Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Massachusetts sets the state minimum wage to $11, suck it red state workers   ( money.cnn.com) divider line
    More: Cool, Massachusetts, minimum wages, highest state  
•       •       •

751 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jun 2014 at 2:45 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



278 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-20 11:07:05 AM  
Go Massachusetts!
 
2014-06-20 11:09:06 AM  
I am sure all the businesses will be rolling out of Mass by the weekend.
 
2014-06-20 11:13:59 AM  
FINALLY

Our economic recovery depends on getting money down to the consumer. Mass just ensured their economic recovery
 
2014-06-20 11:21:10 AM  
www.chicagonow.com
 
2014-06-20 11:47:22 AM  
Still not a living wage.
 
2014-06-20 11:52:38 AM  
$11 in most of Mass won't get you far, but this is a start.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-06-20 11:57:16 AM  

cman: FINALLY

Our economic recovery depends on getting money down to the consumer. Mass just ensured their economic recovery


There is no supply without demand.
 
2014-06-20 12:04:35 PM  

cman: Mass just ensured their economic recovery cratered their economy.


FTFY. This will be overturned by popular demand within 6 months, because businesses will quit hiring.

Then there will be no demand for goods and services, and then MA will watch their tax revenues dwindle, and then they'll look to states like Mississippi to see how to fix the problem.
 
2014-06-20 12:07:26 PM  
Perhaps we can celebrate this success without shiatting all over our fellow citizens who happen to live in states that vote red, who could also certainly use a raise.
 
2014-06-20 12:16:03 PM  

Gonz: cman: Mass just ensured their economic recovery cratered their economy.

FTFY. This will be overturned by popular demand within 6 months, because businesses will quit hiring.

Then there will be no demand for goods and services, and then MA will watch their tax revenues dwindle, and then they'll look to states like Mississippi to see how to fix the problem.


That would be true if the jump was significant. This isn't a significant jump
 
2014-06-20 12:19:07 PM  

Gonz: cman: Mass just ensured their economic recovery cratered their economy.

FTFY. This will be overturned by popular demand within 6 months, because businesses will quit hiring.

Then there will be no demand for goods and services, and then MA will watch their tax revenues dwindle, and then they'll look to states like Mississippi to see how to fix the problem.


One of these days this doom and gloom scenario will come to pass.  Sure, it's always been wrong before, but THIS TIME yer F`CKED libtardos!!
 
2014-06-20 12:36:51 PM  
Considering the cost of living in Massachusetts that's like $5 in the flyover states.

Good start though
 
2014-06-20 12:41:22 PM  
Massachusetts has finally conceded that the only way they can pay for their liberal government bloat is to collect more revenue, which they can only do if there are higher wages to tax.

It's brilliant, really.
 
2014-06-20 12:41:22 PM  
This will ruin our Commonwealth just like taking the lead on same-sex marriage did
 
2014-06-20 12:56:10 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Massachusetts has finally conceded that the only way they can pay for their liberal government bloat is to collect more revenue, which they can only do if there are higher wages to tax.

It's brilliant, really.


Yeah, look at those red states, with their total lack of poor people and magnificently balanced budgets!!
 
2014-06-20 12:59:27 PM  

Shostie: [www.chicagonow.com image 503x283]


The Republican response:
members.iglou.com
 
2014-06-20 01:01:01 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Massachusetts has finally conceded that the only way they can pay for their liberal government bloat is to collect more revenue, which they can only do if there are higher wages to tax.

It's brilliant, really.


I don't understand your logic here. Employers paying their employees more is a good thing, considering how expensive everything is nowadays. I get paid *slightly more* than min wage, more money in my pocket means I can pay my student loans on time, and make other financial commitments. Why would this be bad? My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.
 
2014-06-20 01:27:10 PM  

Gonz: cman: Mass just ensured their economic recovery cratered their economy.

FTFY. This will be overturned by popular demand within 6 months, because businesses will quit hiring.

Then there will be no demand for goods and services, and then MA will watch their tax revenues dwindle, and then they'll look to states like Mississippi to see how to fix the problem.


You had me until those last few words. 4/10
 
2014-06-20 01:53:08 PM  
Who can live on $11 an hour?  If the argument is to pay a living wage, minimum wage should be $25 an hour.

/another shing example of meaningless feel good legislation.
 
2014-06-20 02:01:16 PM  
MONEY IS MEANINGLESS
 
2014-06-20 02:03:40 PM  

Dimensio: The Republican response:
members.iglou.com


If you honestly believe that's a real picture, and that there is an amplifier where Herp and Derp can be turned to Potato, then I pity you.
 
2014-06-20 02:13:10 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Perhaps we can celebrate this success without shiatting all over our fellow citizens who happen to live in states that vote red, who could also certainly use a raise.


Then they should stop voting for assholes.
 
2014-06-20 02:15:25 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Massachusetts has finally conceded that the only way they can pay for their liberal government bloat is to collect more revenue, which they can only do if there are higher wages to tax.

It's brilliant, really.


You know, I pay taxes in Massachusetts, and I would be perfectly happy to see them raised slightly if it meant that my fellow massholes had a better standard of living.

Of course, this won't make my taxes higher.
 
2014-06-20 02:30:28 PM  

what_now: Then they should stop voting for assholes.


"They" consist of Rs and Ds. It's the same reaction when there's a spill in WV or an explosion in Texas, saying welp that's what they get for voting R is just petty. We're talking about people. In this case a good thing happened. I'm just as glad the Rs in MA will be getting a raise as I am the Ds.
 
2014-06-20 02:35:46 PM  

what_now: Lucky LaRue: Massachusetts has finally conceded that the only way they can pay for their liberal government bloat is to collect more revenue, which they can only do if there are higher wages to tax.

It's brilliant, really.

You know, I pay taxes in Massachusetts, and I would be perfectly happy to see them raised slightly if it meant that my fellow massholes had a better standard of living.

Of course, this won't make my taxes higher.


Are you purposely confusing a larger tax base (raise the minimum wage, you raise the tax base) with a higher tax rate?
 
2014-06-20 02:36:23 PM  

what_now: Dusk-You-n-Me: Perhaps we can celebrate this success without shiatting all over our fellow citizens who happen to live in states that vote red, who could also certainly use a raise.

Then they should stop voting for assholes.


Them voting for assholes shows that your side is right.

Why on earth would you upset that balance?
 
2014-06-20 02:47:43 PM  

Gonz: cman: Mass just ensured their economic recovery cratered their economy.

FTFY. This will be overturned by popular demand within 6 months, because businesses will quit hiring.

Then there will be no demand for goods and services, and then MA will watch their tax revenues dwindle, and then they'll look to states like Mississippi to see how to fix the problem.


You mean import illegal aliens, give enormous tax breaks to business who move there, and long for the days when  you could beat a non-white into working harder?
 
2014-06-20 02:49:48 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Massachusetts has finally conceded that the only way they can pay for their liberal government bloat is to collect more revenue, which they can only do if there are higher wages to tax.

It's brilliant, really.


MA has been running surpluses since Patrick's been in office.
 
2014-06-20 02:50:44 PM  
Why "suck it red state workers"? This just means there will be more jobs for red staters. Red state workers should be psyched!!
 
2014-06-20 02:50:57 PM  

Gonz: FTFY. This will be overturned by popular demand within 6 months, because businesses will quit hiring.


When do you think business hire people?
 
2014-06-20 02:50:58 PM  
At least red state workers have the Right To Work, amiright?
 
2014-06-20 02:51:03 PM  

SauronWasFramed: Who can live on $11 an hour?  If the argument is to pay a living wage, minimum wage should be $25 an hour.

/another shing example of meaningless feel good legislation.


You feel that $25/hr is the minimum livable wage?  That is...cool man.  Good stuff.
 
2014-06-20 02:51:31 PM  
If it weren't for my union I 'd be making the 11.00 per hour minimum wage instead of 16.00 per hour I'm making now.
 
2014-06-20 02:51:47 PM  
The Massachusetts bill also raised the subminimum base wage for tipped workers to $3.75 from $2.63 currently.

Even that is an embarrassment but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, I guess.
 
2014-06-20 02:52:28 PM  
Thank you, Into The Blue Again!

That was very nice!

I will enjoy my 30 days immensely.
 
2014-06-20 02:52:30 PM  

palelizard: Gonz: FTFY. This will be overturned by popular demand within 6 months, because businesses will quit hiring.

When do you think business hire people?


Obviously businesses hire people when they are sitting on a nice chunk of profit and demand for their products is at market equilibrium, because that's when they have free time to conduct interviews.
 
2014-06-20 02:54:08 PM  
We gotta start somewhere. And while Seattle made the splash I am glad My state will try to lead the way again on the national level. We are a rich nation, no need for people in this country to be toiling away in poverty.
 
2014-06-20 02:54:44 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Thank you, Into The Blue Again!

That was very nice!

I will enjoy my 30 days immensely.


;)
 
2014-06-20 02:55:24 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Massachusetts has finally conceded that the only way they can pay for their liberal government bloat is to collect more revenue, which they can only do if there are higher wages to tax.

It's brilliant, really.


The worst part of summer is that posters like this don't have to spend 6 hours a day with their moms, pretending to be homeschooled.
 
2014-06-20 02:55:53 PM  

cman: Gonz: cman: Mass just ensured their economic recovery cratered their economy.

FTFY. This will be overturned by popular demand within 6 months, because businesses will quit hiring.

Then there will be no demand for goods and services, and then MA will watch their tax revenues dwindle, and then they'll look to states like Mississippi to see how to fix the problem.

That would be true if the jump was significant. This isn't a significant jump


I think your sarcasm meter is broken. "look to states like Mississippi to fix problems" should have made it pretty clear.
 
2014-06-20 02:57:53 PM  

what_now: Lucky LaRue: Massachusetts has finally conceded that the only way they can pay for their liberal government bloat is to collect more revenue, which they can only do if there are higher wages to tax.

It's brilliant, really.

You know, I pay taxes in Massachusetts, and I would be perfectly happy to see them raised slightly if it meant that my fellow massholes had a better standard of living.

Of course, this won't make my taxes higher.


Well, it will make you pay more sales tax to the extent the increased costs for businesses are passed on to consumers via higher prices.
 
2014-06-20 02:59:08 PM  

SauronWasFramed: /another shing example of meaningless feel good legislation.


lol wut
 
2014-06-20 02:59:11 PM  
It's a good step, and I'm glad they found a common consensus, though I wish they had found a way to keep in the provision that raised the minimum with cost of living increases.

It's a gradual increase, of course, but that's not going to stop the "Sky is falling" folks from bloviating.

This is going to improve the purchasing power of many folks in my area of the state (Fall River).
 
2014-06-20 02:59:27 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: palelizard: Gonz: FTFY. This will be overturned by popular demand within 6 months, because businesses will quit hiring.

When do you think business hire people?

Obviously businesses hire people when they are sitting on a nice chunk of profit and demand for their products is at market equilibrium, because that's when they have free time to conduct interviews.


That makes sense. Everyone knows time is money.
 
2014-06-20 02:59:53 PM  
According to Libslibslibs Theory, this means that North Carolina must now lower their minimum wage by a proportional amount to offset Massachusetts' changes. Thus keeping the intelligence and spite levels balanced.
 
2014-06-20 02:59:56 PM  
Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes
 
2014-06-20 03:00:32 PM  

keylock71: This is going to improve the purchasing power of many folks in my area of the state (Fall River).


wouldn't anything increase the purchasing power of Fall River

/how the hell are you guys getting a casino?
 
2014-06-20 03:04:08 PM  

CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes


They won't go to $11 just because the minimum wage was raised. Sure, prices will increase some and there will be fewer jobs than there would be otherwise, and there will be an overall deadweight loss to the economy. But it doesn't mean prices will double overnight.
 
2014-06-20 03:04:33 PM  

From Philly to Boston: I am sure all the businesses will be rolling out of Mass by the weekend.



That would violate the laws of physics.
 
2014-06-20 03:05:03 PM  

CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes


http://www.bostonburgerco.com/menu/

A few are close to $11, but most are 8 or 9. They are also served with homemade potato chips and either coleslaw or beans.  Mac Attack is where it's at.
 
2014-06-20 03:05:12 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: what_now: Lucky LaRue: Massachusetts has finally conceded that the only way they can pay for their liberal government bloat is to collect more revenue, which they can only do if there are higher wages to tax.

It's brilliant, really.

You know, I pay taxes in Massachusetts, and I would be perfectly happy to see them raised slightly if it meant that my fellow massholes had a better standard of living.

Of course, this won't make my taxes higher.

Well, it will make you pay more sales tax to the extent the increased costs for businesses are passed on to consumers via higher prices.


Lemme lay some math on you.

WidgetCorp makes widgets, hence the name. WidgetCorp can make 100 widgets for $1,000. WidgetCorp then sells these at wholesale prices to ConMart. ConMart pays $1,050 for every 100 widgets. In order to break even, ConMart has to sell widgets for a price of $10.50. They mark it up to $19.99, which covers overhead for having the store open, marketing, workers salaries, etc. On that basis, ConMart makes $5.00 for every widget sold.

