|
JeffersonClay posted:Rather than wasting time with this sloppy dodge, let's assume that you are reasonable and believe that a 15b/s minimum wage would not be good for the poor. So you agree that there must be some point where the minimum wage can be too high, and therefore some point where value is maximized and some point where the negatives overwhelm the positives. So you don't disagree with the graph I made at all. Glad I could illuminate things for you. This is literally "if we taxed people at 100% they would have no motivation to do further work, while lowering it to 99% will encourage them to work a bit more, therefore increasing revenue. Do you agree with this? Well, then you must accept the Laffer Curve." 
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:This is literally "if we taxed people at 100% they would have no motivation to do further work, while lowering it to 99% will encourage them to work a bit more, therefore increasing revenue. Do you agree with this? Well, then you must accept the Laffer Curve." Nobody disagrees with that part of the laffer curve. The disagreement is with the assertion that lowering current tax rates would raise revenue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Plenty of people work for no benefit, so no. I do not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The Janitor DOES provide economic value. A McDonalds makes more money when the bathrooms and tables are clean than when they are dirty. Maybe, but this is the problem with all of your arguments. You make a claim with no data to back it up and try to argue it's reality in spite of explanations to the contrary. For instance, what if McDonalds lost revenue by being a poo poo hole is less than the cost of hiring janitors? We don't know that this isn't the case because you've not shown that this is reality. Just because it's plausible does not make it so, for all we know McDonalds has been running their restaurants wrong all along, they could be raking in the big bucks if they decided to fire all the janitors. Businesses are not run at peak efficiency, creating cost models for things like "how much would we save if we fire the janitors" is expensive and sometimes they default to "it seems like the right way". JeffersonClay posted:An office is more productive when it is neat than when it is dirty and oppressive. This is demonstrably untrue, sweatshops can be and are filthy shitholes and their efficiency is through the roof. JeffersonClay posted:This isn't a binary choice. Say a McDonalds currently hires 60hr/wk in Janitor services. They know that if they reduce that to 40hr/wk, and end up with a dirtier restaurant, they would stand to lose some money in sales. If a minimum wage hike increases the cost of labor above the value to McDonalds of having a cleaner restaurant, they'll choose to maximize profits by lowering hours. That's how John loses his part-time janitor job. Again, you create a situation that only makes sense if you believe the minimum wage can only lead to job losses. For instance, your janitor example is perfect, even If the minimum wage increases McDonald's is still probably going to want their toilets clean. Every business has a minimum organization size, McDonald's needs cashiers, cooks, and janitors. If they just start lopping off costly employees when the price gets high they reduce their ability to meet demand, this is why it's not linear, there are many market effects like this that affect employment and wage is definitely not a primary factor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Plenty of people is not sufficient. We're talking about the population as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Plenty of people is not sufficient. We're talking about the population as a whole. the population is plenty of people, sorry that you're confused about the english language
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Maybe, but this is the problem with all of your arguments. You make a claim with no data to back it up and try to argue it's reality in spite of explanations to the contrary. For instance, what if McDonalds lost revenue by being a poo poo hole is less than the cost of hiring janitors? We don't know that this isn't the case because you've not shown that this is reality. Just because it's plausible does not make it so, for all we know McDonalds has been running their restaurants wrong all along, they could be raking in the big bucks if they decided to fire all the janitors. Businesses are not run at peak efficiency, creating cost models for things like "how much would we save if we fire the janitors" is expensive and sometimes they default to "it seems like the right way". I don't need to prove every organization is maximizing profits right now. I only need to show that's the trend. I'm not going to spend time digging up a citation for something so obvious as "businesses generally attempt to maximize profits". quote:This is demonstrably untrue, sweatshops can be and are filthy shitholes and their efficiency is through the roof. quote:Again, you create a situation that only makes sense if you believe the minimum wage can only lead to job losses. For instance, your janitor example is perfect, even If the minimum wage increases McDonald's is still probably going to want their toilets clean. Every business has a minimum organization size, McDonald's needs cashiers, cooks, and janitors. If they just start lopping off costly employees when the price gets high they reduce their ability to meet demand, this is why it's not linear, there are many market effects like this that affect employment and wage is definitely not a primary factor. Is every organization at minimum size right now? No. Therefore cutting staff could be a response to raising the minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The suggestion the government can run massive budget deficits indefinitely with no negative consequences is, however. So you're solution is to keep businesses out of the loop and put more burden on the government to take care of the underemployed? Wouldn't it make sense to shift some of that burden to corporations who have massive profits so that we can free up government budgets for welfare? I keep forgetting, did you ever figure out why subsidizes exist instead of taking that money and giving it to the people buying goods like you're suggesting?