|
JeffersonClay posted:It's an empirical question. The answer isn't obvious. It kind of is, unless your new claim is that some combination of up to half of LA's low-paid labor force losing their jobs or 100% inflation is going to result in more money transferring from the poor than transferring to the poor here. I thought your argument before was some kind of "are the benefits of a living wage for millions worth it if even one little old lady on Skid Row dipping into her savings faces a few percent increase in prices", which was odd but at least not fantastical. Fantastical or not, you're right it's an empirical question, which is why I am puzzled that you're still arguing with everyone who says "let's increment the wage and study the results so we know when to stop". I know you think you're arguing against people who want $infinity/hr right now, but I assure you those people are imaginary.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
Your Weird Uncle posted:wait so his argument is "it would be beneficial for poor people to make under a living wage"? Only if that living wage is sufficiently high, such that setting the minimum wage to a living wage would cause a huge spike in unemployment/prices thereby eliminating any benefits. I hear they have this problem over in Fantasyville, in Hypothetical County. It's the "but what if the living wage is $infinity/hour" argument but phrased as a lovely drawing
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Your Weird Uncle posted:wait so his argument is "it would be beneficial for poor people to make under a living wage"? Min wage increase is a panacea of solutions and if there are any negatives, nothing can be done about said negatives. Assuming they exist. Which they might not. Who knows?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:No, you drew a line in mspaint and claimed that's what it means. You haven't shown poo poo. The minimum wage has positive and negative effects. At low minimum wage levels, the positive effects are dominant and increasing. As the minimum wage grows, it reaches a point where (positive effects) - (negative effects) is at a maximum. Beyond that point the negative effects begin growing faster than positive effects, and at a sufficiently high level of minimum wage, the negative effects begin to dominate. The graph is that paragraph in visual form. No one disputes that paragraph. People who dispute the graph either 1) don't understand graphs or 2) know they cannot dispute the paragraph and hope to distract by focusing on the graph. ElCondemn posted:We have proof that the minimum wage is a great tool for helping the poor, but if we give them enough money to live it's the wrong tool? Do you see the problem there? Why is it the wrong tool? I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to ask. quote:Also I want to see Jeff try to backpedal here, earlier he was calling me a monster for proposing any policy that could hurt the poor. How will he try to spin it so that his "acceptable losses" are reasonable while mine are not. site posted:Jefferson: would you rather use a tool such as universal minimum income to give people a living wage? Yes it would be better in every way. Zeitgueist posted:I'm sorry I missed the post where you plotted the data to a graph and it matched. Could you link me? And why didn't you just repost that instead of a hastily drawn graph with no data connected? You are again confusing data with numbers. Numbers are data but not all data are numbers. We have no empirical data about the effects of a $17 dollar minimum wage because this has never happened. Your argument boils down to "you can't prove that a 500/hr minimum wage would cause unemployment so I won't worry about it". QuarkJets posted:No, we all get your point, we're laughing at you because you conveyed it in an idiotic way a la the Laffer Curve Graphs like that are often how basic economic concepts are conveyed. I used it to convey a basic economic concept. You apparently associate all basic economic concepts with the laffer curve, which is perhaps explained by your fundamental lack of understanding about economics. Your Weird Uncle posted:wait so his argument is "it would be beneficial for poor people to make under a living wage"? My argument is "it is vanishingly unlikely that the minimum wage level we should support is coincidentally also the same wage that we define as a living wage" VitalSigns posted:It kind of is, unless your new claim is that some combination of up to half of LA's low-paid labor force losing their jobs or 100% inflation is going to result in more money transferring from the poor than transferring to the poor here. I thought your argument before was some kind of "are the benefits of a living wage for millions worth it if even one little old lady on Skid Row dipping into her savings faces a few percent increase in prices", which was odd but at least not fantastical. 1)Your math here assumes that 100% of poor people would see a doubling in income from the minimum wage hike which is totally false. 2) Minimum wage supporters can't make arguments like "you must hate the poor if you don't support the minimum wage" if they're unwilling to acknowledge that the minimum wage helps some poor people and hurts others. 3) We can't ever determine the benefits maximizing amount of the minimum wage unless we are willing to identify and measure both the benefits and the harms of the minimum wage. Handwaving away concerns about inflation or job losses does not help the poor. quote:Fantastical or not, you're right it's an empirical question, which is why I am puzzled that you're still arguing with everyone who says "let's increment the wage and study the results so we know when to stop". I know you think you're arguing against people who want $infinity/hr right now, but I assure you those people are imaginary. I'm not arguing with anybody suggesting we should slowly raise the minwage and study the effects to identify the benefits-maximizing point. I'm arguing with people who say "the minimum wage should be a living wage" or "it's just not ethical to allow a company to hire someone at less than a living wage" or "you can't know what the effects of a higher minimum wage will be so lets just do it", like, for example: President Kucinich posted:Min wage increase is a panacea of solutions and if there are any negatives, nothing can be done about said negatives. Assuming they exist. Which they might not. Who knows?