With the minimum wage increase, ConMart now makes $3.50 on every widget sold. Their profit margin goes down. ConMart hires an economist who tells them that the market will probably bear a $0.50 increase in widget prices. Sure, some outlying consumers might be priced out of the widget market, but most consumers will gladly shoulder a $0.50 increase. To top it off, the minimum wage hike has not priced in more consumers than ConMart lost, who can now afford the $20.49 cost of widgets. All of a sudden, ConMart's profit margins are even higher than before.

Which is not to say that there is not a point of diminishing returns. There obviously is. It's possible a minimum wage increase could price certain businesses out of the market and some employees would have to be let go. But for others, it will increase demand for their products and services as more people can afford them, which should (in theory) create new job opportunities for the people let go from businesses priced out of the marketplace.

You free-market types are supposed to respect this and say, "all is working as it should be."
 
2014-06-20 03:05:34 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Why "suck it red state workers"? This just means there will be more jobs for red staters. Red state workers should be psyched!!


Yeah, all those service jobs just gonna move out of state
 
2014-06-20 03:06:02 PM  

somedude210: keylock71: This is going to improve the purchasing power of many folks in my area of the state (Fall River).

wouldn't anything increase the purchasing power of Fall River

/how the hell are you guys getting a casino?


Good point....

We're not getting a casino. Pipe dreams from the Flanagan Administration.

On a positive, we're having our first AHA! Night downtown tomorrow. Really looking forward to it.
 
2014-06-20 03:06:27 PM  

palelizard: Obama's Reptiloid Master: palelizard: Gonz: FTFY. This will be overturned by popular demand within 6 months, because businesses will quit hiring.

When do you think business hire people?

Obviously businesses hire people when they are sitting on a nice chunk of profit and demand for their products is at market equilibrium, because that's when they have free time to conduct interviews.

That makes sense. Everyone knows time is money.


When demand is high and supply is low, there's just no time to hire additional workers or order additional production. Everyone is too busy lifting bootstraps to meet that available demand. Buckling down, as it were. Buckling down while lifting bootstraps. The Protestant work ethic.
 
2014-06-20 03:06:43 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Massachusetts has finally conceded that the only way they can pay for their liberal government bloat is to collect more revenue, which they can only do if there are higher wages to tax.


Maybe Massachusetts can hire you a geographer.
 
2014-06-20 03:09:15 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Lemme lay some math on you.

WidgetCorp makes widgets, hence the name. WidgetCorp can make 100 widgets for $1,000. WidgetCorp then sells these at wholesale prices to ConMart. ConMart pays $1,050 for every 100 widgets. In order to break even, ConMart has to sell widgets for a price of $10.50. They mark it up to $19.99, which covers overhead for having the store open, marketing, workers salaries, etc. On that basis, ConMart makes $5.00 for every widget sold.

With the minimum wage increase, ConMart now makes $3.50 on every widget sold. Their profit margin goes down. ConMart hires an economist who tells them that the market will probably bear a $0.50 increase in widget prices. Sure, some outlying consumers might be priced out of the widget market, but most consumers will gladly shoulder a $0.50 increase. To top it off, the minimum wage hike has not priced in more consumers than ConMart lost, who can now afford the $20.49 cost of widgets. All of a sudden, ConMart's profit margins are even higher than before.


LOL!  Math is *hard*!
 
2014-06-20 03:10:01 PM  

keylock71: Good point....

We're not getting a casino. Pipe dreams from the Flanagan Administration.


Hey, it may be a pipedream but it's the most viable plan as the rest of them as actually getting passed
 
2014-06-20 03:11:50 PM  
Massachusetts
Area    Ranked 44th
Total    10,555 sq mi
Population    Ranked 14th
 - Total    6,692,824 (2013 est)
 - Density    840/sq mi  (324/km2)


The United States Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that the Massachusetts gross state product in 2012 was US $404 billion. The per capita personal income in 2012 was $53,221, making it the third highest state in the nation.

Yeah, not to worried.  Also come in the top 5 for quality of life and education consistently.

Spending on education, infrastructure, and well being goes a long way to providing the inputs and employees businesses need to thrive. Thats a proactive, progressive approach, not a negative regressionary one.
 
2014-06-20 03:12:12 PM  

CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: Why "suck it red state workers"? This just means there will be more jobs for red staters. Red state workers should be psyched!!

Yeah, all those service jobs just gonna move out of state


I heard Wal-Mart is going to have a lottery system where every hour they work, the workers have to buy a ticket for a $1.  Then they'll draw all the tickets out, and if your number is called, you get to keep working. Anyone who doesn't will be dragged out back and shot or maybe fired.
 
2014-06-20 03:13:51 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: what_now: Lucky LaRue: Massachusetts has finally conceded that the only way they can pay for their liberal government bloat is to collect more revenue, which they can only do if there are higher wages to tax.

It's brilliant, really.

You know, I pay taxes in Massachusetts, and I would be perfectly happy to see them raised slightly if it meant that my fellow massholes had a better standard of living.

Of course, this won't make my taxes higher.

Well, it will make you pay more sales tax to the extent the increased costs for businesses are passed on to consumers via higher prices.

Lemme lay some math on you.

WidgetCorp makes widgets, hence the name. WidgetCorp can make 100 widgets for $1,000. WidgetCorp then sells these at wholesale prices to ConMart. ConMart pays $1,050 for every 100 widgets. In order to break even, ConMart has to sell widgets for a price of $10.50. They mark it up to $19.99, which covers overhead for having the store open, marketing, workers salaries, etc. On that basis, ConMart makes $5.00 for every widget sold.

With the minimum wage increase, ConMart now makes $3.50 on every widget sold. Their profit margin goes down. ConMart hires an economist who tells them that the market will probably bear a $0.50 increase in widget prices. Sure, some outlying consumers might be priced out of the widget market, but most consumers will gladly shoulder a $0.50 increase. To top it off, the minimum wage hike has not priced in more consumers than ConMart lost, who can now afford the $20.49 cost of widgets. All of a sudden, ConMart's profit margins are even higher than before.

Which is not to say that there is not a point of diminishing returns. There obviously is. It's possible a minimum wage increase could price certain businesses out of the market and some employees would have to be let go. But for others, it will increase demand for their products and services as more people can afford them, which should (in theory) create new job opportunities for the people let go from businesses priced out of the marketplace.

You free-market types are supposed to respect this and say, "all is working as it should be."


Your magical fairy dust doesn't apply in real life. They will lose more customers due to increased prices than they gain due to a small segment of their potential customer base getting a raise, believing anything else is economically illiterate fantasy.

If I had time or the photo posting ability on my phone I'd post a graph showing the deadweight loss to the economy that results from artificial price floors or ceilings such as minimum wages.

$11 is not that much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.
 
2014-06-20 03:14:01 PM  
This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working
 
2014-06-20 03:14:59 PM  
 
2014-06-20 03:16:00 PM  

somedude210: keylock71: Good point....

We're not getting a casino. Pipe dreams from the Flanagan Administration.

Hey, it may be a pipedream but it's the most viable plan as the rest of them as actually getting passed


I think Foxwoods has pretty much shut the door on the Fall River deal due to the location being unsuitable. I think they're looking at New Bedford now.

I'm not against a casino, mind you. Jobs are jobs and we'll take what we can get down in this neck of the woods.

I'm more interested in getting Fall River connected to Boston by rail, to be honest.
 
2014-06-20 03:16:10 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: SauronWasFramed: /another shing example of meaningless feel good legislation.

lol wut


Maybe MA should make it meaningful by raising the minimum wage rate to $25/hr.
 
2014-06-20 03:16:13 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.


http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Don't bother. Your data is outdated and based on flawed methodological assumptions, just like the research done on austerity.
 
2014-06-20 03:16:27 PM  

chimp_ninja: A group of Chicago aldermen and community activists introduced a plan in May to also raise Chicago's minimum wage to $15. That coalition released a statement praising Seattle and calling on officials here to take the same step.


*cue teenage kid throwing tantrum in bedroom*
 
2014-06-20 03:17:18 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: what_now: Lucky LaRue: Massachusetts has finally conceded that the only way they can pay for their liberal government bloat is to collect more revenue, which they can only do if there are higher wages to tax.

It's brilliant, really.

You know, I pay taxes in Massachusetts, and I would be perfectly happy to see them raised slightly if it meant that my fellow massholes had a better standard of living.

Of course, this won't make my taxes higher.

Well, it will make you pay more sales tax to the extent the increased costs for businesses are passed on to consumers via higher prices.

Lemme lay some math on you.

WidgetCorp makes widgets, hence the name. WidgetCorp can make 100 widgets for $1,000. WidgetCorp then sells these at wholesale prices to ConMart. ConMart pays $1,050 for every 100 widgets. In order to break even, ConMart has to sell widgets for a price of $10.50. They mark it up to $19.99, which covers overhead for having the store open, marketing, workers salaries, etc. On that basis, ConMart makes $5.00 for every widget sold.

With the minimum wage increase, ConMart now makes $3.50 on every widget sold. Their profit margin goes down. ConMart hires an economist who tells them that the market will probably bear a $0.50 increase in widget prices. Sure, some outlying consumers might be priced out of the widget market, but most consumers will gladly shoulder a $0.50 increase. To top it off, the minimum wage hike has not priced in more consumers than ConMart lost, who can now afford the $20.49 cost of widgets. All of a sudden, ConMart's profit margins are even higher than before.

Which is not to say that there is not a point of diminishing returns. There obviously is. It's possible a minimum wage increase could price certain businesses out of the market and some employees would have to be let go. But for others, it will increase demand for their products and services as more people can afford them, which should (in theory) create new job opportunities for the people let go from businesses priced out of the marketplace.

You free-market types are supposed to respect this and say, "all is working as it should be."

Your magical fairy dust doesn't apply in real life. They will lose more customers due to increased prices than they gain due to a small segment of their potential customer base getting a raise, believing anything else is economically illiterate fantasy.

If I had time or the photo posting ability on my phone I'd post a graph showing the deadweight loss to the economy that results from artificial price floors or ceilings such as minimum wages.

$11 is not that much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.


Speaking of magical fairy dust, where is your evidence for such claims? Or is this a gut feeling?
 
2014-06-20 03:18:07 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Don't bother. Your data is outdated and based on flawed methodological assumptions, just like the research done on austerity.


Your opponent has gone on record here saying the rich deserve to be rich, and that Wall Street didn't do anything wrong that caused the 2008 (what recession?) Recession, so I'm getting a kick, etc...
 
2014-06-20 03:18:25 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Your magical fairy dust doesn't apply in real life. They will lose more customers due to increased prices than they gain due to a small segment of their potential customer base getting a raise, believing anything else is economically illiterate fantasy.


That doesn't make any sense. If that were true, every other minimum wage increase ever would have tanked the economy.  Your logic means reducing the minimum wage would result in more customers from reduced prices.  The logical end of that means near-slavery (people having more or less NO MONEY TO SPEND) would be your best customers if your prices are cheap enough.
 
2014-06-20 03:18:31 PM  

RowYourBoat: SauronWasFramed: Who can live on $11 an hour?  If the argument is to pay a living wage, minimum wage should be $25 an hour.

/another shing example of meaningless feel good legislation.

You feel that $25/hr is the minimum livable wage?  That is...cool man.  Good stuff.


Seems about 10 dollars too low.
 
2014-06-20 03:18:49 PM  

whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working


It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.
 
2014-06-20 03:18:50 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Lemme lay some math on you.

WidgetCorp makes widgets, hence the name. WidgetCorp can make 100 widgets for $1,000. WidgetCorp then sells these at wholesale prices to ConMart. ConMart pays $1,050 for every 100 widgets. In order to break even, ConMart has to sell widgets for a price of $10.50. They mark it up to $19.99, which covers overhead for having the store open, marketing, workers salaries, etc. On that basis, ConMart makes $5.00 for every widget sold.

With the minimum wage increase, ConMart now makes $3.50 on every widget sold. Their profit margin goes down. ConMart hires an economist who tells them that the market will probably bear a $0.50 increase in widget prices. Sure, some outlying consumers might be priced out of the widget market, but most consumers will gladly shoulder a $0.50 increase. To top it off, the minimum wage hike has not priced in more consumers than ConMart lost, who can now afford the $20.49 cost of widgets. All of a sudden, ConMart's profit margins are even higher than before.

LOL!  Math is *hard*!


Huh?  If ConMart is selling more units at $4 profit, they may make more money than selling fewer units at $5 profit.

This isn't rocket science.  The minimum wage increase isn't applied to one company.  Many other companies would also raise the pay of many workers, and for people right at the poverty line, nearly all of that additional salary is likely to be expended.

Math isn't that hard.  When you go back for your GED in Law, make sure to sign up for some after you finish North American Geography.
 
2014-06-20 03:18:54 PM  

CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes


1-media-cdn.foolz.us

That is not how economies work stupid human.
 
2014-06-20 03:19:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Or is this a gut feeling?


It's not even that. It's an outright falsehood not supported by the actual research.

It's funny how you never see Republicans posting anything substantive on economics. Oh sure, they'll link a Heritage Foundation or Von Mises Institute screed, which is more ideology than data and interpretation, and they'll whine about how Krugman or DeLong are meanypants who say mean and unprofessional things about conservatives. They'll toss out a term like "Laffer curve," but when you ask them to back anything up with hard numbers, they turn tail and run because the data simply does not support the efficacy of conservative economics.
 