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:So you're solution is to keep businesses out of the loop and put more burden on the government to take care of the underemployed? Wouldn't it make sense to shift some of that burden to corporations who have massive profits so that we can free up government budgets for welfare? You can shift that burden to corporations by taxing the corporations. That would be more likely to produce the outcome you're aiming for. I can't decipher your second point. Popular Thug Drink posted:the population is plenty of people, sorry that you're confused about the english language You're either arguing that all people work for no benefit at all, or you've lost the point of the conversation. You don't understand economics for poo poo, but you can't read for poo poo either, so I'm not sure which is more likely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The concept of money having power based on trust is not magical thinking, either. When you're a top 5 GDP you can! As long as you can meet payments on the debt (without societal collapse) you can run whatever budget deficit you want. e: Alternatively, please point to the MMT theorist or publication that has argued you can run up infinity debts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Plenty of people is not sufficient. We're talking about the population as a whole. Do you have any actual point to what you blather on about? Like I am trying to come to terms with this. Even if there is a point at which the min. wage becomes "not beneficial" the actual point at which that occurs is well above what is really being proposed and to abstract it to "15b/mw" is silly and intellectually dishonest. JeffersonClay posted:The concept of money having power based on trust is not magical thinking, either. Let's try to understand basic statistics and how they work before trying to make broad proscriptions about macroeconomic government financials, eh? Raskolnikov38 posted:When you're a top 5 GDP you can! As long as you can meet payments on the debt (without societal collapse) you can run whatever budget deficit you want. Well, GFoxNews said that the WSJ said about something Paul Krugman tweeted, BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't need to prove every organization is maximizing profits right now. I only need to show that's the trend. I'm not going to spend time digging up a citation for something so obvious as "businesses generally attempt to maximize profits". "All I have to do is show proof, but I'm not going to" seriously? JeffersonClay posted:Their per worker efficiency is actually quite low. They make money by having a shitload of employees and paying them very little. So what? McDonald's also has a low worker efficiency, they achieve efficiency through supply chains and process. JeffersonClay posted:Is every organization at minimum size right now? No. Therefore cutting staff could be a response to raising the minimum wage. You literally just contradicted yourself in one post. "Companies are maximizing profits" to "Companies are not maximizing profits" in just a handful of sentences. If a company can just reduce its organization size they are not maximizing their profits, otherwise they'd reduce their organization size today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
JC's argument is literally as subtle as "well you can drown in water, so we can all agree that too much water can kill you. Therefore everyone must die of thirst"
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Is every organization at minimum size right now? No. Therefore cutting staff could be a response to raising the minimum wage. Evidence based reasoning says the effect is very small: quote:Impact on Employment source: http://www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/state_local_minimum_wage_policy_dube.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
as this graph clearly shows there's no such thing as fixed costs
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Likely to small to be different than zero
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Radbot posted:OMFG he really posted a linear supply and demand graph assuming perfect elasticity and substitutability, holy poo poo Did I NOT just say Econ 101 shibboleth?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Also lol at talking about the Laffer curve like people just need it explained to them better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
so, you think that a man with a disability should be able to do everything anyone else can do except earn the same amount of money. Your entire argument is that they are social equals, but deserve lesser compensation. Separate, but equal, but not really. This sounds so super familiar I dont think it was your idea. Also why dont kids deserve money if they want to work? You blathered on about rights like those are absolutes, rights are granted by law just like the minimum wage, so what is your justification strictly on the grounds of compensation? Dont try to give some "wah wah think of the insult so condescending" bullshit either, theres nothing socially sensitive about loving over the mentally ill with reduced pay so covering your inability to answer this simple question with concern trolling is a bit transparent. You suggested that a man with downs should get HALF the pay of someone without it. Well what job is Timmy The Slow working that he isnt as good as his counterparts? Because lets make a short list of jobs that Timmy is qualified for: Jet pilot? mmmmmmmmmm no Dentist? UUUUUUhhhhh sorryyyyyyyy Janitorial? DING DING DING So of the vast pool of candidates qualified to make twice what Timmy the not so bright makes in the custodial sciences what skills do they posses that Timmy does not? Extra mop dexterity? Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Of course, the issue is that the US dollar is like no other currency in the world, so in that sense it is very much based on power and ultimately the US probably can run up continuous deficits for a while. If anything the disunity of the Eurozone, stagnation in Japan and Chinese growth dropping has stabilized USD dominance Also, I wish there were more interesting topic to discuss than MMT (which I don't think it is right on its own, but is an interesting thought experiment).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
I think it stands to reason that if you only deserve to be paid half of what a job normally pays you may not actually be qualified for the job in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Liberals would have you believe it was health codes that reduced the rate of food-borne illness, but actually it was only because we finally lowered the minimum wage enough to make cleaning a restaurant economically viable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Hope (s)he takes after her mother :P We agree on something! wateroverfire posted:Congrats. =) Is the little person going to be ghjk32 or asdf33? If genetic mutation gives the child any creativity whatsoever it will be neither. Re:Janitors Janitors provide value. I don't know why this discussion is necessary. Businesses hire a worker when they think they'll make more money than the worker costs. It doesn't matter what the worker does, that's why they get hired. Can someone clue me in as to what else is actually being argued right now? I'm not understanding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Businesses hire a worker when they think they'll make more money than the worker costs. God it's almost like I read a whole bunch of arguments earlier about how this isn't an accurate description of the way reality works, if only I could remember where
