|
paragon1 posted:Here, let me demonstrate for you.  Needed a bit more clarity.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
so if 15/hr works out favorably for the cities that pass it does the new argument against raising minimum wage then become "well it's okay when it's just a couple of liberal hugboxes but the nation would be ruined if this spread any further" or will the veneer be dropped in favor of "b-b-but economic freedom!! you're literally enslaving our nation's job creators  "
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
That graph only gives half the picture. What about the point where employers decide to employ robots and replace human labor and then it becomes poor people vs. robots?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:so if 15/hr works out favorably for the cities that pass it does the new argument against raising minimum wage then become "well it's okay when it's just a couple of liberal hugboxes but the nation would be ruined if this spread any further" or will the veneer be dropped in favor of "b-b-but economic freedom!! you're literally enslaving our nation's job creators those cities were flush with natural resources, which isn't true anywhere else, ergo ipso facto ron paul 2012
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:That graph only gives half the picture. What about the point where employers decide to employ robots and replace human labor and then it becomes poor people vs. robots?  
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:those cities were flush with natural resources, which isn't true anywhere else, ergo ipso facto ron paul 2012 oh right ~*~""""natural resources""""~*~
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No, just the scaleless, unitless graphs with completely arbitrary and made up shapes, like the graph that Laffer made, are bad. Your picture is bad for all of the same reasons The shape isn't arbitrary. You're just bad at understanding graphs, or economics, I guess. quote:There's clearly a bound to that graph, look at the scalebar dipshit quote:(I know that you've had trouble reading emotions from internet posts in the past, but none of the reactions have been based on anger, fear, or discomfort, trust me on this) PTD is gay in real life so when he calls someone a fairy in a discussion about the minimum wage it's OK because he Nevvy Z posted:It was a graph of nothing that was new and presented as though it was some sort of argument winning trump despite having no real evidence or data behind it. It was a graph of nothing that was new and presented as a visual guide to help a person who thinks the minimum wage can increase without bound understand why he was wrong. The graph was supported by the data that is, purportedly, the thread consensus -- the minimum wage has positive effects that are ultimately trumped by negative effects as the wage rises.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:43
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The shape isn't arbitrary. You're just bad at understanding graphs, or economics, I guess. Stop white-knighting you ponce.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The shape isn't arbitrary. You're just bad at understanding graphs, or economics, I guess. The shape is completely arbitrary because you have no units, scale, numbers or data to tie back to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:That graph only gives half the picture. What about the point where employers decide to employ robots and replace human labor and then it becomes poor people vs. robots? Robots will demand $25 per hour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Robots will demand $25 per hour. That may well be but who will replace the robots?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Stop white-knighting you ponce. JeffersonClay posted:
No one has ever said otherwise. You never did answer any of these questions. It's almost like the graph was a deliberate distraction so you could dodge them. ElCondemn posted:When you say "maximizing benefits to the poor" what do you mean? Are you saying changes that positively impact those who aren't poor should be thrown out? That was the argument a few people were making a while back in this thread, but that seems absurd, we can't help the poor because it might help the not poor? Seems shortsighted to me, not helping the poor because the non-poor benefit still hurts the poor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:That may well be but who will replace the robots? Aliens. Not the Mexican kind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Aliens. Not the Mexican kind. Zombies would be cheaper. And what are the chances they'll break out of the factories (and kitchens) and usher in the zombie-pocalypse?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Aliens. Not the Mexican kind. I knew those Canadian motherfuckers were just playing the long-con! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Aliens. Not the Mexican kind. How do you figure a species that mastered space travel would be cheaper labor?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I knew those Canadian motherfuckers were just playing the long-con! There is a reason 90% of the Canadian population lives along the US-Canadian border...