2014-06-20 03:19:33 PM  

keylock71: I'm more interested in getting Fall River connected to Boston by rail, to be honest.


now *that's* a pipedream :P

/sadly, it's been in the works for half a century
//and not actually worked on
///also, would it have killed them to connect North and South station?
////we could go from DC to Maine without switching trains!
 
2014-06-20 03:20:48 PM  

palelizard: Debeo Summa Credo: Your magical fairy dust doesn't apply in real life. They will lose more customers due to increased prices than they gain due to a small segment of their potential customer base getting a raise, believing anything else is economically illiterate fantasy.

That doesn't make any sense. If that were true, every other minimum wage increase ever would have tanked the economy.  Your logic means reducing the minimum wage would result in more customers from reduced prices.  The logical end of that means near-slavery (people having more or less NO MONEY TO SPEND) would be your best customers if your prices are cheap enough.


isn't that essentially how you go from Capitalism to Communism?
 
2014-06-20 03:21:03 PM  
I see the waterboy for the 1% has arrived to explain how there should be no minimum wage because of magical fairy dust.
 
2014-06-20 03:21:36 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.


In the meantime, what is our minimum wage worker supposed to eat? Bootstraps? Unicorn steaks?

Do you even externalities, bro?
 
2014-06-20 03:22:06 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.


1. Appealing to authority is a well-employed fallacy. Thanks for playing. You have no proof that wage increases cause price increases. Drop the busted talking point, please.
2. Or labor will organize as in this case and get a mandate passed that employers hire at $11 an hour. Suck it up.
 
2014-06-20 03:22:22 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.


Okay, name one. Show us the work.
 
2014-06-20 03:22:38 PM  

whidbey: Your opponent has gone on record here saying the rich deserve to be rich, and that Wall Street didn't do anything wrong that caused the 2008 (what recession?) Recession, so I'm getting a kick, etc...


I know. I took him off my ignore list because I thought, "I have got to see which hole in the chicken this numbskull is farking today."

I didn't expect the answer to be, "All of them, Katie."
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-06-20 03:23:15 PM  

whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working


I know how tiresome this is, but it's 2014.  The only thing that one side can do is parrot false talking points in hopes they become true and the only thing the other side can do is try to point out the poor reasoning to people who are willfully deaf.
 
2014-06-20 03:23:35 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: whidbey: Your opponent has gone on record here saying the rich deserve to be rich, and that Wall Street didn't do anything wrong that caused the 2008 (what recession?) Recession, so I'm getting a kick, etc...

I know. I took him off my ignore list because I thought, "I have got to see which hole in the chicken this numbskull is farking today."

I didn't expect the answer to be, "All of them, Katie."


Say it ain't so, Joe.
 
2014-06-20 03:24:26 PM  

d23: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

I know how tiresome this is, but it's 2014.  The only thing that one side can do is parrot false talking points in hopes they become true and the only thing the other side can do is try to point out the poor reasoning to people who are willfully deaf.


1.bp.blogspot.com

*obligatory*
 
2014-06-20 03:24:36 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

Okay, name one. Show us the work.


Arguing with Debeo is like arguing with a retarded cockroach. Kind of like arguing with me, except I can be funny
 
2014-06-20 03:25:14 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Don't bother. Your data is outdated and based on flawed methodological assumptions, just like the research done on austerity.


DERP!! Your data is biased and would only be believed by left wing idiots.

Google "deadweight loss of minimum wage".
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-06-20 03:25:14 PM  

somedude210: palelizard: Debeo Summa Credo: Your magical fairy dust doesn't apply in real life. They will lose more customers due to increased prices than they gain due to a small segment of their potential customer base getting a raise, believing anything else is economically illiterate fantasy.

That doesn't make any sense. If that were true, every other minimum wage increase ever would have tanked the economy.  Your logic means reducing the minimum wage would result in more customers from reduced prices.  The logical end of that means near-slavery (people having more or less NO MONEY TO SPEND) would be your best customers if your prices are cheap enough.

isn't that essentially how you go from Capitalism to Communism?



communism
 noun

1.
a theory or system of social  based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the  as a whole or to the state.

I guess for some non-standard definition of the word...
 
2014-06-20 03:26:09 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.


Society as a whole has to foot the bill of picking up the slack of poor wages, so it makes sense for society to set a price floor. If you need labor, you have to pay X, not just for the benefit of the person being hired but also to ease the burdon that purson puts on society. Labor is an input, inputs cost money and unfortunately can be and is regulated.
 
2014-06-20 03:26:27 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Don't bother. Your data is outdated and based on flawed methodological assumptions, just like the research done on austerity.

DERP!! Your data is biased and would only be believed by left wing idiots.

Google "deadweight loss of minimum wage".


How can data be biased? Because it doesn't confirm your unscientific worldview?
 
2014-06-20 03:26:36 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: believed by left wing idiots.


memedepot.com

Oh Debbie, you're such a sinking ship.
 
2014-06-20 03:26:53 PM  

somedude210: isn't that essentially how you go from Capitalism to Communism?


Or feudalism, which is how trickle-down economics work.

Obama's Reptiloid Master: When demand is high and supply is low, there's just no time to hire additional workers or order additional production. Everyone is too busy lifting bootstraps to meet that available demand. Buckling down, as it were. Buckling down while lifting bootstraps. The Protestant work ethic.


If they were Puritan Pilgrims like the first people in this country, their boots AND hats would have buckles on the straps already.  It's how you can tell who actually deserves to be here.
 
2014-06-20 03:27:40 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

In the meantime, what is our minimum wage worker supposed to eat? Bootstraps? Unicorn steaks?

Do you even externalities, bro?


Whatever he eats isn't the concern of the economist. If you want welfare or foodstamps or EITC so higher income people will subsidize lower income people, that's another topic.

It's completely independent of the economics of minimum wages and fair market wages.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-06-20 03:28:49 PM  

cman: 2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.


No, but they do owe you a fair wage.  Every idiot that parrots this b.s. conveniently forgets that we these massive corporations hold orders of magnitude higher power.  When the corporations have enough power to pay starvation wages instead of free market wages and let the government pick up the tab with food stamps, it's DAMN SURE the government has an interest in making sure that fairness is restored.
 
2014-06-20 03:29:02 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: 1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply


"Sara Lemos has conducted a comprehensive review of the 30 or so academic papers on the price effects of the minimum wage. She concludes: "Despite the different methodologies, data periods and data sources, most studies reviewed above found that a 10% US minimum wage increase raises food prices by no more than 4% and overall prices by no more than 0.4%"; and "[t]he main policy recommendation deriving from such findings is that policy makers can use the minimum wage to increase the wages of the poor, without destroying too many jobs or causing too much inflation." Neumark and Wascher agree with Lemos's assessment about the likely price effects (while disagreeing with her conclusions about the overall usefulness of the minimum wage): "Both because of the relatively small share of production costs accounted for by minimum wage labor and because of the limited spillovers from a minimum wage increase to wages of other workers, the effect of a minimum wage increase on the overall price level is likely to be small." Other recent research by Daniel Aaronson, Eric French, and James MacDonald on restaurant pricing, a sector with a high share of low-wage workers suggests that the price effects are likely to be lower than the upper bounds suggested by Lemos. Aaronson, French, and MacDonald "find that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage increases prices by roughly 0.7 percent."

Source: Schmitt, J. (2013) "Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?"

So, oooh.  0.4-0.7% price increases in exchange for lifting hundreds of thousands of people over the poverty line.  Everybody panic.
 
2014-06-20 03:30:03 PM  

chimp_ninja: Debeo Summa Credo: 1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply

"Sara Lemos has conducted a comprehensive review of the 30 or so academic papers on the price effects of the minimum wage. She concludes: "Despite the different methodologies, data periods and data sources, most studies reviewed above found that a 10% US minimum wage increase raises food prices by no more than 4% and overall prices by no more than 0.4%"; and "[t]he main policy recommendation deriving from such findings is that policy makers can use the minimum wage to increase the wages of the poor, without destroying too many jobs or causing too much inflation." Neumark and Wascher agree with Lemos's assessment about the likely price effects (while disagreeing with her conclusions about the overall usefulness of the minimum wage): "Both because of the relatively small share of production costs accounted for by minimum wage labor and because of the limited spillovers from a minimum wage increase to wages of other workers, the effect of a minimum wage increase on the overall price level is likely to be small." Other recent research by Daniel Aaronson, Eric French, and James MacDonald on restaurant pricing, a sector with a high share of low-wage workers suggests that the price effects are likely to be lower than the upper bounds suggested by Lemos. Aaronson, French, and MacDonald "find that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage increases prices by roughly 0.7 percent."

Source: Schmitt, J. (2013) "Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?"

So, oooh.  0.4-0.7% price increases in exchange for lifting hundreds of thousands of people over the poverty line.  Everybody panic.


Mmm, science.
 
2014-06-20 03:30:03 PM  

d23: cman: 2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

No, but they do owe you a fair wage.  Every idiot that parrots this b.s. conveniently forgets that we these massive corporations hold orders of magnitude higher power.  When the corporations have enough power to pay starvation wages instead of free market wages and let the government pick up the tab with food stamps, it's DAMN SURE the government has an interest in making sure that fairness is restored.


Nice quote fail

Attributing a comment that I didn't make is always a good way to start drama
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-06-20 03:30:05 PM  

CPennypacker: Society as a whole has to foot the bill of picking up the slack of poor wages, so it makes sense for society to set a price floor. If you need labor, you have to pay X, not just for the benefit of the person being hired but also to ease the burdon that purson puts on society. Labor is an input, inputs cost money and unfortunately can be and is regulated.


Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.
 
2014-06-20 03:30:08 PM  

CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

Society as a whole has to foot the bill of picking up the slack of poor wages, so it makes sense for society to set a price floor. If you need labor, you have to pay X, not just for the benefit of the person being hired but also to ease the burdon that purson puts on society. Labor is an input, inputs cost money and unfortunately can be and is regulated.


I agree that it is unfortunate that it is regulated(in regard to minimum wages). It's harmful regulation that does more damage to society than it helps.

The government shouldn't decide the price of an input, the market should.

Why should an employer pay someone $11 per hour when that person is only bringing $10 per hour in benefit to the employer?
 
2014-06-20 03:30:28 PM  

somedude210: keylock71: I'm more interested in getting Fall River connected to Boston by rail, to be honest.

now *that's* a pipedream :P

/sadly, it's been in the works for half a century
//and not actually worked on
///also, would it have killed them to connect North and South station?
////we could go from DC to Maine without switching trains!


Not entirely true...

MassDOT board approves South Coast Rail contract for up to $210 million"

They also did lay new track in Fall River and New Bedford and built the platform for the Fall River stop on Davol St.

though, it has been a long time coming... I'm 43 and this has "been in the works" since at least the late 80s.
 
2014-06-20 03:30:35 PM  
Oh great now hamburgers will cost $1,000 each!
 
2014-06-20 03:31:09 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If you want welfare or foodstamps or EITC so higher income people will subsidize lower income people, that's another topic.

It's completely independent of the economics of minimum wages and fair market wages


Wow...
 
2014-06-20 03:31:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Don't bother. Your data is outdated and based on flawed methodological assumptions, just like the research done on austerity.

DERP!! Your data is biased and would only be believed by left wing idiots.

Google "deadweight loss of minimum wage".

How can data be biased? Because it doesn't confirm your unscientific worldview?


He's just saying it hasn't been properly unskewed.
 
2014-06-20 03:31:13 PM  

nijika: Oh great now hamburgers will cost $1,000 each!


It's Obama's sekrit plan to turn us into subsistence farmers!
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-06-20 03:31:37 PM  

nijika: Oh great now hamburgers will cost $1,000 each!


If that works, why don't we make hamburgers $1 mil each!!

lolololo I made a good point

//pfft
 
2014-06-20 03:31:58 PM  
Whoops.... Should have been a link on that last post.

MassDOT board approves South Coast Rail contract for up to $210 million
 
2014-06-20 03:32:34 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

Society as a whole has to foot the bill of picking up the slack of poor wages, so it makes sense for society to set a price floor. If you need labor, you have to pay X, not just for the benefit of the person being hired but also to ease the burdon that purson puts on society. Labor is an input, inputs cost money and unfortunately can be and is regulated.

I agree that it is unfortunate that it is regulated(in regard to minimum wages). It's harmful regulation that does more damage to society than it helps.

The government shouldn't decide the price of an input, the market should.

Why should an employer pay someone $11 per hour when that person is only bringing $10 per hour in benefit to the employer?


Because we don't live in a purely free market. There's too much moral hazard.

Maybe the workers should just unionize then? Thats the free market solution right there. Consolidate the supply and jack up the price.
 
2014-06-20 03:32:55 PM  

d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.


When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-06-20 03:33:04 PM  
Debeo Summa Credo: If you want welfare or foodstamps or EITC so higher income people will subsidize lower income people, that's another topic.

It's completely independent of the economics of minimum wages and fair market wages


Now if we are using public funds to subsidize the Walton family.... you know that's AOK!
 
2014-06-20 03:34:17 PM  

d23: cman: 2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

No, but they do owe you a fair wage.  Every idiot that parrots this b.s. conveniently forgets that we these massive corporations hold orders of magnitude higher power.  When the corporations have enough power to pay starvation wages instead of free market wages and let the government pick up the tab with food stamps, it's DAMN SURE the government has an interest in making sure that fairness is restored.


