|
VitalSigns posted:Without shelf stockers the business makes zero money, soooooooooooooo Yes there is a minimum amount of labor required to make a business function. No, most businesses do not operate at that level because they make more profit by hiring additional labor. Stores make more money when their shelves are constantly fully stocked and products face the customer. They pay people to do this constantly. They could reduce the number of people doing this during the day, and pay a smaller number of people to do it at night. Whether they do this or not depends on the cost of labor. A business can function with only one person working checkout. But long lines might reduce their sales, so they hire two or three to maximize profits. A restaurant hires more cooks to reduce waiting time in busy periods. Etcetera. paranoid randroid posted: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 It doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters what businesses think because that's what informs their behavior. For-profit businesses primarily make hiring decisions based on their predicted effect on profitability. Assuming businesses will employ people at a loss is magical thinking.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Also lol at talking about the Laffer curve like people just need it explained to them better. Laffer wasn't wrong because he made a graph. Laffer was wrong when he asserted that current tax rates were to the right of the revenue maximizing point on the graph. I think you need pretty much every basic economic concept explained to you better because right now you fail to grasp even the simplest, most obvious parts. You would benefit from taking Econ 101 because while you understand the models are oversimplified, you don't understand how, or what implications adding complexity would imply. Spaceman Future! posted: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? Yes reduced dexterity is a common symptom of Down syndrome, and many other disabilities. I can parse this argument in Marxist terms, as well. Capitalists employ labor because they want to appropriate the surplus value created by laborers. Surplus value is equal to the difference between wages paid and revenue from products sold created by those laborers. If a minimum wage causes surplus value to become negative, the capitalist will stop employing the laborer. This is really basic stuff. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Okay but in real life, department stores are fully staffed with cashiers in countries where they make $20/hr. But clearly this is impossible since a cashier only rings up $7 worth of stuff in an hour and it's a loss to hire them after that. Conclusion: Danes are wizards. E: Do conservatives ever take a minute and think "hey do I actually see any of this poo poo I'm saying happen for real" when they reason out the Objective Theory Of The Value Of Poors from first principles? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:09
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Laffer wasn't wrong because he made a graph. Laffer was wrong when he asserted that current tax rates were to the right of the revenue maximizing point on the graph. he was also wrong, much like you, when he just assumed a slope with no data to back it up (in fact, the best data we have contradicts it) JeffersonClay posted:Yes reduced dexterity is a common symptom of Down syndrome, and many other disabilities. Why should Walmart be able to pay its cart pushers less because they were born with a disability?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:he was also wrong, much like you, when he just assumed a slope with no data to back it up (in fact, the best data we have contradicts it) JeffersonClay has made it very clear that he believes the disabled are objectively worth less and thus deserve less than a non-disabled person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Laffer wasn't wrong because he made a graph. Technically you're right, but not for the reasons that you think you're right; time for a history lesson! The Laffer Curve was drawn on the back of a napkin, after a dinner meeting with a bunch of politicians. The act of doing this doesn't make Laffer wrong, after all he was just drawing a curve on a napkin and trying to demonstrate a concept (what if taxes are too high, maybe revenue would actually go down!). It was wrong when politicians took this idea and presented it to the world as a graph. Because a line on a graph should have some loving meaning. It's unprofessional to pick some arbitrary shape to connect two endpoints, period, unless you're talking to third graders about how 2 data points are insufficient to create a graph. In the case of the Laffer Curve, someone unfamiliar with the curve or graphs in general might think that it represents an actual model and that tax revenue as a function of tax rate really does create a parabolic shape. This is bad, because now a graph that worked better as squiggle on a bar napkin is being presented by people with authority and creating confusion as a consequence. tl;dr it's fine to draw funny shapes on napkins, but arbitrarily choosing slopes and shapes in a professional context is going to get you ridiculed In your case, you did a similar thing: you chose some endpoints and decided to create a bunch of arbitrary slopes and curves to connect them. This is fine if you're drawing on a bar napkin after a few glasses of wine with friends, but in a context where you're trying to convince an opponent this is inevitably going to raise a bunch of questions about the graph that you never expected to have to answer. "You idiots just don't understand graphs" is the wrong approach, it's not only incorrect but it also causes everyone to ridicule you for presenting a bar napkin drawing of a simple idea as some sort of difficult-to-grasp high concept.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
*pulls out skull calipers* now my fine fellow we shall determine your intrinsic value-adds