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:1)Your math here assumes that 100% of poor people would see a doubling in income from the minimum wage hike which is totally false. True, but the people who see a 20% wage hike are going to contribute proportionally less to any feared unemployment or inflation anyway. Any way you slice it, if your criterion is "do more total dollars go to the poor than flow away from the poor", the amount unemployment and inflation that would have to happen at $15 to take more from the poor than they get is hilariously absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
The ideas that a high minimum wage may be economically infeasible, and that the minimum wage should be a living wage, and that below-living wages are unethical, are not exclusive. One can believe that a high minimum wage will require further, graduated testing, and also that the goal should be a living wage for all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:True, but the people who see a 20% wage hike are going to contribute proportionally less to any feared unemployment or inflation anyway. Do you have data which backs this intuition?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The ideas that a high minimum wage may be economically infeasible, and that the minimum wage should be a living wage, and that below-living wages are unethical, are not exclusive. Why should the goal be a living wage and not the benefit maximizing minimum wage? If you are advocating for graduated testing in good faith the underlying assumption must be that we should stop raising the minimum wage when economic indicators tell us to and not when it equals a living wage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Well in the event that you can easily raise the minimum wage higher than a living wage by all means keep going  But, broadly, if there is some impediment to paying everyone a living wage, then you should find a way to remove that obstruction. Guaranteeing the welfare of those in need is more important than maintaining the economic status quo. "We tried to raise it but it was hard so we stopped" is not a satisfactory conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
JClay, I've binged maybe a dozen or so pages of this thread over the last couple of days, and there's one thing I don't get: At the end of all of your posts, I feel like there's an unspoken "... and if it turns out that a benefit-maximizing minimum wage is equal to or greater than a living wage, I will be so disappointed." What's the deal? Would it kill you to say that, while you don't think an optimal minimum wage (by your definition anyway) necessarily reaches a living wage, it would be nice if that were the case? I think a lot of the poo poo you're getting is due to your begrudging and seemingly deliberately obtuse tone, not even the content of your argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
have you even pinned down a meaning for "benefit-maximizing" other than "we could define it lots of different ways"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
kaxman posted:a meaning for "benefit-maximizing" Most ideologically pleasing result.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Do you have data which backs this intuition? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Isn't shaped like a butt. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
I demand we graph the net benefit of giving monkeys to the poor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well in the event that you can easily raise the minimum wage higher than a living wage by all means keep going If mandating a living minimum wage does more harm than good we can use other means to achieve a living income. There's no special moral benefit from using the minimum wage to achieve the outcome. that graph is good at expressing the concept. That graph tells us nothing about what will happen at $15, you just assert 15 would obviously be a net benefit for the poor. What data informs that assertion? kaxman posted:have you even pinned down a meaning for "benefit-maximizing" other than "we could define it lots of different ways" The point where dollars gained by the poor minus dollars lost by the poor is maximized. Supraluminal posted:JClay, I've binged maybe a dozen or so pages of this thread over the last couple of days, and there's one thing I don't get: At the end of all of your posts, I feel like there's an unspoken "... and if it turns out that a benefit-maximizing minimum wage is equal to or greater than a living wage, I will be so disappointed." It would be wonderful if the government could solve poverty by doing something so simple as raising the minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If mandating a living minimum wage does more harm than good we can use other means to achieve a living income. There's no special moral benefit from using the minimum wage to achieve the outcome. You can use other methods yes, though if you can't afford to pay people a living wage it would be interesting to see how other subsidies would be afforded. Mandating employers pay their workers more is probably one of the least difficult methods of wealth redistribution, given that most others involve the government taking money off the employers and giving it to the workers via a complex, expensive, and bureaucratic mess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:17