But they don't. That's a myth believed by the left.

There are thousands of employers. Don't like your job at Walmart? Apply at target or Burger King or family dollar or a liquor store or a deli or party city or Home Depot or costco or chili's or the residence inn or any of the other hundreds of employers in the near vicinity of the vast vast majority of the workforce.

Heck, take the job at Burger King while continuing to look for something even better. Nothing is stopping you.

Employees have plenty of flexibility in their job searches. Just because fair market wages aren't as high as you'd like them to be doesn't make them not fair market wages.
 
2014-06-20 03:34:22 PM  

chimp_ninja: Sara Lemos


Obviously not an economist since she contradicts our expert.
 
2014-06-20 03:35:04 PM  

CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

Society as a whole has to foot the bill of picking up the slack of poor wages, so it makes sense for society to set a price floor. If you need labor, you have to pay X, not just for the benefit of the person being hired but also to ease the burdon that purson puts on society. Labor is an input, inputs cost money and unfortunately can be and is regulated.

I agree that it is unfortunate that it is regulated(in regard to minimum wages). It's harmful regulation that does more damage to society than it helps.

The government shouldn't decide the price of an input, the market should.

Why should an employer pay someone $11 per hour when that person is only bringing $10 per hour in benefit to the employer?

Because we don't live in a purely free market. There's too much moral hazard.

Maybe the workers should just unionize then? Thats the free market solution right there. Consolidate the supply and jack up the price.


But Unions are unfair to the business.  People are supposed to take what their betters deem appropriate for them and subsist off the scraps they may or may not be able to afford.
 
2014-06-20 03:35:21 PM  

d23: CPennypacker: Society as a whole has to foot the bill of picking up the slack of poor wages, so it makes sense for society to set a price floor. If you need labor, you have to pay X, not just for the benefit of the person being hired but also to ease the burdon that purson puts on society. Labor is an input, inputs cost money and unfortunately can be and is regulated.

Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.


Completely untrue. Truly one of the silliest canards of the left.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-06-20 03:35:53 PM  

Lucky LaRue: d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.

When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?


Yes.... the consumer should be paying that price.  If Wal-Mart can't pay their employees a fair wage and charge a low enough price at the same time then maybe they shouldn't be in business.  Every small business in the world has to do it.  It's not like it's unfair.
 
2014-06-20 03:36:17 PM  

CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes


You live in NYC and you're worried about $11 burgers? I used to live there, and I recall $12 shots of vodka at bars.
 
2014-06-20 03:36:45 PM  

Lucky LaRue: d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.

When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?


The consumer doesn't. The taxpayer does.
 
2014-06-20 03:37:15 PM  
Something that really pisses me off in these discussions is the insinuation that prices will go up if companies have to pay their workers more.

NEWS FLASH, MORONS! The prices of commodities like food and oil are going up  anyway, and whether or not the minimum wage is raised is  not going to change that. What this means is that without a minimum wage increase, minimum wage workers (and those barely above) have to work harder and harder for less and less.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-06-20 03:37:26 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: But Unions are unfair to the business. People are supposed to take what their betters deem appropriate for them and subsist off the scraps they may or may not be able to afford.


You know what is crazy about the anti-unionism right now?  It's that the people that are the biggest blowhards about Capitalism hate it.  Unions are a capitalistic reaction to too much power by large employers.  It *is* free market.  The people yelling about the free market the loudest only want the parts of the free market that suit them.
 
2014-06-20 03:38:03 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Don't bother. Your data is outdated and based on flawed methodological assumptions, just like the research done on austerity.

DERP!! Your data is biased and would only be believed by left wing idiots.

Google "deadweight loss of minimum wage".


I know how stupid this was, my fellow Farkers, but I did it. I farking googled what DSC told me to.

Allow me to present the first five links. It's like a Buzzfeed listicle, but this will actually be funny.

1.  http://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/co n sumer-producer-surplus/deadweight-loss-tutorial/v/minimum-wage-and-pri ce-floors

First we have a Khan Academy lesson in microeconomics. For all its faults, Khan Academy isn't totally terrible. Check out the comments.

2.  http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/03/ 0 3/the-deadweight-loss-of-minimum-wage-hikes-n1524753/page/full

A Townhall link. Nice.

3.  http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/2992?e=coopermic r o-ch10_s02

Another ideologically biased site without much in the way of raw data that consistently fails to account for changes in the market as a result of the higher minimum wage. It focuses solely on the labor-work transaction (in which an employer believes she has a set amount of work that needs to be performed). It does not take into account an increase in demand (and therefore an increase in the amount of socially necessary labor to be performed).

4.  http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deadweightloss.asp

Oh investopedia. More ideology, low actual numbers.

5.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

It's sad when Wikipedia is the best source on the list.

Now, let's look at some actual data!

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

Oh my God! Could it be that the reason Townhall and Investopedia don't have any concrete examples of a deadweight loss is because THE FARKING DATA DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT THEORY? Quelle surprise!

Conservatives, do not fark with the quants. They have your number. They have calculated exactly how farking wrong you are.
 
2014-06-20 03:38:04 PM  

sweetmelissa31: CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes

You live in NYC and you're worried about $11 burgers? I used to live there, and I recall $12 shots of vodka at bars.


I wish we had $11 burgers

I like to open up every minimum wage thread with some variant of "Enjoy your $X hamburgers"

where x is the wage being discussed

Always gets a few bites :)
 
2014-06-20 03:38:04 PM  

CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

Society as a whole has to foot the bill of picking up the slack of poor wages, so it makes sense for society to set a price floor. If you need labor, you have to pay X, not just for the benefit of the person being hired but also to ease the burdon that purson puts on society. Labor is an input, inputs cost money and unfortunately can be and is regulated.

I agree that it is unfortunate that it is regulated(in regard to minimum wages). It's harmful regulation that does more damage to society than it helps.

The government shouldn't decide the price of an input, the market should.

Why should an employer pay someone $11 per hour when that person is only bringing $10 per hour in benefit to the employer?

Because we don't live in a purely free market. There's too much moral hazard.

Maybe the workers should just unionize then? Thats the free market solution right there. Consolidate the supply and jack up the price.


You mean form a cartel to artificially restrict supply to increase prices, like OPEC or the old trusts of the gilded age?

Hmmm. Might work. Detroit and upstate NY and other rust belt areas should've tried that.
 
2014-06-20 03:38:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: chimp_ninja: Debeo Summa Credo: 1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply

"Sara Lemos has conducted a comprehensive review of the 30 or so academic papers on the price effects of the minimum wage. She concludes: "Despite the different methodologies, data periods and data sources, most studies reviewed above found that a 10% US minimum wage increase raises food prices by no more than 4% and overall prices by no more than 0.4%"; and "[t]he main policy recommendation deriving from such findings is that policy makers can use the minimum wage to increase the wages of the poor, without destroying too many jobs or causing too much inflation." Neumark and Wascher agree with Lemos's assessment about the likely price effects (while disagreeing with her conclusions about the overall usefulness of the minimum wage): "Both because of the relatively small share of production costs accounted for by minimum wage labor and because of the limited spillovers from a minimum wage increase to wages of other workers, the effect of a minimum wage increase on the overall price level is likely to be small." Other recent research by Daniel Aaronson, Eric French, and James MacDonald on restaurant pricing, a sector with a high share of low-wage workers suggests that the price effects are likely to be lower than the upper bounds suggested by Lemos. Aaronson, French, and MacDonald "find that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage increases prices by roughly 0.7 percent."

Source: Schmitt, J. (2013) "Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?"

So, oooh.  0.4-0.7% price increases in exchange for lifting hundreds of thousands of people over the poverty line.  Everybody panic.

Mmm, science.


Fun fact: Science is completely invisible to our resident Internet Tough Guy Economist.

Why, a 0.7% increase would raise the price of a Big Mac meal from $5.69 to $5.73!  Society would surely crumble at such an insult, leaving our minimum-wage overlords to pick at our corpses.
 
2014-06-20 03:38:29 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Why should an employer pay someone $11 per hour when that person is only bringing $10 per hour in benefit to the employer?


Because that's never how it actually happens.  An employee's value is always higher than their pay.  If you listen to many corporate employers there's no bottom to how little people should be paid and it has nothing to do with an individual's value and everything to do with a the degree with which a line on a chart shoots upwards.  The law says if you want to take a person's waking hours to work for your profit, they have to be paid a minimum of X.  Sorrybro.

If you have a problem paying people $11 an hour, you need a better business model.  That goes for "mom and pop shops" and Wal-Mart alike.  If Wal-Mart will be financially crestfallen having to pay their workers (all of which on average work hard) a living wage, then it's time for Wal-Mart to face market reality itself, one in which they have to play by civilized society's rules.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-06-20 03:38:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.

When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?

The consumer doesn't. The taxpayer does.


The taxpayer sure as hell does when Wal Mart has their thumb on the scale and pays below cost of living.
 
2014-06-20 03:39:14 PM  
All the restaurants in Boston are going to close shop and move to RI.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-06-20 03:40:03 PM  

sweetmelissa31: All the restaurants in Boston are going to close shop and move to RI.


fark that.  They're moving to China.
 
2014-06-20 03:40:14 PM  

nijika: Oh great now hamburgers will cost $1,000 each!


Do they come with fries? This is semi-important.
 
2014-06-20 03:40:19 PM  

sweetmelissa31: CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes

You live in NYC and you're worried about $11 burgers? I used to live there, and I recall $12 shots of vodka at bars.


You went to the wrong bars.
 
2014-06-20 03:41:56 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

Society as a whole has to foot the bill of picking up the slack of poor wages, so it makes sense for society to set a price floor. If you need labor, you have to pay X, not just for the benefit of the person being hired but also to ease the burdon that purson puts on society. Labor is an input, inputs cost money and unfortunately can be and is regulated.

I agree that it is unfortunate that it is regulated(in regard to minimum wages). It's harmful regulation that does more damage to society than it helps.

The government shouldn't decide the price of an input, the market should.

Why should an employer pay someone $11 per hour when that person is only bringing $10 per hour in benefit to the employer?

Because we don't live in a purely free market. There's too much moral hazard.

Maybe the workers should just unionize then? Thats the free market solution right there. Consolidate the supply and jack up the price.

You mean form a cartel to artificially restrict supply to increase prices, like OPEC or the old trusts of the gilded age?

Hmmm. Might work. Detroit and upstate NY and other rust belt areas should've tried that.


If Wal mart puts its competition out of business, then demands more favorable prices, did the value of the goods they buy suddenly drop?

If Consolidated Almonds, Inc buys the other two major suppliers of almonds and raises prices by 20%, did the value of almonds go up 20%?

Why are those two perfectly allowable in a free market, but workers do the same thing and they some sort of evil cartel? Its the same shiat.

If you're going to whine about the free market being the answer to everything, you're just going to have to suck it up when it comes to unions, cuz its the exact same shiat. So pick your poison.
 
2014-06-20 03:42:31 PM  

d23: Lucky LaRue: d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.

When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?

Yes.... the consumer should be paying that price.  If Wal-Mart can't pay their employees a fair wage and charge a low enough price at the same time then maybe they shouldn't be in business.  Every small business in the world has to do it.  It's not like it's unfair.


I don't think the idea of a "fair price" (or "fair pay") was ever intended to convey a sense of fair play.  Rather, it is supposed to convey a price that is agreed on, between two parties, without coercion from either side.
 
2014-06-20 03:43:15 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If I had time or the photo posting ability on my phone I'd post a graph showing the deadweight loss to the economy that results from artificial price floors or ceilings such as minimum wages.


Charts like that make an assumption about the relationship between price and demand for labor that isn't necessarily true at lower wage levels.
Companies will demand labor at a price as long as the price is lower than the marginal productivity of labor. If workers and companies had "equal" bargaining power, then in a free labor market the price of labor would always be equal to the marginal productivity, and any forced increase would cause a deadweight loss.
However, if poor people don't have the ability to say no to a job, if they need to eat, for example, then the price of labor will be less than the marginal productivity of labor. A forced increase in the price won't affect the demand for labor, as long as you don't force it above the marginal productivity. I suspect this is why it's so hard to figure the effects of incremental increases in minimum wages; it's just too hard to separate those effects from normal economic noise.
Forcing a large increase in the minimum wage may very likely cause a drop in demand for labor. I don't know. There isn't really any data to work with, so it's all a bunch of speculation which ultimately rests on the biases of the speculators. That's why instead of a minimum wage increase, I recommend the peasants rise up and seize the means of production. But all the communists are busy watching soccer, so it won't happen this month.
 
2014-06-20 03:43:22 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Don't bother. Your data is outdated and based on flawed methodological assumptions, just like the research done on austerity.

DERP!! Your data is biased and would only be believed by left wing idiots.

Google "deadweight loss of minimum wage".

I know how stupid this was, my fellow Farkers, but I did it. I farking googled what DSC told me to.

Allow me to present the first five links. It's like a Buzzfeed listicle, but this will actually be funny.

1.  http://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/co n sumer-producer-surplus/deadweight-loss-tutorial/v/minimum-wage-and-pri ce-floors

First we have a Khan Academy lesson in microeconomics. For all its faults, Khan Academy isn't totally terrible. Check out the comments.