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Hey JC you find something from MMT'ers that say infinity debt is good yet?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Hey JC you find something from MMT'ers that say infinity debt is good yet? Reminder he just peels off any thing that doesn't fit his posting point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay but in real life, department stores are fully staffed with cashiers in countries where they make $20/hr. But clearly this is impossible since a cashier only rings up $7 worth of stuff in an hour and it's a loss to hire them after that. Conclusion: Danes are wizards. A relationship between wages and employment decisions? Yes, everywhere all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay but in real life, department stores are fully staffed with cashiers in countries where they make $20/hr. But clearly this is impossible since a cashier only rings up $7 worth of stuff in an hour and it's a loss to hire them after that. Conclusion: Danes are wizards. It's exactly the same as the Marxist concept of surplus value. And "fully staffed" is a pretty meaningless assertion. Businesses make a profit maximizing decision based on the cost of labor and the predicted effects on profitability. You are making an error when you assume each cashier is equally valuable to the company. In reality there are diminishing returns with each additional cashier hired. So a rise in wages might make a company employ fewer cashiers, not to fire them all. down with slavery posted:he was also wrong, much like you, when he just assumed a slope with no data to back it up (in fact, the best data we have contradicts it) You can't calculate a slope for the laffer curve because it has no units... The best data we have shows that government revenue peaks around 70% tax rate so when laffer argues that sometimes lowering taxes increases revenue, he's right. He was wrong to suggest the peak might be near 35%. quote:Why should Walmart be able to pay its cart pushers less because they were born with a disability?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:JeffersonClay has made it very clear that he believes the disabled are objectively worth less and thus deserve less than a non-disabled person. No, I've been very clear that I don't think there's a relationship between a person's economic productivity and their worth as a person. Wages interact with the former, not the latter. You, on the other hand, believe wages and inherent human worth are one and the same, and rely on magic thinking to avoid facing the consequences that belief implies for the disabled. Are people who cannot work worthless? Raskolnikov38 posted:Hey JC you find something from MMT'ers that say infinity debt is good yet? http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/mmt-again/?_r=0 JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Do disabled people not deserve to live? Since they don't deserve a living wage...
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You can't calculate a slope for the laffer curve because it has no units... The best data we have shows that government revenue peaks around 70% tax rate so when laffer argues that sometimes lowering taxes increases revenue, he's right. He was wrong to suggest the peak might be near 35%. The Laffer Curve has units. It even has labels. The x-axis is frequently labeled as something like "tax rate" as a percentage and the y-axis is at least measured in revenue dollars or a percentage of revenue dollars. Both axes are usually shown with a linear scale. Your graph didn't have units, the labels were garbage, the axes were scaleless, and you made way more bad assumptions about the shape of the curve between the two endpoints than Laffer ever did. So it actually ranks lower than a bar napkin drawing, and you presented it like it was a pro achievement of your leet economic skillz. Are you beginning to see why this is funny?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, I've been very clear that I don't think there's a relationship between a person's economic productivity and their worth as a person. phrasing, motherfucker
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:57
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:when laffer argues that sometimes lowering taxes increases revenue, he's right yeah its like I told you, the slope matters and you don't get to just slap a line up and pretend like the shape of it doesn't matter. don't use a line and axes if you don't want the shape to matter
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, I've been very clear that I don't think there's a relationship between a person's economic productivity and their worth as a person. Wages interact with the former, not the latter. "I don't believe that your value as a human being is determined by your wage, ergo when I reduce your wage it is not because I think less of you as a person, I merely believe that you deserve to make less because you're a filthy crippled person. Sound good?" - Real Words spoken by Jefferson Clay
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Your graph didn't have units, the labels were garbage, the axes were scaleless, and you made way more bad assumptions about the shape of the curve between the two endpoints than Laffer ever did. So it actually ranks lower than a bar napkin drawing, and you presented it like it was a pro achievement of your leet economic skillz. Are you beginning to see why this is funny? He was also expressing concern that $15/hour was too far to the right on his lovely graph, despite evidence to the contrary from many sources. Can't forget that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:He was also expressing concern that $15/hour was too far to the right on his lovely graph, despite evidence to the contrary from many sources. Can't forget that. Possibly because his lovely graph was just made up by him in MS Paint since it wasn't based on any actual data. Of course, he doesn't know what data is so,
