I'll wait for a better offer because in the long run I'll make more if I hold out for more money." Because rent is due next week, and even if mine isn't, the guy behind me has his rent due next week. Employers don't have to compete against each other, they only have to wait out the unemployed until desperation forces them to take the deal. In that actual situation you take that job until you can find a better one. Whether a better one is available depends on supply and demand. quote:That's why we need things like laws to keep employers from forcing women to work in firetrap factories with locked exits. And that's why when we raise the minimum wage, we don't see an unemployment effect. I disagree because based on past studies (recently surveyed in this thread) there are likely to be detectable employment or price impacts. And for an actual increase to $15 I expect them to be larger. Though reminder that this is a great example of self-selection where because the economy is decent $15 makes more sense there than other places which would be impacted by a federal minimum.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:If you're competeing with other customers then demand isn't low. Demand can be low without me being the only customer. If a few other people will pay a low price, but I will only pay a really low price then I am still competing. The business can hold off cutting prices and selling to me really low in order to sell low to the other people to make more overall profit. Workers can't do this though, they'll be out on the street soon. asdf32 posted:In that actual situation you take that job until you can find a better one. Whether a better one is available depends on supply and demand. Okay but in the real world, creating that better job with fire exits took a law that said "no you can't lock people in a firetrap to save a buck holy poo poo", so this actually does not happen for unskilled workers without government intervention. asdf32 posted:I disagree because based on past studies (recently surveyed in this thread) there are likely to be detectable employment or price impacts. And for an actual increase to $15 I expect them to be larger. Once again, ignoring the benefits of the minimum wage, which is people having more money. You have to balance those, you can't just say "assume one job is lost, it's not worth it". Do you apply this reasoning to other policy? I bet we could create a lot of manufacturing jobs if we called forth the Butlerian Jihad and destroyed all computer-controlled machinery. Hey wait, what is your solution to the job losses of outsourcing and automation. For someone so passionately concerned with protecting jobs, you sure have a curious habit of not proposing any solutions beyond "underbid robots and Vietnamese peasants forever" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:50 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey wait, what is your solution to the job losses of outsourcing and automation. For someone so passionately concerned with protecting jobs, you sure have a curious habit of not proposing any solutions beyond "underbid robots and Vietnamese peasants forever" Use it as an argument against leftist policy while voting right of center Reaganomics types that actually foster prime conditions for automation and outsourcing that do nothing to mitigate their impact in the host economy?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
tsa posted:A 15 dollar / hr minimum wage honestly isn't that crazy in the richest parts of the country, but the idea of one minimum wage for the whole country has always been incredibly stupid. It's not like you can't implement it incrementally. Hell, you could even set it up so that it increases at certain times unless Congress explicitly votes it down. No one, except the crazy libertarians, is saying you have just pass an arbitrary number, implement it immediately, and consequences be damned. Hell, set the minimum wage to 40$/hour in 2050 and increase yearly to meet that goal. Then when we start seeing negative impact take a year off and after that tack it to inflation.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I disagree because based on past studies (recently surveyed in this thread) there are likely to be detectable employment or price impacts. And for an actual increase to $15 I expect them to be larger. This is nonsense. Current prices are too expensive for current minimum wage levels. You are accusing an increase in the wage levels to meet current expense levels of leading to greater expense levels.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Same logic here, there are a lot of employers. This is you making the mistake of assuming that people have all of the same attributes as any other commodity. But there are a few problems with this that you could have probably arrived at if you had bothered to think about it a little harder.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
i am harry posted:This is nonsense. Current prices are too expensive for current minimum wage levels. You are accusing an increase in the wage levels to meet current expense levels of leading to greater expense levels. Note that "detectable" was a 3% increase, in the most extreme case, while most studies showed a 0% increase or even a price decrease.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This is you making the mistake of assuming that people have all of the same attributes as any other commodity. But there are a few problems with this that you could have probably arrived at if you had bothered to think about it a little harder. People might be different, but the same logic applies. QuarkJets posted:Note that "detectable" was a 3% increase, in the most extreme case, while most studies showed a 0% increase or even a price decrease. Ah yes, "only" a 3% price increase. All those non-working poor people can easily deal with that. 3% for all the small min wage raises so far, who knows what it would be for $15. VitalSigns posted:Do you apply this reasoning to other policy? I bet we could create a lot of manufacturing jobs if we called forth the Butlerian Jihad and destroyed all computer-controlled machinery. Hey wait, what is your solution to the job losses of outsourcing and automation. For someone so passionately concerned with protecting jobs, you sure have a curious habit of not proposing any solutions beyond "underbid robots and Vietnamese peasants forever"