2.  http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/03/ 0 3/the-deadweight-loss-of-minimum-wage-hikes-n1524753/page/full

A Townhall link. Nice.

3.  http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/2992?e=coopermic r o-ch10_s02

Another ideologically biased site without much in the way of raw data that consistently fails to account for changes in the market as a result of the higher minimum wage. It focuses solely on the labor-work transaction (in which an employer believes she has a set amount of work that needs to be performed). It does not take into account an increase in demand (and therefore an increase in the amount of socially necessary labor to be performed).

4.  http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deadweightloss.asp

Oh investopedia. More ideology, low actual numbers.

5.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

It's sad when Wikipedia is the best source on the list.

Now, let's look at some actual data!

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

Oh my God! Could it be that the reason Townhall and Investopedia don't have any concrete examples of a deadweight loss is because THE FARKING DATA DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT THEORY? Quelle surprise!

Conservatives, do not fark with the quants. They have your number. They have calculated exactly how farking wrong you are.


You are obviously biased and unwilling to put facts and logic ahead of left wing partisanship (I know, welcome to fark, right?)

I do find it funny that you easily dismiss a townhall link, yet seem to think a website called "raisetheminimumwage.org" and a link from Berkeley have credibility.

Every farking Econ textbook agrees that there is a deadweight loss from price floors and ceilings in the vast majority of instances. Arguing against that is like arguing against the existence of global warming.
 
2014-06-20 03:44:56 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Don't bother. Your data is outdated and based on flawed methodological assumptions, just like the research done on austerity.

DERP!! Your data is biased and would only be believed by left wing idiots.

Google "deadweight loss of minimum wage".

I know how stupid this was, my fellow Farkers, but I did it. I farking googled what DSC told me to.

Allow me to present the first five links. It's like a Buzzfeed listicle, but this will actually be funny.

1.  http://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/co n sumer-producer-surplus/deadweight-loss-tutorial/v/minimum-wage-and-pri ce-floors

First we have a Khan Academy lesson in microeconomics. For all its faults, Khan Academy isn't totally terrible. Check out the comments.

2.  http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/03/ 0 3/the-deadweight-loss-of-minimum-wage-hikes-n1524753/page/full

A Townhall link. Nice.

3.  http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/2992?e=coopermic r o-ch10_s02

Another ideologically biased site without much in the way of raw data that consistently fails to account for changes in the market as a result of the higher minimum wage. It focuses solely on the labor-work transaction (in which an employer believes she has a set amount of work that needs to be performed). It does not take into account an increase in demand (and therefore an increase in the amount of socially necessary labor to be performed).

4.  http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deadweightloss.asp

Oh investopedia. More ideology, low actual numbers.

5.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

It's sad when Wikipedia is the best source on the list.

Now, let's look at some actual data!

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

Oh my God! Could it be that the reason Townhall and Investopedia don't have any concrete examples of a deadweight loss is because THE FARKING DATA DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT THEORY? Quelle surprise!

Conservatives, do not fark with the quants. They have your number. They have calculated exactly how farking wrong you are.

You are obviously biased and unwilling to put facts and logic ahead of left wing partisanship (I know, welcome to fark, right?)

I do find it funny that you easily dismiss a townhall link, yet seem to think a website called "raisetheminimumwage.org" and a link from Berkeley have credibility.

Every farking Econ textbook agrees that there is a deadweight loss from price floors and ceilings in the vast majority of instances. Arguing against that is like arguing against the existence of global warming.


So many people agree that you just can't seem to find one.
 
2014-06-20 03:45:11 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: much in Massachusetts, so the negative impact will be marginal. But it will be negative, as it nearly always is.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Don't bother. Your data is outdated and based on flawed methodological assumptions, just like the research done on austerity.

DERP!! Your data is biased and would only be believed by left wing idiots.

Google "deadweight loss of minimum wage".

I know how stupid this was, my fellow Farkers, but I did it. I farking googled what DSC told me to.


You're better than this. This is why I never offer anything but sarcasm, belittlement and 'Your Mom' jokes. It's never going to change his mind, so why not just ridicule instead? But you know this already. This is why I'm surprised. In conclusion, the correct response to his last post would have been, "Your mom is dead weight."
 
2014-06-20 03:46:10 PM  
From the research cited by ORM above:
"On April 1, 1992, New Jersey's minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour. To evaluate the impact of the law we surveyed 410 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania before and after the rise. Comparisons of employment growth at stores in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage was constant) provide simple estimates of the effect of the higher
minimum wage. We also compare employment changes at stores in New Jersey that were initially paying high wages (above $5) to the changes at lower-wage stores. We find no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment."

"Contrary to the central prediction of the textbook model of the minimum wage, but consistent with a number of recent studies based on cross-sectional time-series comparisons of affected and unaffected markets or employers, we find no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state. Regardless of whether we compare stores in New Jersey that were affected by the $5.05 minimum to stores in eastern Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage was constant at $4.25 per hour) or to stores in New Jersey that were initially paying $5.00 per hour or more (and were largely unaffected by the new law), we find that the increase in the minimum wage increased employment. We present a wide variety of alternative specifications to probe the robustness of this conclusion. None of the alternatives shows a negative employment effect. We also check our findings for the fast-food industry by comparing changes in teenage employment rates in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York in the year following the increase in the minimum wage. Again, these results point toward a relative increase in employment of low-wage workers in New Jersey. We also find no evidence that minimum-wage increases negatively affect the number of McDonald's outlets opened in a state.

Source for both: Card and Krueger, "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania"
 
2014-06-20 03:47:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sweetmelissa31: CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes

You live in NYC and you're worried about $11 burgers? I used to live there, and I recall $12 shots of vodka at bars.

You went to the wrong bars.


I went to the ones that would sell alcohol to 16 year olds.
 
2014-06-20 03:47:29 PM  

sweetmelissa31: cameroncrazy1984: sweetmelissa31: CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes

You live in NYC and you're worried about $11 burgers? I used to live there, and I recall $12 shots of vodka at bars.

You went to the wrong bars.

I went to the ones that would sell alcohol to 16 year olds.


..touché.
 
2014-06-20 03:48:15 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: yet seem to think a website called "raisetheminimumwage.org" and a link from Berkeley have credibility.


Dude, there's ACTUAL DATA at both of those links. See, unlike Townhall and Investopedia, I showed my work. I provided you links to the raw data.

Also, it's freakin' Berkeley. One of the most respected academic institutions in the world. And it hasn't been a center of left-wing thought since the 60s. You should really get with the times.

 

Debeo Summa Credo: Arguing against that is like arguing against the existence of global warming.


I never argued that all minimum wage increases led to a net benefit. Obviously you could set a minimum wage too high. I said this:

"Which is not to say that there is not a point of diminishing returns. There obviously is."

You're arguing against a strawman position and consistently failing to address the fact that the links I have provided have actual empirical data to back them up.

You're the one with his fingers in his ears saying, "nope, the world isn't warming, the science is wrong," when I'm pointing to charts of temperature readouts that are climbing.

Although I am pleased to see such an eloquent example of the Rovian dictum to accuse your interlocutor of what you yourself are guilty of. Your ideological bias is strong, ergo you must try to point out my ideological bias. Fine. I'll admit it. I'm a big, stinking lizard commie. You got me. But that's why I'm not telling you just to believe me or google random macro terms. I'm telling you there's the data in black and white. Don't believe me, double check it.
 
2014-06-20 03:48:22 PM  

Lucky LaRue: When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course". Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?


Umm you forgot PROFIT in your list. You know consumers pay for that too right? Why do you guys always pretend companies don't also set prices based on profit?

Oh I know why because it sort of shows the flaw in your argument that prices are inflexible and only are a function based on business costs.
 
2014-06-20 03:49:02 PM  
Like evidence is going to sway him.  Is he presenting any?  Of course not.  Is he even responding to the stuff presented?  Of course not?  Is he still babbling and getting replies?  Of course he is.  Discussions like that are the very definition of wasting your time.
 
2014-06-20 03:49:07 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: I do find it funny that you easily dismiss a townhall link, yet seem to think a website called "raisetheminimumwage.org" and a link from Berkeley have credibility.


Wait.  You think an article from Town Hall is more reliable than a professional publication in The American Economic Review from two Princeton economists that happens to be hosted on a Berkeley server, among other locations?

I think I've found our problem.
 
2014-06-20 03:49:50 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: This is why I'm surprised. In conclusion, the correct response to his last post would have been, "Your mom is dead weight."


It's not for DSC's edification. He's a lost cause, and his mom might be a perfectly nice lady whose honor I don't want to impugn.

I just happen to have some data on this one, so I thought I'd share, and in doing so, my libby lib brethren can spread the wealth by using this the next time Drunk Conservative Uncle Jimbo starts yelling at the dinner table.
 
2014-06-20 03:50:22 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: I never argued that all minimum wage increases led to a net benefit. Obviously you could set a minimum wage too high. I said this:

"Which is not to say that there is not a point of diminishing returns. There obviously is."


That's the BS strawman that they use again and again.
 
2014-06-20 03:50:34 PM  
l.wigflip.com
 
2014-06-20 03:50:40 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: nijika: Oh great now hamburgers will cost $1,000 each!

Do they come with fries? This is semi-important.


This isn't Communist China, why are you expecting handouts
 
2014-06-20 03:51:57 PM  

nijika: Debeo Summa Credo: Why should an employer pay someone $11 per hour when that person is only bringing $10 per hour in benefit to the employer?

Because that's never how it actually happens.  An employee's value is always higher than their pay.  If you listen to many corporate employers there's no bottom to how little people should be paid and it has nothing to do with an individual's value and everything to do with a the degree with which a line on a chart shoots upwards.  The law says if you want to take a person's waking hours to work for your profit, they have to be paid a minimum of X.  Sorrybro.

If you have a problem paying people $11 an hour, you need a better business model.  That goes for "mom and pop shops" and Wal-Mart alike.  If Wal-Mart will be financially crestfallen having to pay their workers (all of which on average work hard) a living wage, then it's time for Wal-Mart to face market reality itself, one in which they have to play by civilized society's rules.


What if I want to hire a homeless guy to hold a sandwich board on the corner for me to advertise my deli. Based on his work I get an additional $15 in gross sales per hour and incur $10 in marginal expenses (food, etc.), leaving me $5 in incremental profit per hour before I pay the homeless guy.

If I pay him $4 per hour I make an additional $1 per hour for myself, but if I pay him $11 I'm losing $6.

Is there something wrong with my business model? Is society better off if I say, sorry go back to the gutter I can't pay you $11 per hour? Or is it better if I pay him the 4, keeping 1 for myself?

What should happen in this situation? Who gets hurt by a minimum wage that causes me to can the sandwich board guy? Who benefits?
 
2014-06-20 03:51:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

Okay, name one. Show us the work.


What really gets me about this argument is that it's no longer a theoretical excercise. Minimum wages exist and have been raised in the past. Not ONE SINGLE INSTANCE has caused an inflationary bump of statistical significance. Not one. Never. It doesn't happen. To argue that it does flies in the face of reality.
 
2014-06-20 03:53:52 PM  

chimp_ninja: Fun fact: Science is completely invisible to our resident Internet Tough Guy Economist.

Why, a 0.7% increase would raise the price of a Big Mac meal from $5.69 to $5.73!  Society would surely crumble at such an insult, leaving our minimum-wage overlords to pick at our corpses.


That reminds me of an American couple I saw at a McDonalds up here in Vancouver, BC flip their shiat at the cashier when they saw its almost $10 for any large sized meal over here at fast food places. Hell I think its almost $12 if you want a triple burger meal from Wendy's

/Our "dollar" menu at McDonalds is also $1.39
//$1.89 at Wendy's
///They call them "value" menus here
 
2014-06-20 03:54:41 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Like evidence is going to sway him.  Is he presenting any?  Of course not.  Is he even responding to the stuff presented?  Of course not?  Is he still babbling and getting replies?  Of course he is.  Discussions like that are the very definition of wasting your time.


I agree with, but really the whole purpose of this site is pretty much to waste time, no? : )
 
2014-06-20 03:55:11 PM  

sweetmelissa31: cameroncrazy1984: sweetmelissa31: CPennypacker: Enjoy your $11 hamburgers, Massholes

You live in NYC and you're worried about $11 burgers? I used to live there, and I recall $12 shots of vodka at bars.

You went to the wrong bars.

I went to the ones that would sell alcohol to 16 year olds.


img4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-06-20 03:55:35 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: What should happen in this situation?


Hey guys! Hey guys! He's arguing about macroeconomics by using a single microeconomics transaction!

DSC, here's what you don't get. Yes, you, the deli owner, no longer employ the Sandwich Board guy.

But, with an $11 minimum wage, ALL OF THE OTHER FARKING BUSINESSES AROUND YOU, and you yourself, are going to be making more money because people will have more disposable income. One of those businesses will meet their increased demand by hiring on new workers, including (possibly) your sandwich board guy. Who now has more money to spend on sandwiches from you, resulting in higher profits for you, increased demand for your sandwiches, which you pass on to your supply companies, etc. and so on.

That's why when people talk about MACROeconomics, we often use data across large scales of people and long stretches of time. Because policy is set at the macro-level, not the micro-level.
 
2014-06-20 03:56:00 PM  

Corvus: Lucky LaRue: When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course". Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?