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's exactly the same as the Marxist concept of surplus value. The amount of sales a cashier brings in so dwarfs their salary that none of the wages we're talking about are going to make a difference. What, do you think stores hire people to ring up exactly $14.95 of goods an hour and oh poo poo if they have to pay $15 it's a loss now? Actually we don't have to speculate, we could do some studies on what happens when you raise the minimum wage  Oh, right VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:He was also expressing concern that $15/hour was too far to the right on his lovely graph, despite evidence to the contrary from many sources. Can't forget that. No, the graph expressed nothing about what wage was benefits maximizing. You're just bad at reading graphs. QuarkJets posted:"I don't believe that your value as a human being is determined by your wage, ergo when I reduce your wage it is not because I think less of you as a person, I merely believe that you deserve to make less because you're a filthy crippled person. Sound good?" - Real Words spoken by Jefferson Clay Don't worry person with disabilities, I made a wish last night on a shooting star so you certainly cannot lose your job if we force your employer to raise wages. -- Real words spoken by Quarkjets QuarkJets posted:The Laffer Curve has units. It even has labels. The x-axis is frequently labeled as something like "tax rate" as a percentage and the y-axis is at least measured in revenue dollars or a percentage of revenue dollars. Both axes are usually shown with a linear scale. Here's the laffer curve. You can't calculate a slope anywhere, other than at t*. You are bad at economics. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The amount of sales a cashier brings in so dwarfs their salary that none of the wages we're talking about are going to make a difference. Businesses attempt to do this. They may not be able to do so for differences as small as a nickel. They may sometimes calculate incorrectly. This doesn't matter, because the overall trend holds true. Do you disagree with the foundational assumption of Marxism? quote:Actually we don't have to speculate, we could do some studies on what happens when you raise the minimum wage And that data tells us literally nothing about a $15 dollar minimum wage. You're just asserting that there's a linear trend. Nevvy Z posted:Do disabled people not deserve to live? Since they don't deserve a living wage... They deserve a living income. That's going to require government to do more than just say "OK employers, pay these people more". Because businesses will say "nah, rather just fire them", in a nonzero number of cases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Do disabled people not deserve to live? Since they don't deserve a living wage... He's saying nobody deserves to live unless they can justify their value to a company. Or just to be a little more accurate to his argument, he's going to say the government should take care of people, work is not for providing for yourself or your family. What work is for exactly and why we should care that people are employed is a mystery. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I've understood why you are obsessed with that graph from the very beginning -- you have latched onto anything you think allows you to dismiss my arguments because you cannot refute them. Actually there have been plenty of studies that refute nearly every single thing you've said about minimum wage and how minimum wage affects the economy, that you have conveniently ignored. It's reached this point because everyone is being kind and allowing the discussion to continue despite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Here's the laffer curve. You can't calculate a slope anywhere, other than at t*. You are bad at economics. This is just getting embarrassing now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
economic value is like midichlorians, some people just have a higher count in their blood or whatever and manifest super powers like Being Possessed of Human Dignity
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Here's the laffer curve. You can't calculate a slope anywhere, other than at t*. You are bad at economics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:And that data tells us literally nothing about a $15 dollar minimum wage. You're just asserting that there's a linear trend. Ahhhh why do you get all nitpicky about accuracy when reminding us that extrapolation from known datapoints isn't always reliable, but you're just fine with imagining a single datapoint of the $eleventy-billion wage where we all lose our jobs and cats and dogs live together and extrapolating back from that to "so obviously $15 is too much" Your selective concern is so self-serving and ridiculous arrrghhh
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:economic value is like midichlorians, some people just have a higher count in their blood or whatever and manifest super powers like Being Possessed of Human Dignity I make 6 figures because I'm worth about 4x the average person, this is true because society is just and I'm just 4x better than people who aren't paid what I make. I'm still trying to figure out what work is for if it's not to provide for yourself and your family, why work at all if the government is supposed to take care of people? ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, the graph expressed nothing about what wage was benefits maximizing. You're just bad at reading graphs. You really want to be known as the bad graph guy on these forums? Is that your goal? No one outside of maybe a guy who just had a meltdown and got probated, and the other guy that people were making fun of for being bad at math earlier in the thread, seem like they are agreeing with you on this. Let's assume you WERE 100% right. No one you are arguing with thinks you are. What's the point of telling people they are bad at economics (effectively, saying "I am smarter than you") if everyone you are speaking with things you are wrong and feels that they are proving it? Wouldn't the smarter thing to do be to cut your losses? I mean if you didn't give a crap what people here thought, you probably would have walked away by now (from defending the graph in general), surely. Do you honestly think you are going to score some "points" here? I'm pretty sure the only result of you choosing to die on this hill is that any time you participate in any kind of economic discussion going forward, people are going to just bring up you being bad at graphs, resulting in derails and people not really taking anything you have to say seriously. Which is fine, I guess, if you are looking for "a thing" to be known for. But if you actually do care, then I don't see how your current course of action could possibly be a good one to you. And if you don't care, I don't see why you've put this much effort into defending this one pretty irrelevant point.