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
I thought businesses hire people because they need jobs done. I'm going to hire a cashier because without someone to ring up sales, my income is zero.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 02:53
|
|
asdf32 posted:Can someone clue me in as to what else is actually being argued right now? I'm not understanding. the only real "argument" happening is that one idiot defending his chart for 20 pages
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:God it's almost like I read a whole bunch of arguments earlier about how this isn't an accurate description of the way reality works, if only I could remember where Maybe I missed that. It sounds wrong. down with slavery posted:the only real "argument" happening is that one idiot defending his chart for 20 pages The 3 pieces of information everyone agrees with in threatening visual form.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 03:04
|
|
asdf32 posted:The 3 pieces of information everyone agrees with in threatening visual form. Alongside 10000 pieces of information that are highly contested
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:the only real "argument" happening is that one idiot defending his chart for 20 pages The real argument is actually 5 pages. It's only 20 pages if you forget to adjust for inflation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Janitors provide value. I don't know why this discussion is necessary. Businesses hire a worker when they think they'll make more money than the worker costs. It doesn't matter what the worker does, that's why they get hired. It's necessary because this entire idea that every worker adds some fixed dollar per hour value to a company is absurd and simplistic. Some jobs simply have to get done, and companies would be forced to pay any amount to get that work done or else shut their doors. A retail store can't function without people to unload trucks and stock shelves. Those are low skill, generally low paying jobs, but you can't easily measure their value because stores literally cannot operate if that work isn't done. Wages for jobs like that are largely dictated by labor market conditions, not some silly value per hour metric.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It's necessary because this entire idea that every worker adds some fixed dollar per hour value to a company is absurd and simplistic. Some jobs simply have to get done, and companies would be forced to pay any amount to get that work done or else shut their doors. A retail store can't function without people to unload trucks and stock shelves. Those are low skill, generally low paying jobs, but you can't easily measure their value because stores literally cannot operate if that work isn't done. Wages for jobs like that are largely dictated by labor market conditions, not some silly value per hour metric. Nothing here contradicts what I said. I think different types of value are confusing you. Nobody pays what things are "worth" in a market economy. You pay the same for water whether you're thirsty or not. What something is "worth" in an abstract sense to you or in terms of profit to a business is related to but seperate from what's it's worth (price) via supply and demand in the market. In any case a business only hires an employee when they will make more money than the employee costs (and if the employee is cheaper than any alternative). No they can't measure this exactly, but it sure as hell is the idea. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Without shelf stockers the business makes zero money, soooooooooooooo
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Nothing here contradicts what I said. You and I are unable to determine the exact value (in terms of profit) that a business receives from having a janitor. JeffersonClay can, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
What are these stores that can bring in money just fine without cashiers and stockboys and delivery guys and cooks and servers who only employ them now because they bring in just a bit extra on top of the fortunes the business would make without them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Nothing here contradicts what I said. Actually it does, people like managers and janitors don't really exist because they make the company money, it's so the business can exist. It might seem silly but this is basic accounting 101 you can go read about it if you'd like. ElCondemn posted:"All I have to do is show proof, but I'm not going to" Yes, considering the claim that businesses like to make money is incredibly obvious to people with working braincells. tsa fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
What about charities, philanthropic businesses and collectives?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You pay the same for water whether you're thirsty or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You pay the same for water whether you're thirsty or not. Haha, what, this is a thing, that happens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Of course, the issue is that the US dollar is like no other currency in the world, so in that sense it is very much based on power and ultimately the US probably can run up continuous deficits for a while. If anything the disunity of the Eurozone, stagnation in Japan and Chinese growth dropping has stabilized USD dominance Short-term we actually should be running large deficits to finance infrastructure, which would encourage growth etc etc etc... and make raising the min. wage even more important. Mid to long term, we do need to consider ways to tackle entitlement spending, health care costs and overall debt maintenance. The problem is a lot of policy makers don't really understand macroeconomics. A quick hand litmus test for whether someone should be trusted with making economic policy for your federal government is if the words "like your own checkbook, the government shouldn't spend more than it takes in" then you basically should discount anything else they utter. Making a major investment in our aging infrastructure would, long -term, have more of an effect than raising the min. wage on the overall health of the economy. asdf32 posted:You pay the same for water whether you're thirsty or not. I see someone's never been to Disney.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The concept of money having power based on trust is not magical thinking, either. its kind of endearing to see opponents of minimum wage hikes talking about magical thinking in the same thread where they express the earnest belief that jobs are permeated with measurable amounts of Worth Particles that establish the objective value of the employment, and that in such a way nature herself has determined the pay scale of janitors
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 16:09
|
|