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:There is a reason 90% of the Canadian population lives along the US-Canadian border... they just want to be close to us, their american overlords   
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:How can he white knight himself? He presents a completely alternative moral goal for minimum wage: pay a living wage to everyone who works. That view is completely divorced from a broader notion of helping the poor, and unaccountable to any qualitative analysis of outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:How do you figure a species that mastered space travel would be cheaper labor? They have evolved past the need or desire for currency. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The shape isn't arbitrary. You're just bad at understanding graphs, or economics, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Mehuyael posted:Zombies would be cheaper. And what are the chances they'll break out of the factories (and kitchens) and usher in the zombie-pocalypse? Socialist Take-over, Zombie Apocalypse. Po-ta-to, Po-tat-o
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
euphronius posted:They have evolved past the need or desire for currency. Duh. Wow this is getting pretty complicated. All this nuance couldn't possibly be captured by a graph
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
I am not an austrian, I just believe that economic truths are derived from my axiomic principles and are not subject to qualification nor quantification.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The shape is completely arbitrary because you have no units, scale, numbers or data to tie back to it. No units, no scale, no numbers, but yes, data. We know the graph must cross the X axis. That's data. We know the graph must begin with a positive slope, have a maximum, and then have a negative slope. That's data. You are wrong. Nevvy Z posted:No one has ever said otherwise. You just posted that the graph had no data to support it. I'm glad you reconsidered. quote:You never did answer any of these questions. It's almost like the graph was a deliberate distraction so you could dodge them. The graph answers all those questions. You're right that the distraction was deliberate, though-- just not by me. quote:When you say "maximizing benefits to the poor" what do you mean? quote:Are you saying changes that positively impact those who aren't poor should be thrown out? quote:Do you mean if a change negatively impacts the poor it should be thrown out? quote:Lets throw out the idea of increasing minimum wage, because it may increase inflation (which hurts the poor), what can we do instead? Doing nothing is no good, it negatively impacts the poor because of natural inflation, so what should we do? We've discussed solutions that aren't minimum wage, but where is the support? The department of labor supports increases to the minimum wage on their own website, are there other ideas that meet your criteria and have support? What are those ideas and why isn't there a thread full of people arguing about that instead of this one? quote:Personally I think your criteria is flawed, the minimum wage is to ensure a living wage to anyone who's willing and able to work. As long as it solves that problem it's doing what it's intended to do. Otherwise like you're implying, what's the point? If a minimum wage that is a living wage also increases unemployment, it literally can't provide a living wage to everyone who's willing and able to work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:I would argue that the shape is arbitrary, since you've given no justification why there can't be multiple local maxima, but doing that would acknowledge that your picture possesses any meaning whatsoever, which it doesn't absent an explanation of how "benefits to the poor" can be measured as a single value. (Hint: it's not a coincidence that given an explanation of what "benefits to the poor" is supposed to mean that your picture will have units) There could be local maxima and that would change the meaning of the graph not at all because we should still aim for the absolute maximum. We could define benefits to the poor in lots of different ways and the shape of the graph would not change in any significant way. It would still have an initial positive slope, an absolute maximum, and cross the x axis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Yeah there hasn't been a shown to be a strong argument against minimum wages around $10-15 being disastrous for the poor, or that other ready available options will become apparent to help them. It isn't like there is any type of binary choice between a minimum wage and anything else. Anyway there are countries with Minimum wages around .60-.70 of median wages and they haven't collapsed on themselves. Personally, I say that them immediately up to what we know is fine, and then work out what needs to be fixed rather than sit around and pretend there is going a solution that fixes everything without figuring out a new tax code (even that should happen). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah there hasn't been a shown to be a strong argument against minimum wages around $10-15 being disastrous for the poor, or that other ready available options will become apparent to help them. It isn't like there is any type of binary choice between a minimum wage and anything else. Anyway there are countries with Minimum wages around .60-.70 of median wages and they haven't collapsed on themselves. That is what everyone but a couple of asdf and jclay are saying. I'm not sure even jclay knows what jclay is saying. So far he's proved something no one was arguing against by drawing a chart that is at best a useless oversimplification of reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