* *Your graph showing that there is a point by which too much min wage is "bad" is irrelevant to the discussion of a $15/hr min wage, which is what this thread has been about from the beginning, unless you can show that $15 is within the "bad" part of your graph, which you would only be able to do with data. People have on multiple occasions thoroughly dismissed the $HUGE NUMBER/hr "argument" in this thread before you even posted your graph, which is why your graph is now being treated much the same way. I hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, I've been very clear that I don't think there's a relationship between a person's economic productivity and their worth as a person. Wages interact with the former, not the latter. Please, it's painfully obvious that you do think that a person's economic productivity and their worth as a person are on in the same, but you're just barely self-aware enough to realize what a shitheel that makes you out to be. Why else would you be constantly saying that disabled people could never earn and should never receive a living wage?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I've understood why you are obsessed with that graph from the very beginning -- you have latched onto anything you think allows you to dismiss my arguments because you cannot refute them. See? You just keep posting funnier and funnier things. It's like you think if you just tell people that they're bad at economics and bad at graphs often enough, then maybe it'll come true and you'll be given a Nobel. I even went so far as to explain which arguments I believe are accurately represented by your grade school graph, and I've explained why some of those arguments are even correct. But apparently none of that happened because you've chosen very specifically that you want to die on this hill, so clearly anyone who thinks that your graph is amusing must be just trying to discredit your amazing ideas. Awesome. For real though, I pointed out that you made several inaccurate statements about the Laffer Curve, and you attempt to "dispute" that by pointing out that you can only measure a slope at one point? You don't need to be able to measure a slope in order to see that the curve has units, dipshit. "You're bad at economics" doesn't even begin to describe how infantile and stupid you are. e: Please don't listen to ToastyPotato, your endless graph meltdown is providing the thread with days and days of entertainment, please never stop posting about your awesome graphs QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
magical thinking, unlike my belief in universal value quintessence and the luminiferous wage aether, is stupid
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
There's also the fact that the slope of a parabola can be measured, so it's not just economics he's bad at - it's math, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
The literal hill you wish to die on - it's a Laffer curve!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:There's also the fact that the slope of a parabola can be measured, so it's not just economics he's bad at - it's math, too. But it's cool because he never intended his diagram to mean anything. Can someone please tell me what work is for? If it's not to provide for myself and my family I think I should quit, it would really free up my time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:You really want to be known as the bad graph guy on these forums? Is that your goal? No one outside of maybe a guy who just had a meltdown and got probated, and the other guy that people were making fun of for being bad at math earlier in the thread, seem like they are agreeing with you on this. Let's assume you WERE 100% right. No one you are arguing with thinks you are. What's the point of telling people they are bad at economics (effectively, saying "I am smarter than you") if everyone you are speaking with things you are wrong and feels that they are proving it? Wouldn't the smarter thing to do be to cut your losses? I mean if you didn't give a crap what people here thought, you probably would have walked away by now (from defending the graph in general), surely. Do you honestly think you are going to score some "points" here? There has been ample reason to think the $15 point is at or near the point where it causes significant problems. Essentially zero economists recommend $15 (including Pinckney who wrote a book on dealing with inequality within capitalism), though far from being against minimum wage on principle, they generally support $10. So yes the bad part of the graph is certainly relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
First, I said point out where a MMT proponent says infinity debt is good, not someone with an axe to grind against them. Second, Krugman in his usual poo poo opinion pieces notes that MMT falls apart if you take his stupid hypothetical that all purchases of T-bills cease due to investors getting worried about deficit spending. In reality we see investors don't give a gently caress as long as they get paid like when Bush was driving up huge deficits and paying near to zero to negative interest rates on T bills.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:First, I said point out where a MMT proponent says infinity debt is good, not someone with an axe to grind against them. Second, Krugman in his usual poo poo opinion pieces notes that MMT falls apart if you take his stupid hypothetical that all purchases of T-bills cease due to investors getting worried about deficit spending. In reality we see investors don't give a gently caress as long as they get paid like when Bush was driving up huge deficits and paying near to zero to negative interest rates on T bills. Krugman has also said that infinity debt isn't a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
i think infinity debt is an excellent idea, as well as $100/hr min wage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:09
|
|