Umm you forgot PROFIT in your list. You know consumers pay for that too right? Why do you guys always pretend companies don't also set prices based on profit?

Oh I know why because it sort of shows the flaw in your argument that prices are inflexible and only are a function based on business costs.


Of course consumers pay for profit!  If you don't like the price you are paying for your coffee maker, though, the rationale response isn't to legislate a profit ceiling (or a wage floor).
 
2014-06-20 03:58:14 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Corvus: Lucky LaRue: When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course". Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?

Umm you forgot PROFIT in your list. You know consumers pay for that too right? Why do you guys always pretend companies don't also set prices based on profit?

Oh I know why because it sort of shows the flaw in your argument that prices are inflexible and only are a function based on business costs.

Of course consumers pay for profit!  If you don't like the price you are paying for your coffee maker, though, the rationale response isn't to legislate a profit ceiling (or a wage floor).


Why not?
 
2014-06-20 03:58:14 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: yet seem to think a website called "raisetheminimumwage.org" and a link from Berkeley have credibility.

Dude, there's ACTUAL DATA at both of those links. See, unlike Townhall and Investopedia, I showed my work. I provided you links to the raw data.

Also, it's freakin' Berkeley. One of the most respected academic institutions in the world. And it hasn't been a center of left-wing thought since the 60s. You should really get with the times.

 Debeo Summa Credo: Arguing against that is like arguing against the existence of global warming.

I never argued that all minimum wage increases led to a net benefit. Obviously you could set a minimum wage too high. I said this:

"Which is not to say that there is not a point of diminishing returns. There obviously is."

You're arguing against a strawman position and consistently failing to address the fact that the links I have provided have actual empirical data to back them up.

You're the one with his fingers in his ears saying, "nope, the world isn't warming, the science is wrong," when I'm pointing to charts of temperature readouts that are climbing.

Although I am pleased to see such an eloquent example of the Rovian dictum to accuse your interlocutor of what you yourself are guilty of. Your ideological bias is strong, ergo you must try to point out my ideological bias. Fine. I'll admit it. I'm a big, stinking lizard commie. You got me. But that's why I'm not telling you just to believe me or google random macro terms. I'm telling you there's the data in black and white. Don't believe me, double check it.


There's data in the study that is linked to in the townhall link.

estimated deadweight loss to economy of increases in minimum wage past 1994 at $500m per year.

Not large by any means, but negative.

Our minimum wages aren't oppressive, therefore there aren't huge impacts and exogenous variables swamp the min wage impact in most cases. But they do come with a cost.
 
2014-06-20 03:58:15 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Bareefer Obonghit: This is why I'm surprised. In conclusion, the correct response to his last post would have been, "Your mom is dead weight."

It's not for DSC's edification. He's a lost cause, and his mom might be a perfectly nice lady whose honor I don't want to impugn.

I just happen to have some data on this one, so I thought I'd share, and in doing so, my libby lib brethren can spread the wealth by using this the next time Drunk Conservative Uncle Jimbo starts yelling at the dinner table.


I'm just watching to see how long he goes while ignoring all the links to actual economists debunking his theories at this point. How many times can people like you and chimp_ninja post proof that he's wrong, from real economists, before he has to address that? I mean, the quotes directly address his point and prove he's wrong.

Also, about his mom, I'm sure she's fine and all but I don't think a common gypsy hooker would mind an impugning.
 
2014-06-20 03:59:17 PM  

keylock71: I agree with, but really the whole purpose of this site is pretty much to waste time, no? : )


No.  I came here for internet fame and by god, I will have it.
 
2014-06-20 04:00:37 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: estimated deadweight loss to economy


estimated deadweight loss

estimated deadweight loss

At some point, hombre, you actually have to measure it. And when it has been measured, it has been shown not in line with those estimates. I'm sorry. You're wrong.
 
2014-06-20 04:00:44 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: What should happen in this situation?


Find a strategy that doesn't suck.
 
2014-06-20 04:00:59 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: But, with an $11 minimum wage, ALL OF THE OTHER FARKING BUSINESSES AROUND YOU, and you yourself, are going to be making more money because people will have more disposable income. One of those businesses will meet their increased demand by hiring on new workers, including (possibly) your sandwich board guy. Who now has more money to spend on sandwiches from you, resulting in higher profits for you, increased demand for your sandwiches, which you pass on to your supply companies, etc. and so on.


And along the way, the government collects social security taxes, Medicare taxes, income taxes, etc. from the higher-paid workers, along with the sales tax from the additional transactions they will make now that they have some money, etc.  And as shown above via multiple sources, employment doesn't go down (and has gone up in some cases).  Fewer people now require government benefits like WIC and food stamps.   So now there are actually funds in the treasury to help the homeless sandwich board guys who are mentally ill and can't hold a steady job without getting help.
 
2014-06-20 04:03:03 PM  

d23: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.

When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?

The consumer doesn't. The taxpayer does.

The taxpayer sure as hell does when Wal Mart has their thumb on the scale and pays below cost of living.


They are able to pay below cost of living wages because society takes up the slack.  They would not be albe to staff at their pay rates if society didnt take up the slack.
 
2014-06-20 04:03:05 PM  

chimp_ninja: Obama's Reptiloid Master: But, with an $11 minimum wage, ALL OF THE OTHER FARKING BUSINESSES AROUND YOU, and you yourself, are going to be making more money because people will have more disposable income. One of those businesses will meet their increased demand by hiring on new workers, including (possibly) your sandwich board guy. Who now has more money to spend on sandwiches from you, resulting in higher profits for you, increased demand for your sandwiches, which you pass on to your supply companies, etc. and so on.

And along the way, the government collects social security taxes, Medicare taxes, income taxes, etc. from the higher-paid workers, along with the sales tax from the additional transactions they will make now that they have some money, etc.  And as shown above via multiple sources, employment doesn't go down (and has gone up in some cases).  Fewer people now require government benefits like WIC and food stamps.   So now there are actually funds in the treasury to help the homeless sandwich board guys who are mentally ill and can't hold a steady job without getting help.


I think it's high time we ran for President and Vice President. A lizard space monster and a martial-arts trained ninja primate? Sign me the fark up.
 
2014-06-20 04:03:11 PM  

Mike_1962: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

Okay, name one. Show us the work.

What really gets me about this argument is that it's no longer a theoretical excercise. Minimum wages exist and have been raised in the past. Not ONE SINGLE INSTANCE has caused an inflationary bump of statistical significance. Not one. Never. It doesn't happen. To argue that it does flies in the face of reality.


It's typically argued by the same people that thought our mission in Iraq was a success, and that cutting taxes to the wealthy will increase the number of available jobs. That's pretty much all you need to know.
 
2014-06-20 04:04:47 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: estimated deadweight loss to economy of increases in minimum wage past 1994 at $500m per year.


Wait.  So even a far-right publication like Town Hall assesses the annual dead weight from minimum wage increases at $1.59 per American?

Where will we ever find that kind of money?  Oh, wait.  I throw some change in my desk drawer sometimes.  I think I can handle that expense to lift millions of my countrymen out of poverty.
 
2014-06-20 04:05:12 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: What should happen in this situation?

Hey guys! Hey guys! He's arguing about macroeconomics by using a single microeconomics transaction!

DSC, here's what you don't get. Yes, you, the deli owner, no longer employ the Sandwich Board guy.

But, with an $11 minimum wage, ALL OF THE OTHER FARKING BUSINESSES AROUND YOU, and you yourself, are going to be making more money because people will have more disposable income. One of those businesses will meet their increased demand by hiring on new workers, including (possibly) your sandwich board guy. Who now has more money to spend on sandwiches from you, resulting in higher profits for you, increased demand for your sandwiches, which you pass on to your supply companies, etc. and so on.

That's why when people talk about MACROeconomics, we often use data across large scales of people and long stretches of time. Because policy is set at the macro-level, not the micro-level.


No they won't. Why don't you understand this? All businesses who have to raise wages will a) lose profit, b) raise prices, or c) lower production, or some combination of these.

The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages! There's no magical wallet from which extra money comes!!! I bet you believe that Henry Ford raised wages to increase sales, and not to improve his workforce in a rapidly growing industry, don't you?

Who benefits from min wage hikes? Employees who see their wages rise.

Who loses? Some combination of employers (lower profits), consumers (higher prices), and newly unemployed workers (priced out of job, like my poor sandwich board guy).

The combined costs to the latter three generally exceed the benefit to the first group. That's why there is a deadweight loss.
 
2014-06-20 04:05:18 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: chimp_ninja: Obama's Reptiloid Master: But, with an $11 minimum wage, ALL OF THE OTHER FARKING BUSINESSES AROUND YOU, and you yourself, are going to be making more money because people will have more disposable income. One of those businesses will meet their increased demand by hiring on new workers, including (possibly) your sandwich board guy. Who now has more money to spend on sandwiches from you, resulting in higher profits for you, increased demand for your sandwiches, which you pass on to your supply companies, etc. and so on.

And along the way, the government collects social security taxes, Medicare taxes, income taxes, etc. from the higher-paid workers, along with the sales tax from the additional transactions they will make now that they have some money, etc.  And as shown above via multiple sources, employment doesn't go down (and has gone up in some cases).  Fewer people now require government benefits like WIC and food stamps.   So now there are actually funds in the treasury to help the homeless sandwich board guys who are mentally ill and can't hold a steady job without getting help.

I think it's high time we ran for President and Vice President. A lizard space monster and a martial-arts trained ninja primate? Sign me the fark up.


Yeah, and DSC can be the Secretary of Defensive.
 
2014-06-20 04:07:07 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: in the townhall link.


Seems legit.
 
2014-06-20 04:08:33 PM  

Saiga410: d23: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.

When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?

The consumer doesn't. The taxpayer does.

The taxpayer sure as hell does when Wal Mart has their thumb on the scale and pays below cost of living.

They are able to pay below cost of living wages because society takes up the slack.  They would not be albe to staff at their pay rates if society didnt take up the slack.


If we could agree on a "livable wage", I'd be all for a tax on retailers for the difference between what they pay their workers and what the livable wage is.
 
2014-06-20 04:09:06 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Saiga410: d23: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.

When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?

The consumer doesn't. The taxpayer does.

The taxpayer sure as hell does when Wal Mart has their thumb on the scale and pays below cost of living.

They are able to pay below cost of living wages because society takes up the slack.  They would not be albe to staff at their pay rates if society didnt take up the slack.

If we could agree on a "livable wage", I'd be all for a tax on retailers for the difference between what they pay their workers and what the livable wage is.


We know what that is. It's called the living wage. It's been studied.
 
2014-06-20 04:10:40 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Saiga410: d23: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.

When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?

The consumer doesn't. The taxpayer does.

The taxpayer sure as hell does when Wal Mart has their thumb on the scale and pays below cost of living.

They are able to pay below cost of living wages because society takes up the slack.  They would not be albe to staff at their pay rates if society didnt take up the slack.

If we could agree on a "livable wage", I'd be all for a tax on retailers for the difference between what they pay their workers and what the livable wage is.


Livalbe wage is about as definable as good looking enough at closing time.
 
2014-06-20 04:13:01 PM  

Saiga410: Lucky LaRue: Saiga410: d23: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: d23: Well, it's corporations right now like Wal-Mart that are the takers at the moment.  They've offloaded huge amounts of their labor costs on the public.

When I see a statement like this, my reaction is "of course".  Am I missing some part of your argument, or do you think it's unfair for a price to be set so that the consumer pays the expense (of labor, shipping, storage, etc.al)?

The consumer doesn't. The taxpayer does.

The taxpayer sure as hell does when Wal Mart has their thumb on the scale and pays below cost of living.

They are able to pay below cost of living wages because society takes up the slack.  They would not be albe to staff at their pay rates if society didnt take up the slack.

If we could agree on a "livable wage", I'd be all for a tax on retailers for the difference between what they pay their workers and what the livable wage is.

Livalbe wage is about as definable as good looking enough at closing time.


Yeah, that's for sure.  Maybe the government should just calculate it to the point someone who works 40 hrs a week does not have to rely on government assistance, though there are too many factors even then..

Oh, well, the free market it is, then.
 
2014-06-20 04:14:24 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages!


Yes it can. Very, very easily. That's why buying in bulk is a thing. Increased cost eats into profit margin. Cost can be passed on to consumers, but only at a rate the market will tolerate. If you increase the number of consumers (which everyone agrees a minimum wage hike will do), you also spread out the cost among the consumers, making it easier to bear the increased price.

If there are 50 people that buy a product at $1.00, we can assume that some of them would drop off if the price were raised to $1.50. So we're down to 40 consumers that will tolerate at $1.50 price. But we've increased the universe of consumers with the minimum wage increase, so now 60 people will buy. 60 times $1.50 is $90.00. When it was at $1.00, and the universe of consumers was smaller, the net income to the seller was $50.00. By increasing the price a small fraction, even though we lost some consumers, we gained others, and now the company is making a significant amount more.

Again, this is not a simple two-way street. If the minimum wage increase is too high, then the seller would have to increase prices too much and it might price out even the newly-made consumers. If the price increase is too low, the seller might not realize any increased profit.