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Ah yes, "only" a 3% price increase. All those non-working poor people can easily deal with that. 3% for all the small min wage raises so far, who knows what it would be for $15 I'll let the others that enjoy arguing with neutron star dense brick walls do THE SUPER COMPLEX MATH to figure out what factor to multiple the three percent by for the 15 min wage price increase but spoilers, it's not going to be higher than 10%.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Ah yes, "only" a 3% price increase. All those non-working poor people can easily deal with that. 3% for all the small min wage raises so far, who knows what it would be for $15. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, but don't worry I'll help you. It doesn't mean "stop reading" when you see this symbol: code:quote:Note that "detectable" was a 3% increase, in the most extreme case, while most studies showed a 0% increase or even a price decrease. The segment that you failed to read: quote:while most studies showed a 0% increase or even a price decrease. Contains information directly opposite to your argument: quote:3% for all the small min wage raises so far, who knows what it would be for $15 Hope this helps! 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Hey guys, dude living in the greater Seattle metro area here. Minimum wages are still really high, but things are still running great and unemployment is still really low. You can get back to jerking off to hypotheticals and "unintended consequences" now.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Contains information directly opposite to your argument:
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
One thing that is generally ignored when considering expanding benefits versus wages (entirely apart from benefits being a perpetual wedge to motivate LMC and middle class hatred of the lower class, which is also ignored) is that the psychological effects on people conditioned to believe that working is essential to self-worth of receiving money for nothing are generally negative. People loathe feeling useless, feeling like they need a handout, and so on. So bolstering the minimum wage, as opposed to simply handing out free money, with all other things being equal, would be a superior option. In fact, it's entirely arguable that redistribution is not a good in and of itself, even within a "leftist" framework, and is only good as a means to ensure a juster society. Indeed, I would suggest that it's not only arguable, but the main motivation for calls for redistribution, but that is not something many opponents of higher minimum wages would countenance.
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:One thing that is generally ignored when considering expanding benefits versus wages (entirely apart from benefits being a perpetual wedge to motivate LMC and middle class hatred of the lower class, which is also ignored) is that the psychological effects on people conditioned to believe that working is essential to self-worth of receiving money for nothing are generally negative. People loathe feeling useless, feeling like they need a handout, and so on. So bolstering the minimum wage, as opposed to simply handing out free money, with all other things being equal, would be a superior option. In fact, it's entirely arguable that redistribution is not a good in and of itself, even within a "leftist" framework, and is only good as a means to ensure a juster society. Indeed, I would suggest that it's not only arguable, but the main motivation for calls for redistribution, but that is not something many opponents of higher minimum wages would countenance. The argument that people assign non-economic value to wages is a valid one and a good one for minimum wage. Too few people have made it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:People might be different, but the same logic applies. No, they're different in ways that cause the same logic to break down quote:Ah yes, "only" a 3% price increase. All those non-working poor people can easily deal with that. Unemployment, welfare, and social security are all pegged to inflation. Dependents indirectly benefit by the nature of being dependent. So no, they wouldn't be hurt quote:3% for all the small min wage raises so far, who knows what it would be for $15. You ignored the part where most studies actually found no change at all. asdf32 posted:The argument that people assign non-economic value to wages is a valid one and a good one for minimum wage. This is just a rephrasing of the "employers should not be allowed to say 'I don't value you enough to pay you enough to live" argument, which several people have made
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This is just a rephrasing of the "employers should not be allowed to say 'I don't value you enough to pay you enough to live" argument, which several people have made Saying "I think wages should be X because I think that's fair" and then actually stopping there is quite rare in these threads. I've actually complimented people multiple times for doing it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Libertarians are hilarious. "What about [heavily regulated commodity], huh? Look how well freedom works see we don't need the government!" I'm confused because I'm under the impression starvation is still a common occurrence in 2015 USA.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I'm confused because I'm under the impression starvation is still a common occurrence in 2015 USA. Someone posted a huge write up of why starvation has resurfaced a while back and it basically boiled down to "Reagan said gently caress the poor and cut a lot of those programs".