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:What data informs that assertion? the rest of the first world
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:the rest of the first world citation needed OwlFancier posted:You can use other methods yes, though if you can't afford to pay people a living wage it would be interesting to see how other subsidies would be afforded. I don't think its unaffordable to provide everyone a living income. We know, with certainty, that setting minimum wage = living income would not actually provide all poor people with a living income because many poor people do not earn wage income.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
its obvious through natural intuition that $15/hr min wage is at minimum the best thing for the poor unnless your a drooling moron who likes to draw pictures of dicks, in your mouth, using pink crayons
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:30
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:citation needed http://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-us/policies-and-guides/fact-sheets/minimum-workplace-entitlements/minimum-wages
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The minimum wage has positive and negative effects. At low minimum wage levels, the positive effects are dominant and increasing. As the minimum wage grows, it reaches a point where (positive effects) - (negative effects) is at a maximum. Beyond that point the negative effects begin growing faster than positive effects, and at a sufficiently high level of minimum wage, the negative effects begin to dominate. Now that you've explained that the curve, the labels, and each point on the graph is completely arbitrary and not indicative of reality other than "at some point the minimum wage can be too high"... well I guess you were right all along, we were all stupid to think you were trying to visually display what increasing the minimum wage looks like. JeffersonClay posted:We have evidence that the minimum wage is a decent tool for helping the poor and will probably not cause economic harm at levels up to around $12 an hour. We have no evidence beyond that point. We know that raising the minimum wage will, eventually, produce more harm than good. The only question is how high the minimum wage can go before that happens. Ok, I agree that at some point increasing the minimum wage might become more detrimental than good. But I don't believe that point is before we can provide a living wage. JeffersonClay posted:No, I didn't call you a monster for proposing a policy that could harm the poor. I called you stupid for suggesting we should only evaluate the positive outcomes for the poor that result from said policy and ignore any negative outcomes. That is still stupid. I've already explained that I don't believe the poor will be hurt economically. But even if they were, the goal of having a minimum wage isn't to just "help the poor a bit", it's to ensure that anyone who works can provide for themselves. Why is that so hard to understand? Am I crazy for thinking you should be able to support yourself and your family with work? When did it become ok to let people work for less than is required to survive? I guess the ideal workforce is too weak and hungry to rebel against their masters. JeffersonClay posted:Graphs like that are often how basic economic concepts are conveyed. I used it to convey a basic economic concept. You apparently associate all basic economic concepts with the laffer curve, which is perhaps explained by your fundamental lack of understanding about economics. Nobody was arguing "minimum wage can never be too high", you keep banging that drum like you made a really awesome point. The reality is that you just don't seem to grasp what people can and can't understand about your arguments. JeffersonClay posted:My argument is "it is vanishingly unlikely that the minimum wage level we should support is coincidentally also the same wage that we define as a living wage" What? It's not a coincidence, increasing the minimum wage past the living wage would serve no purpose, even if it improved the lives of those earning the minimum wage. The maximal point of the minimum wage is the point at which workers can provide for themselves without additional support. Anything past that is just an argument to redistribute wealth, which I guess is what you think is the point. JeffersonClay posted:1)Your math here assumes that 100% of poor people would see a doubling in income from the minimum wage hike which is totally false. It's all arbitrary, like you said, there is no way to tell the future so his numbers are just as valid as your gut feeling. JeffersonClay posted:2) Minimum wage supporters can't make arguments like "you must hate the poor if you don't support the minimum wage" if they're unwilling to acknowledge that the minimum wage helps some poor people and hurts others. Firstly, "you must hate the poor" is not an argument, it's an accusation. Secondly, the only time anyone "argued" that you must hate the poor only did it to mock you. JeffersonClay posted:3) We can't ever determine the benefits maximizing amount of the minimum wage unless we are willing to identify and measure both the benefits and the harms of the minimum wage. Handwaving away concerns about inflation or job losses does not help the poor. It's only hand waving if you think minimum wage is the only way to help the poor. You seem to be implying that there's a balancing act, the minimum wage is at 7.25 because it's the most effective at not changing the economy too much. The maximal point is where the minimum wage has few/no negatives. I'll tell you right now, the minimum wage is mostly negative for the economy, we could have 100% employment if the minimum wage did