This is why every major company hires economists to study these kinds of market factors and determine at what price a given good or service will sell in a given market. People do this every day. Acting like any minimum wage increase is automatically going to throw the economy out of whack and lead to widespread unemployment and price increases while only marginally affecting consumers' spending ability is as foolish as believing we could set the minimum wage at $1,000,000 and all be millionaires by tomorrow.
 
2014-06-20 04:17:07 PM  

chimp_ninja: Fun fact: Science is completely invisible to our resident Internet Tough Guy Economist.


At this point, it isn't believable that it's an accident that he conveniently never replies to any of the posts above citing evidence from formal economic studies.
 
2014-06-20 04:17:45 PM  
I just don't understand. Even to the casual observer, cutting taxes on the wealthy doesn't make fiscal sense, and doesn't help a demand side economy (which is what we have). 

What good is a large supply, if no one can actually buy it? 

Increasing the minimum wage only makes sense. If more people can buy, then more supplies can be sold. Making those at the bottom and middle of the ladder have a better access to the things they want makes goddamn sense. Everyone wins!

Folks, this is what you call long term fiscal responsibility. It might take awhile for it to be felt, but in the long term, it will help everyone.

A short term fiscal approach would be trickle down economics. Wherein, the wealthy have more money to maybe spend it on things to help boost the economy. Eventually, the loss of money through taxes cut for them will be felt and budgets will shrink. QOL goes down, but short term gains might go up. How this ever got lauded as being a sound fiscal approach is beyond me.
 
2014-06-20 04:19:04 PM  

Gonz: cman: Mass just ensured their economic recovery cratered their economy.

FTFY. This will be overturned by popular demand within 6 months, because businesses will quit hiring.

Then there will be no demand for goods and services, and then MA will watch their tax revenues dwindle, and then they'll look to states like Mississippi to see how to fix the problem.


[Citation Needed]

Maybe the price of a burger will go up by a dime.
 
2014-06-20 04:20:22 PM  
Damnit, didn't notice the Mississippi comment, showing that that was a troll.  Oh well.
 
2014-06-20 04:22:26 PM  

AnonAmbientLight: How this ever got lauded as being a sound fiscal approach is beyond me.


It relies on the false assumption that wealthy people drive consumer spending while working class people scrimp and save every penny they have.

The opposite is actually true; saving money long-term only makes sense where you have enough of it for interest rates to work in your favor (outside of special accounts like retirement accounts which are high interest but effectively remove the money from the consumer economy). So the rich are very good about saving money and making long-term investments, while the poor and working class have to spend more of their take-home pay just to live.

Wealthy people may buy more in aggregate, but only because they're apt to make a smaller amount of very large purchases (vacation homes, new cars, luxuries like boats, etc.) instead of a large amount of smaller and medium purchases throughout the year.

Consumer spending (and the curse of credit) are driven by the working classes. Increasing their buying power (through, say, the cheap credit we got from the late 90s on, cough cough) or through wage/COLA increases will lead to increased consumer spending, decreased supply, increased demand, and therefore lead to economic growth.

This can be bad (consumer credit crisis that fed into the 2008 recession, for example), or it can be a net benefit as long as some farkwits (read: George Bush and Co.) don't fark it up by effectively allowing wealthy people to remove a large chunk of cash from economic circulation (tax cut to the wealthy).
 
2014-06-20 04:24:31 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: estimated deadweight loss to economy

estimated deadweight loss

estimated deadweight loss

At some point, hombre, you actually have to measure it. And when it has been measured, it has been shown not in line with those estimates. I'm sorry. You're wrong.



Cripes.  make me turn on a computer.

http://econ2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/NDN0020.pdf


And you might say 'but but but that just Iowa in the 1990s!'.  Well, Card and Krueger was just fast food workers in PA and NJ.  You can't overturn widely accepted economic models with such a narrowly focused (and debunked, btw) study.
 
2014-06-20 04:26:29 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: I think it's high time we ran for President and Vice President. A lizard space monster and a martial-arts trained ninja primate? Sign me the fark up.


So if congress and the house breaks down into bickering half get ninja poo stars flung at them and the other half are selectively probed with chainsaws? Count on my vote.
 
2014-06-20 04:28:02 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages! There's no magical wallet from which extra money comes!!!


No, actually there is. And it's completely possible. Check it out. I'll simplify numbers, to make the math easy to follow. This is just an example, simply a model, but learn something.

Scenario A- you have a store. You sell one thing- a widget. Each widget costs $2 to produce ($1 in parts, $1 in labor), and you make 50 of them every hour. You employ 5 people, each making $10 an hour. You sell your widgets for $4, and make $2 profit per widget. So, each worker can afford 2.5 widgets per hour of labor, and your factory makes $5 in profit per hour of labor.

Scenario B- Same store, but the government has imposed a $15/ hour minimum wage. Your total labor costs have gone from $50 to $75. You can either decrease profits, or increase prices. You obviously don't want to lose profits, so you now sell your widget for $5. Your standard of living has not decreased, you're still making $2 profit per widget sold, or $100 profit an hour. But, your workers can now afford 3 widgets per hour of work.

So, with their increased wages, they can do one of two things: keep demand constant, in which case money will accumulate in their bank, or increase demand to the full extent of their buying power. If demand increases, then you will be able to sell 60 widgets an hour, so your profits have gone from $100 to $120.

What if it's in the middle? Then your profits go to $110 an hour, and each worker puts $2 an hour in the bank.
 
2014-06-20 04:30:13 PM  

Geotpf: Gonz: cman: Mass just ensured their economic recovery cratered their economy.

FTFY. This will be overturned by popular demand within 6 months, because businesses will quit hiring.

Then there will be no demand for goods and services, and then MA will watch their tax revenues dwindle, and then they'll look to states like Mississippi to see how to fix the problem.

[Citation Needed]

Maybe the price of a burger will go up by a dime.


If Wal-Mart paid their employees a livable wage you'd end up spending about a penny more on each item you buy. 

The going trend I see is that citizens are being pitted against citizens to try to dodge the important topics in this kind of debate and others. 

Most people generally want their community to succeed, and by extension their city / state / nation. Increasing the minimum wage is a step in that direction. Don't let the fear of "corporate backlash" prevent us from making choices that benefit us all.
 
2014-06-20 04:30:44 PM  
i mean honestly if you think about it

aren't all laws just meaningless feel-good legislation???

QED libs
 
2014-06-20 04:31:46 PM  
hmm yes if I invent a complex enough analogy with enough numbers, I will definitely convince the guy who thinks the poor should be lining the piss gutters of the wealthy that a small increase in minimum wage won't destroy the economy
 
2014-06-20 04:32:28 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages!

Yes it can. Very, very easily. That's why buying in bulk is a thing. Increased cost eats into profit margin. Cost can be passed on to consumers, but only at a rate the market will tolerate. If you increase the number of consumers (which everyone agrees a minimum wage hike will do), you also spread out the cost among the consumers, making it easier to bear the increased price.

If there are 50 people that buy a product at $1.00, we can assume that some of them would drop off if the price were raised to $1.50. So we're down to 40 consumers that will tolerate at $1.50 price. But we've increased the universe of consumers with the minimum wage increase, so now 60 people will buy. 60 times $1.50 is $90.00. When it was at $1.00, and the universe of consumers was smaller, the net income to the seller was $50.00. By increasing the price a small fraction, even though we lost some consumers, we gained others, and now the company is making a significant amount more.

Again, this is not a simple two-way street. If the minimum wage increase is too high, then the seller would have to increase prices too much and it might price out even the newly-made consumers. If the price increase is too low, the seller might not realize any increased profit.

This is why every major company hires economists to study these kinds of market factors and determine at what price a given good or service will sell in a given market. People do this every day. Acting like any minimum wage increase is automatically going to throw the economy out of whack and lead to widespread unemployment and price increases while only marginally affecting consumers' spending ability is as foolish as believing we could set the minimum wage at $1,000,000 and all be millionaires by tomorrow.


Your numbers are just conjured fantasy.  First off, the 40 original customers who still buy are spending .50 more on each widget - that's $20 in cash that has to come from somewhere - likely foregone spending on other stuff, hurting sellers of other stuff.

And I don't what bodily orifice you pull another 20 people being able to buy your product now for $1.50.   Your raise might partially have caused that but part of that is coming from foregoing other purchases, which leads to the same issue as in the previous paragraph.

In the absence of deadweight loss, I'd call it a zero sum game - the gains to the minimum income workers are offset exactly by increased costs to the employer and consumers and workers who have lost their jobs.  But deadweight loss does exist because workers who lose their jobs are no longer contributing to the economy, so on a net basis society loses.
 
2014-06-20 04:38:01 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Sure, prices will increase some


You are saying that business owners will respond to a cost increase by decreasing their market share?
 
2014-06-20 04:38:22 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: estimated deadweight loss to economy

estimated deadweight loss

estimated deadweight loss

At some point, hombre, you actually have to measure it. And when it has been measured, it has been shown not in line with those estimates. I'm sorry. You're wrong.


Cripes.  make me turn on a computer.

http://econ2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/NDN0020.pdf


And you might say 'but but but that just Iowa in the 1990s!'.  Well, Card and Krueger was just fast food workers in PA and NJ.  You can't overturn widely accepted economic models with such a narrowly focused (and debunked, btw) study.


The conclusion of the study was a total decrease in the number of firms, offset by increased hiring at a smaller number of firms. A net decrease in total employment (given the magnitude of that particular MW increase). Fine, looking at that statistic, the MW increase led to increased unemployment.

Except...

http://www.law.gonzaga.edu/law-review/2011/09/07/minimum-wage/

That's kind of what the data predicts will happen if the MW increase is too high (as I've maintained all along). Most of the data actually indicates that there are better ways (cough cough universal basic income/negative income tax) to address chronic low wages in society, but those are even less palatable than a price floor for labor to conservatives, so fark us, right?

Utilizing the best data we have, and controlling for local factors which might have influenced the Card/Krueger or Orazem studies, we have...

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf

Which, surprising absolutely no one (even you), supports my position.
 
2014-06-20 04:43:01 PM  

AnonAmbientLight: If Wal-Mart paid their employees a livable wage you'd end up spending about a penny more on each item you buy


Which would be higher or lower than the decreased tax load needed for the lower used safety net?  If higher then no.
 
2014-06-20 04:47:18 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages!


This statement implies that halving everyone's wages would be a net benefit to the economy. Is that your intent?
 
2014-06-20 04:50:47 PM  

Gonz: Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages! There's no magical wallet from which extra money comes!!!

No, actually there is. And it's completely possible. Check it out. I'll simplify numbers, to make the math easy to follow. This is just an example, simply a model, but learn something.

Scenario A- you have a store. You sell one thing- a widget. Each widget costs $2 to produce ($1 in parts, $1 in labor), and you make 50 of them every hour. You employ 5 people, each making $10 an hour. You sell your widgets for $4, and make $2 profit per widget. So, each worker can afford 2.5 widgets per hour of labor, and your factory makes $5 in profit per hour of labor.

Scenario B- Same store, but the government has imposed a $15/ hour minimum wage. Your total labor costs have gone from $50 to $75. You can either decrease profits, or increase prices. You obviously don't want to lose profits, so you now sell your widget for $5. Your standard of living has not decreased, you're still making $2 profit per widget sold, or $100 profit an hour. But, your workers can now afford 3 widgets per hour of work.

So, with their increased wages, they can do one of two things: keep demand constant, in which case money will accumulate in their bank, or increase demand to the full extent of their buying power. If demand increases, then you will be able to sell 60 widgets an hour, so your profits have gone from $100 to $120.

What if it's in the middle? Then your profits go to $110 an hour, and each worker puts $2 an hour in the bank.


Your numbers are a bit off (how would a total increase in wages of $25 (5 workers times $5) allow workers to buy 10 more $5 widgets), and you are forgetting about the 37.5 widgets you are originally selling to non-employees.  Your 5 workers can currently afford 2.5 widgets each per hour like you said, or 12.5 in total, meaning you must be selling 37.5 of the original 50 externally.  Your example assumes that quantity demanded externally remains constant despite your 25% increase in prices.  Rather if we assume that outside purchasers have a finite amount of widget money to spend, then an increase in prices would reduce the number of widgets sold externally by 7.5.   ($4 original price* 37.5 widgets originally sold externally = $150 in external money available for widgets / new price of $5 = 30 widgets sold after price hike).

Then assuming your employees continue to use all their newfound income to buying widgets, they will now be able to buy $15*5=$75 total wages per hour/$5 per widget cost = 15 widgets.   Add that to the 30 we are selling externally and we are only selling 45 widgets total.  Total profit of $90, less than the $100 original.

Now, if we assume that some of the original purchases will allocate more total money to our widgets after our price hike, keeping the quantity demanded externally constant at 37.5, then yes we will now sell 52.5 widgets and increase profits.   That is a big assumption, though, and of course would result in those buyers reallocating $37.50 from purchases of other things they were buying previously, with resutling damage to those sellers and the economy.   We're also not addressing the possibility that the increase in minimum wage caused other producers to increase prices, resulting in external purchasers of our widgets not spending even the same dollar amount on our widgets post wage/price hike.
 
2014-06-20 04:53:08 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages!

This statement implies that halving everyone's wages would be a net benefit to the economy. Is that your intent?


Letting the market decide wages, without price floors, would be optimal for the economy.   Wouldn't remotely reduce in anything close to halving wages.
 