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:minimum wage actually destroys jobs and the products produced by those jobs. Great! We could do with less products [forming floating islands in the southern oceans]
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
If minimum wage increases are in fact terrible, then initially implementing them at the city and/or state level should be the best way to do so, since the observed impact of them can then serve as a warning to the rest of the country. Shouldn't we encourage experimentation at the local level to test our preconceptions and possibly find a better way of organizing society? Why are the anti-minimum-wagers so angry?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Shouldn't we encourage experimentation at the local level to test our preconceptions and possibly find a better way of organizing society? Sorry, not possible, we established earlier that we can't know anything at all so testing would be meaningless.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I'm confused because I'm under the impression starvation is still a common occurrence in 2015 USA. It's not like it was in the depression, and the return of childhood malnutrition is a direct result of your beloved supply side Reaganomics. But the question was "if businesses have power to set prices for unskilled labor because people need to live, why can't they set prices on other things people need to live like food" The answer is (1) That's illegal and the US government would come down on them like a ton of bricks, and they know that. But before the government intervened in food like it does today, food companies would destroy thousands of tons of food to keep prices high. That's why the USDA came up with the first version of food stamps, because farmers were just dumping food into rivers and plowing under harvest-ready fields to keep prices from falling in the wake of strong supply and weakening economic demand. In the absence of laws, farmers won't sell food for less than costs to make it, but people will work for less than it costs to keep them alive, and they will work in horrendous and deadly conditions too. That's why we make those things illegal. but also (2) Under normal circumstances (not a depression, when people have money): Most food has elastic demand. If you start jacking prices, people are going to switch away from filet mignon and wild-caught salmon. There would be a lot of unsold food as people switch to staples and start doing with less to meet other bills. This doesn't apply to unskilled labor: if you pay $5/hr, people aren't going to say "oh I won't supply as much labor, it's not worth it anymore, I'll only work 10 hours and fail to make rent" (3) Grocery stores compete directly with each other. If I jack my milk prices, the place next door is happy to sell all the milk that I don't. They will sell thousands of bottles of milk if I try to charge higher prices. They will happily sell all the milk my neighborhood wants to buy. But if I pay less for janitors, they won't hire thousands of janitors and leave me without one. They only need a certain number. I don't have to compete with them directly because if there are more unemployed people than jobs. Those who can't find jobs in other stores have to deal with me, with their rent coming due in just a few weeks. You should probably think about the differences between people and chocolate bars. Or maybe they are the same and just like it's a business decision to shut down a chocolate bar factory if producing them becomes uneconomical, sometimes it's a business decision when labor prices are low to kill one or two of my kids so my wage can cover the rest of the family: I can always start up another one later when market conditions are better. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:51 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Basically the argument that asdf32 is making is that employers have to compete in order to satisfy the whims of unskilled laborers, which is completely the opposite of how things work in real life. It would have been accurate if there was an overabundance of open unskilled positions at various places and not enough people to fill them. Reality is much less pleasant
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's not like it was in the depression, and the return of childhood malnutrition is a direct result of your beloved supply side Reaganomics. 1) So is collusion in the labor market. 2) And, identically, there is variable supply for any particular job based on pay and how attractive the job is. 3) Employers compete with any other employer that might also hire their employee. This is why 95% of wages are currently above minimum. Perhaps you really think it's significant that unemployment is above zero? It's not. There is some unemployment at every level in the wage scale. QuarkJets posted:Basically the argument that asdf32 is making is that employers have to compete in order to satisfy the whims of unskilled laborers, which is completely the opposite of how things work in real life. It would have been accurate if there was an overabundance of open unskilled positions at various places and not enough people to fill them. Reality is much less pleasant So your argument and my argument are the same then. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 01:53 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Saying "I think wages should be X because I think that's fair" and then actually stopping there is quite rare in these threads. I've actually complimented people multiple times for doing it. asdf; very much in favor of people just speaking from their inner sense of justice and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:11 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:3) Employers compete with any other employer that might also hire their employee. This is why 95% of wages are currently above minimum. This is a function of the minimum wage though. Before 2009, 95% of wages were also above the $5.15 minimum, but fast food in most places still paid less than $7.25/hr. This cuts against your position. Unless you are now arguing that 95% of wages were already above $7.25 in 2009 and the minimum wage did nothing?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 01:56
|
|