not exist. We just decided that 4-6% unemployment is ok, and since the minimum wage does not appear to raise it more than that it's ok (though it's not a linear relationship, but I'm trying to simplify it to make my point). What I'm saying is we should say any % of unemployment is ok, as long as those who are working can provide for themselves and a family. If a job is unable to pay a living wage it is not serving it's purpose, to feed, clothe and house people. Work is not the end goal, we do not want 100% employment, we want those who can and do work to not require assistance from anyone else. If jobs are not providing that we should look for alternatives, not play this balancing game of "how much should the poor suffer". So please, understand that I'm not saying "gently caress the poor", I'm saying the minimum wage has a goal post (a living wage) and if it's not reaching that goal post we need to train a kicker to kick farther (increase the minimum wage) not move the goal post closer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You can use other methods yes, though if you can't afford to pay people a living wage it would be interesting to see how other subsidies would be afforded. But don't you see? If we keep all the poor equally suffering we can just support them other ways. Their value as workers is less than the value of their lives, you see?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't think its unaffordable to provide everyone a living income. We know, with certainty, that setting minimum wage = living income would not actually provide all poor people with a living income because many poor people do not earn wage income. Though providing those who do earn one with a good one would be a good first step towards providing everyone with a living income. Not to mention infinitely more likely to actually happen given that this is the US we're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
If we pay people nothing, the cost of living will plummet! People already without income will live like kings!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The ideas that a high minimum wage may be economically infeasible, and that the minimum wage should be a living wage, and that below-living wages are unethical, are not exclusive. They're vague propositions so of course they're not exclusive, right, since they're not committing the proposer to anything? They cry out for some elaboration. I think it's extremely debatable whether a minimum wage should be a "living" wage. In the sense the term living wage is used it denotes the ability to purchase a basket of goods, the prices of which are moving targets and the composition of which varies by the speaker. Taken seriously, or at least literally, a living wage would commit employers to open ended labor costs that would make business infeasible. And to call a wage below that arbitrary threshold unethical? What if a company can't afford to pay to that arbitrary standard? The owner of that business is...what...unethical because she's not ingenious enough or working hard enough to provide for all the needs and wants of her employees? If a business provided schooling, housing, health care, food, transportation and etc for its employees and paid them only pocket money would they be acting ethically? I think most posters here would say no, but that's the only way a literal living wage could be sustainable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:48
|
|
wateroverfire posted:They're vague propositions so of course they're not exclusive, right, since they're not committing the proposer to anything? They cry out for some elaboration. lmao (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
I can see the argument that a minimum wage at some point may cause some unwanted effects, theoretically raising a wage floor would eventually (probably) cause a disruption. The issue is drawing a line in the sand and saying "here is where it all goes wrong." In that sense, if there is evidence of a minimum wage causing unemployment or uncontrollable price increases, it is something to consider but that isn't really a hard and fast argument for anything except limitless wage increases without consideration of data. We know in general what has been proven to be safe, but we don't know what is necessarily counter productive either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:53
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If a business provided schooling, housing, health care, food, transportation and etc for its employees and paid them only pocket money would they be acting ethically? I think most posters here would say no, but that's the only way a literal living wage could be sustainable. or you know, business owners could stop fighting efforts to provide those things as a public good, which we all advocate for if you want labor mobility, ensure you don't need a job to survive. until then, business is on the hook
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:They're vague propositions so of course they're not exclusive, right, since they're not committing the proposer to anything? They cry out for some elaboration. I would be open to flexibility in terms of compensation agreements. broadly speaking, the government must ensure the welfare of its citizens, and this can take many forms. Government funded housing, healthcare, food, schooling, and transportation are all existing services with merits, but all are underfunded and under-available. This is unlikely to change any time soon. It thus follows that a minimum wage is a compromise between practicality and efficacy, paying people more money is a good way to improve their lives, because money is often the issue. It is also quite easy to draw a moral obligation from the employer to the worker, as the employer almost by definition is taking a portion of the worker's created value off