hey Jeffersonclay, why did you draw something exponential near the bottom instead of linear or logarithmic, both of which have at least some justification? Why did you draw a function, when the likelihood of that being the case is close to nil? Why do you have no thresholds, when the likelihood of those, because of government assistance and the way expenses work, is pretty high? Why do you only have a single peak value? Why is your graph so terrible?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That is what everyone but a couple of asdf and jclay are saying. I'm not sure even jclay knows what jclay is saying. So far he's proved something no one was arguing against by drawing a chart that is at best a useless oversimplification of reality. Threads like this don't just end, they slowly drag out until people just forget about them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:He presents a completely alternative moral goal for minimum wage: pay a living wage to everyone who works. That view is completely divorced from a broader notion of helping the poor, and unaccountable to any qualitative analysis of outcome. I'm not creating a moral goal, I am saying the whole point of a minimum wage was to provide a "living wage" and prevent exploitation of workers. The goal from my understanding was never to just "help the poor", though that seems to be your argument and JeffersonClay's. JeffersonClay posted:If a minimum wage that is a living wage also increases unemployment, it literally can't provide a living wage to everyone who's willing and able to work. The minimum wage isn't for people who are "willing" to work, it's for people that are working. Again you and your buddies keep trying to frame the argument as "well, if we pay them more less people will be able to work". The whole point of work is to be able to feed, clothe and house yourself and your family, if working is not able to provide those things why keep working? But also you haven't proven that there is a point where the living wage will lead to mass unemployment, so prove that and we can scrap this whole minimum wage thing. These graphs are just as valid as your graph, and they don't show any harm to the poor at all, so why are you dismissing them? Probably because they don't fit with your ideology, that if we help people too much it will invariably harm people. edit: just because I want to be clear, I don't believe the graphs I quoted are any more accurate than yours, just that they are as valid as your example. Which is to say not valid at all. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Do I have this right? Is it, you know, data?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Too bad we went off that graph three pages ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah there hasn't been a shown to be a strong argument against minimum wages around $10-15 being disastrous for the poor, or that other ready available options will become apparent to help them. It isn't like there is any type of binary choice between a minimum wage and anything else. Anyway there are countries with Minimum wages around .60-.70 of median wages and they haven't collapsed on themselves. The median US wage is 17.09 so .7 (which is higher than any OECD country) would be $11.96/hr. The mean wage is 22.71, and the highest OECD ratio is .51, which works out to $11.58/hr. I think there's plenty of reason to be confident that a $10/hr or $12/hr minimum will work out well but not a lot to think that $15/hr will. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=MIN2AVE http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
What makes $15/hr the economic disaster that $12/hr isn't?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There could be local maxima and that would change the meaning of the graph not at all because we should still aim for the absolute maximum. quote:We could define benefits to the poor in lots of different ways and the shape of the graph would not change in any significant way. It would still have an initial positive slope, an absolute maximum, and cross the x axis. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:What makes $15/hr the economic disaster that $12/hr isn't? Moral hazard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The median US wage is 17.09 so .7 (which is higher than any OECD country) would be $11.96/hr. The mean wage is 22.71, and the highest OECD ratio is .51, which works out to $11.58/hr. I think there's plenty of reason to be confident that a $10/hr or $12/hr minimum will work out well but not a lot to think that $15/hr will. So $12/h is cool, but $15/h is unreasonable? If $12/h isn't enough to provide a living wage what do we do then? Keep using tax dollars to prop up the underemployed instead of helping the non-working poor directly? Seems like you're in favor of harming the poor, why do you hate the poor? ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Moral hazard. Can't provide a living wage, too many people would be hurt by giving them money to live! don't you see! JeffersonClay, I don't see where you disputed the other diagrams in this thread, you seem to think only your dataless graph is valid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That is what everyone but a couple of asdf and jclay are saying. I'm not sure even jclay knows what jclay is saying. So far he's proved something no one was arguing against by drawing a chart that is at best a useless oversimplification of reality. Actually Elcondemn was explicitly arguing that the wage could increase forever, without bound, and the graph was posted in response to him. You're just wrong. ElCondemn posted:I'm not creating a moral goal, I am saying the whole point of a minimum wage was to provide a "living wage" and prevent exploitation of workers. The goal from my understanding was never to just "help the poor", though that seems to be your argument and JeffersonClay's. Is paying a living wage and preventing exploitation a good thing because it's a moral imperative? Or is paying a living wage and preventing exploitation a good thing because it helps the poor? If the latter, we should consider the overall impacts of the policy when deciding whether the policy helps the poor. quote:The minimum wage isn't for people who are "willing" to work, it's for people that are working. Again you and your buddies keep trying to frame the argument as "well, if we pay them more less people will be able to work". The whole point of work is to be able to feed, clothe and house yourself and your family, if working is not able to provide those things why keep working? But also you haven't proven that there is a point where the living wage will lead to mass unemployment, so prove that and we can scrap this whole minimum wage thing. I don't really care what you or anybody else says the minimum wage is "for". I only care about what effects it will have. I can't prove that a 15,000,000/hr minimum wage will lead to mass unemployment because a 15,000,000/hr minimum wage has never existed. There is every reason to believe that it would be a lovely policy. quote:These graphs are just as valid as your graph, and they don't show any harm to the poor at all, so why are you dismissing them? Probably because they don't fit with your ideology, that if we help people too much it will invariably harm people. No, you just don't understand graphs, I guess. Sinnlos' graph does show a point where the minimum wage does begin to harm the poor, and Akumu's graph is just misleading, but we are assured it does indeed eventually cross the X axis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:48
|
|