them, in the form of profit. The worker works and the employer benefits from it. The worker benefits from it too, but they benefit less than the value of their work, whereas the employer benefits more than the value of their work, because that's how capitalism works. From that you can quite easily draw a conclusion that an employer has an ethical obligation to look after their workers at least to the value of their work. This can take the form of taxes from the top of the employing organization which are redistributed by the government to the workers, or, in some cases more efficiently, it can take the form of paying the workers more. Hence the basis for the living wage. It is possible to argue that all wealth inequality is indicative of an ethical obligation of those with wealth to return that wealth to those who created it, i.e; the workers. If you can't find enough money in the entire economy to pay your least well paid workers a bit more, well, I would firstly be surprised, and secondly suggest that you're arguing there isn't enough materiel in the country to support everyone and overpopulation has reached critical mass, which I didn't think was the case in the US yet. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:And to call a wage below that arbitrary threshold unethical? What if a company can't afford to pay to that arbitrary standard? The owner of that business is...what...unethical because she's not ingenious enough or working hard enough to provide for all the needs and wants of her employees? The company wouldn't be unethical, they would just be unviable. If the cost of running your business is too great if you provide a living wage then that business is not economically viable. Businesses deal with this problem all the time, widget X is too expensive, either they find the component for cheaper or reduce the cost of the component. The problem is that labor as a resource can't be flexible in cost that way, otherwise we end up with people who are working full time and are still unable to provide for themselves. Which is exactly what's already happening. wateroverfire posted:If a business provided schooling, housing, health care, food, transportation and etc for its employees and paid them only pocket money would they be acting ethically? I think most posters here would say no, but that's the only way a literal living wage could be sustainable. There's a whole bunch of reasons why this is a terrible idea, but the wage being paid is probably least important, since as you say they'd be provided for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
I'm really wary of dipping into this, but JC says that he would like to see UMI employed as a tool for disbursing income. Maybe there is some level that would be maximally beneficial where we can increase the minimum wage and use UMI to get people to what would be considered a living wage without undue stress on employers. The minimum wage is still probably able to be north of $15/hr but I guess we'll see how LA turns out before the final word can be laid down on that one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:07
|
|
site posted:I'm really wary of dipping into this, but JC says that he would like to see UMI employed as a tool for disbursing income. Maybe there is some level that would be maximally beneficial where we can increase the minimum wage and use UMI to get people to what would be considered a living wage without undue stress on employers. I know this sounded smart when you posted it but try to find anyone who has said anything OTHER than this. Of course a GMI is preferable, it's about political realities.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I know this sounded smart when you posted it but try to find anyone who has said anything OTHER than this. Of course a GMI is preferable, it's about political realities. I have said it plenty of times before but part of it is also simply accounting, you can say "raise tax on the rich" but ultimately there is the question of how much you are able to do that for a GMI or basic income AND do everything else you need to do to run a country (not to mention expand other needed services). You can say just raise the EITC but ultimately that doesn't save you money, people just get it through their tax return. Ultimately, we do know there are hard limits to finance a government, and while you can get away with a moderate deficit and some printing, you have to make choices. I much rather the companies pay the costs themselves, then try to claw a fraction of that amount from their "subsidiary" in Ireland or Luxembourg. Raising sales taxes or a VAT isn't going to also cause unwanted effects from a regressive tax even if it is mostly redistributed. So raise the minimum wage as high as you can taking into account not just to costs to business but society as a whole and try to expand your revenue, if the money for a GMI is in there, fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:We know, with certainty, that setting minimum wage = living income would not actually provide all poor people with a living income because many poor people do not earn wage income. Jesus titty loving Christ. You make poo poo swilling baboons look like scholars. Yes, people who don't earn a wage won't receive an increase of wages when the minimum wage is increased. Now, what the gently caress does that have to do with anything? Are you under the impression that any given act to help poor people has to help all poor people? Were you born this stupid or did you have to go to a trade school for this? Needle exchange programs help prevent the spread of disease among poor people addicted to drugs. They won't do much directly to poor people who aren't addicted to drugs, but since they don't help ALL POOR PEOPLE EVERYWHERE I guess they shouldn't be implemented. People harp on the minimum wage because it is politically feasible: 1. The minimum wage currently exists. Whatever alternative reality fantasy solution you have doesn't exist. 2. The minimum wage has been increased before without an economic holocaust. Whatever alternative reality fantasy solution you have doesn't exist. 3. One of the two major political parties in America has expressed interest in raising the minimum wage. Whatever alternative reality fantasy solution you have doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It thus follows that a minimum wage is a compromise between practicality and efficacy, paying people more money is a good way to improve their lives, because money is often the issue. It is also quite easy to draw a moral obligation from the employer to the worker, as the employer almost by definition is taking a portion of the worker's created value off them, in the form of profit. The worker works and the employer benefits from it. The worker benefits from it too, but they benefit less than the value of their work, whereas the employer benefits more than the value of their work, because that's how capitalism works. From that you can quite easily draw a conclusion that an employer has an ethical obligation to look after their workers at least to the value of their work. This can take the form of taxes from the top of the employing organization which are redistributed by the government to the workers, or, in some cases more efficiently, it can take the form of paying the workers more. Hence the basis for the living wage. All our discussions somehow come back to LTV and ambiguities about the term value. What is the value of a worker's work without the institution for which they labor? From the most practical standpoint that question means "How much money can a worker harvest for themselves by doing whatever they're doing, without the institution they're doing it for." For many workers that number is 0. For all workers, at the very least, the business they work for allows them to leverage their skills and talents, not to mention the investments and risk taking of others, into more money than they could net by foraging out on their own. The employer deserves compensation for that, a share of the take that it helps to create, and that compensation is the profit. That's how capitalism works. A moral obligation arising from exploitation is not a thing because exploitation, in the sense it applies here, is bullshit. OwlFancier posted:If you can't find enough money in the entire economy to pay your least well paid workers a bit more, well, I would firstly be surprised, and secondly suggest that you're arguing there isn't enough materiel in the country to support everyone and overpopulation has reached critical mass, which I didn't think was the case in the US yet. Sure, it's probably possible to find a little money to do that. That's uncontrovertial and not very interesting to talk about, isn't it? Making the minimum wage a "living" wage is a different proposition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I know this sounded smart when you posted it but try to find anyone who has said anything OTHER than this. Of course a GMI is preferable, it's about political realities. Way to be an rear end in a top hat about it. This is why I knew posting in here was a bad idea. Ardennes managed to actually answer the question, so thanks to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
its not a proposition, its a goal
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
site posted:I'm really wary of dipping into this, but JC says that he would like to see UMI employed as a tool for disbursing income. Maybe there is some level that would be maximally beneficial where we can increase the minimum wage and use UMI to get people to what would be considered a living wage without undue stress on employers. Where is the money going to come from if not from employers? Because, you can't exactly take money from the poor to pay for their own incomes. Governments get their revenue from employers, from wealthy people who earn lots of money by employing other people. Either you take it off the top with tax, and enjoy all the difficulties inherent in that, or you tell the company to give the money to the people you want it to go to. They pay for it either way. wateroverfire posted:All our discussions somehow come back to LTV and ambiguities about the term value. What is the value of a worker's work without the institution for which they labor? From the most practical standpoint that question means "How much money can a worker harvest for themselves by doing whatever they're doing, without the institution they're doing it for." For many workers that number is 0. For all workers, at the very least, the business they work for allows them to leverage their skills and talents, not to mention the investments and risk taking of others, into more money than they could net by foraging out on their own. The employer deserves compensation for that, a share of the take that it helps to create, and that compensation is the profit. That's how capitalism works. A moral obligation arising from exploitation is not a thing because exploitation, in the sense it applies here, is bullshit. I disagree entirely, the employer deserves compensation in accordance with their work. If they work hard 40 hours a week, they deserve a commensurate wage. Anything else is simply good fortune, and is deserved by nobody, but may be distributed among many who need it, if nobody needs it, it may be distributed among everybody so they can enjoy it. If you inherit, find, or invent the only hammer in existence, you aren't entitled to all of the money in the world because you're the only person anybody can go to if they want a nail hammered in, you're entitled to money for however much hammering you do, and the rest should go where it is needed. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:29
|
|