2014-06-20 04:58:07 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: Sure, prices will increase some

You are saying that business owners will respond to a cost increase by decreasing their market share?


No.  costs will increase for all producers, incenting all companies to pass costs along to consumers.  If price resistance occurs, where competitors maintain volume by not cutting prices, it will cut into profits, reducing the number of current or prospective market participants, limiting competition and eventually increasing prices.

Are you saying that all businesses ignore costs in pricing products or deciding which businesses to enter/remain in/exit etc?
 
2014-06-20 04:59:55 PM  

raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.


Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?
 
2014-06-20 05:00:00 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages!

This statement implies that halving everyone's wages would be a net benefit to the economy. Is that your intent?

Letting the market decide wages, without price floors, would be optimal for the economy.   Wouldn't remotely reduce in anything close to halving wages.


In theory. In practice, that's just not the case. We end up subsidizing substandard wages with tax dollars. That is not optimal.
 
2014-06-20 05:00:56 PM  

sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?


Because otherwise the taxpayers are. Why should we subsidize employers?
 
2014-06-20 05:02:07 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: Sure, prices will increase some

You are saying that business owners will respond to a cost increase by decreasing their market share?

No.  costs will increase for all producers, incenting all companies to pass costs along to consumers.  If price resistance occurs, where competitors maintain volume by not cutting prices, it will cut into profits, reducing the number of current or prospective market participants, limiting competition and eventually increasing prices.

Are you saying that all businesses ignore costs in pricing products or deciding which businesses to enter/remain in/exit etc?


Businesses don't ignore costs, but they don't raise prices to a point that the market won't bear them either.
 
2014-06-20 05:06:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?

Because otherwise the taxpayers are. Why should we subsidize employers?


But, if employers can afford to pay their workers more, why don't they do so voluntarily?
 
2014-06-20 05:07:00 PM  

sendtodave: why don't they do so voluntarily?


Really, man?
 
2014-06-20 05:08:05 PM  

sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?

Because otherwise the taxpayers are. Why should we subsidize employers?

But, if employers can afford to pay their workers more, why don't they do so voluntarily?


Because they want to maximize profits. I figured that was obvious. Greed is good for the employer. Not for the employee.
 
2014-06-20 05:08:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages!

This statement implies that halving everyone's wages would be a net benefit to the economy. Is that your intent?

Letting the market decide wages, without price floors, would be optimal for the economy.   Wouldn't remotely reduce in anything close to halving wages.

In theory. In practice, that's just not the case. We end up subsidizing substandard wages with tax dollars. That is not optimal.


Exactly

We can't do this anymore.

Its becoming too damn expensive for the tax payers to make up for what they should be getting in wages

Food stamps in a perfect world would be there to help those who are unable to work. Someone who works should get paid enough to live.
 
2014-06-20 05:12:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages!

This statement implies that halving everyone's wages would be a net benefit to the economy. Is that your intent?

Letting the market decide wages, without price floors, would be optimal for the economy.   Wouldn't remotely reduce in anything close to halving wages.

In theory. In practice, that's just not the case. We end up subsidizing substandard wages with tax dollars. That is not optimal.


I'm not so sure.  We've assumed as a society a minimum level of income (lets pretend its $15 per hour) is necessary and subsidize people who fall below that (whether they don't work at all or work at wal-mart at $8 per hour).   Unless you believe that absent that social safety net Walmart would have to pay its workers $15 per hour, then we aren't subsidizing walmart.  Rather we are subsidizing the low income worker, which is the intention.

If you truly believe that the market would force Walmarts wages up to $15 absent govt benefits to their minimum wage workers, then by all mean lets cut those benefits (gradually) and let the market drive wage prices to their natural clearing rate.

I propose this all the time but nobody every takes me up on it.  Why?  Because the truth of the matter is that absent govt benefits to low and no income workers, labor supply to walmart would dramatically INCREASE as people at that level would seek additional employment to make up for the loss of govt benefits.  This increase would lower the wages walmart would need to pay.   So if anything, our social safety net increases the market clearing rate of low wage labor, the exact opposite of what liberals would have you believe.

If we do want to subsidize low income workers, the fairest and most efficient is EITC, food stamps, rent subsidies etc., not farking around with the labor market.
 
2014-06-20 05:12:36 PM  

palelizard: Or feudalism, which is how trickle-down economics work.


img4.wikia.nocookie.net

THAT'S IT!!!!
 
2014-06-20 05:12:43 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?

Because otherwise the taxpayers are. Why should we subsidize employers?

But, if employers can afford to pay their workers more, why don't they do so voluntarily?

Because they want to maximize profits. I figured that was obvious. Greed is good for the employer. Not for the employee.


But, they're the job creators!  They shouldn't be regulated!  It's their duty to provide for the economic well-being of their employees, not some socialist government's!

... Are you trying to say that the right wing doesn't really care about the economic well-being of the people?
 
2014-06-20 05:15:29 PM  

Gonz: cman: Mass just ensured their economic recovery cratered their economy.

FTFY. This will be overturned by popular demand within 6 months, because businesses will quit hiring.

Then there will be no demand for goods and services, and then MA will watch their tax revenues dwindle, and then they'll look to states like Mississippi to see how to fix the problem.


I moved from Mississippi to Massachusetts to get a job, so I'm getting a kick out of this.

/no really
 
2014-06-20 05:17:00 PM  

cman: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages!

This statement implies that halving everyone's wages would be a net benefit to the economy. Is that your intent?

Letting the market decide wages, without price floors, would be optimal for the economy.   Wouldn't remotely reduce in anything close to halving wages.

In theory. In practice, that's just not the case. We end up subsidizing substandard wages with tax dollars. That is not optimal.

Exactly

We can't do this anymore.

Its becoming too damn expensive for the tax payers to make up for what they should be getting in wages

Food stamps in a perfect world would be there to help those who are unable to work. Someone who works should get paid enough to live.


You are simplistically ignoring the fact that increased costs to employers will be paid by society, just like taxes.   It's not free.   Increased costs will increase prices.    Should such subsidies, if you think they should exist, be paid for by walmart shoppers or people who eat at mcdonalds via increased prices or by taxpayers?

Hmmmmmmm.  Never mind.  Let the walmart shoppers and mcnugget eaters pay for it instead of me.  Give them some "skin in the game".  Good idea.  I stand corrected.
 
2014-06-20 05:24:38 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If we do want to subsidize low income workers, the fairest and most efficient is EITC, food stamps, rent subsidies etc.


But it's pretty much the same crowd biatching about higher min. wage that also biatches about all that other stuff.

Just sayin'...a lot of people want low (or no) min. wage and low (or no) food stamps, etc....

Listening to these jackasses is tiring.
 
2014-06-20 05:31:29 PM  

sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?


Because she doesn't have the power to bargain for a wage comparable to her marginal product of labor. Her employer will tell her to take a hike, and find someone with less dignity or more hunger.
That difference, the difference between what she produces and what she's paid, is a surplus to her employer. If he paid a wage that would prevail in a free market, in which everyone had equal bargaining power, the only difference between that economy and this one is he would make less and she would make more. Every other transaction would be made. No deadweight loss.
You could replicate our economy exactly, if you started with a free market with everyone having equal bargaining power, and then you gave every employer a gun and told him it was OK to hold it to poor peoples' heads and steal some money from them. Every transaction made in one economy would be the same as every transaction made in the other economy, except for the way one side is taking from another. I don't know why we call it stealing in one case and freedom in another. We could switch the labels if we want, because the two economies are the same.
 
2014-06-20 05:33:41 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: yet seem to think a website called "raisetheminimumwage.org" and a link from Berkeley have credibility.

Dude, there's ACTUAL DATA at both of those links. See, unlike Townhall and Investopedia, I showed my work. I provided you links to the raw data.

Also, it's freakin' Berkeley. One of the most respected academic institutions in the world. And it hasn't been a center of left-wing thought since the 60s. You should really get with the times.

 Debeo Summa Credo: Arguing against that is like arguing against the existence of global warming.

I never argued that all minimum wage increases led to a net benefit. Obviously you could set a minimum wage too high. I said this:

"Which is not to say that there is not a point of diminishing returns. There obviously is."

You're arguing against a strawman position and consistently failing to address the fact that the links I have provided have actual empirical data to back them up.

You're the one with his fingers in his ears saying, "nope, the world isn't warming, the science is wrong," when I'm pointing to charts of temperature readouts that are climbing.

Although I am pleased to see such an eloquent example of the Rovian dictum to accuse your interlocutor of what you yourself are guilty of. Your ideological bias is strong, ergo you must try to point out my ideological bias. Fine. I'll admit it. I'm a big, stinking lizard commie. You got me. But that's why I'm not telling you just to believe me or google random macro terms. I'm telling you there's the data in black and white. Don't believe me, double check it.

There's data in the study that is linked to in the townhall link.

estimated deadweight loss to economy of increases in minimum wage past 1994 at $500m per year.

Not large by any means, but negative.

Our minimum wages aren't oppressive, therefore there aren't huge impacts and exogenous variables swamp the min wage impact in most cases. But they do come with a cost.


So the estimated deadweight loss is about 0.004% of GDP.  That's negative, but it's pretty damn negligible.
 
2014-06-20 05:46:04 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Unless you believe that absent that social safety net Walmart would have to pay its workers $15 per hour, then we aren't subsidizing walmart.  Rather we are subsidizing the low income worker, which is the intention.


We're doing both--that money that goes to the worker through the government also takes the obligation off of Walmart to pay their employees more.  

If you truly believe that the market would force Walmarts wages up to $15 absent govt benefits to their minimum wage workers, then by all mean lets cut those benefits (gradually) and let the market drive wage prices to their natural clearing rate.

I'm pretty sure no one actually believes this.

I propose this all the time but nobody every takes me up on it.  Why?  Because the truth of the matter is that absent govt benefits to low and no income workers, labor supply to walmart would dramatically INCREASE as people at that level would seek additional employment to make up for the loss of govt benefits.  This increase would lower the wages walmart would need to pay.   So if anything, our social safety net increases the market clearing rate of low wage labor, the exact opposite of what liberals would have you believe.

In a sense, you're almost correct--Walmart isn't going to magically start paying people more if we get rid of the safety net.  Walmart doesn't care if their employees die in the streets from abject poverty--there are always more desperate workers available.

... which is exactly why the government has stepped in and created minimum wage, thus preventing such a scenario.
 
2014-06-20 06:04:38 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: I'm not so sure.  We've assumed as a society a minimum level of income (lets pretend its $15 per hour) is necessary and subsidize people who fall below that (whether they don't work at all or work at wal-mart at $8 per hour).   Unless you believe that absent that social safety net Walmart would have to pay its workers $15 per hour, then we aren't subsidizing walmart.  Rather we are subsidizing the low income worker, which is the intention.


Absent that safety net (remember, we didn't always have that) people also were not paid a living wage.

You're acting like this is a theoretical thing when in fact it is a real-world example.
 
2014-06-20 06:05:18 PM  

sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?

Because otherwise the taxpayers are. Why should we subsidize employers?

But, if employers can afford to pay their workers more, why don't they do so voluntarily?

Because they want to maximize profits. I figured that was obvious. Greed is good for the employer. Not for the employee.

But, they're the job creators!  They shouldn't be regulated!  It's their duty to provide for the economic well-being of their employees, not some socialist government's!

... Are you trying to say that the right wing doesn't really care about the economic well-being of the people?


That's exactly what I'm saying.
 
2014-06-20 06:06:08 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: You are simplistically ignoring the fact that increased costs to employers will be paid by society, just like taxes.   It's not free.


Except for every single time that wages have been raised in the past.
 
2014-06-20 06:11:35 PM  
Ok, I guess I'll root for HON to score a goal.
 
2014-06-20 06:17:38 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?

Because she doesn't have the power to bargain for a wage comparable to her marginal product of labor. Her employer will tell her to take a hike, and find someone with less dignity or more hunger.
That difference, the difference between what she produces and what she's paid, is a surplus to her employer. If he paid a wage that would prevail in a free market, in which everyone had equal bargaining power, the only difference between that economy and this one is he would make less and she would make more. Every other transaction would be made. No deadweight loss.
You could replicate our economy exactly, if you started with a free market with everyone having equal bargaining power, and then you gave every employer a gun and told him it was OK to hold it to poor peoples' heads and steal some money from them. Every transaction made in one economy would be the same as every transaction made in the other economy, except for the way one side is taking from another. I don't know why we call it stealing in one case and freedom in another. We could switch the labels if we want, because the two economies are the same.


Well argued, sir. I hereby award you an internet.
 
2014-06-20 06:31:29 PM  
Would a progressive "Trickle Down" tax beginning with single earners making $250k/yr or $500k/couple/year be workable? Maybe 1/2% at the bottom to 5% for income over $10mil/yr? Then jack up the minimum wage to $12/hr starting 09/01/2014. The tax money would be used to pay for tax breaks/subsidies for small businesses for which an immediate increase of the national minimum wage to $12/hr would be a hardship.

/just a thought
 
2014-06-20 06:39:30 PM  

mutterfark: Would a progressive "Trickle Down" tax beginning with single earners making $250k/yr or $500k/couple/year be workable? Maybe 1/2% at the bottom to 5% for income over $10mil/yr? Then jack up the minimum wage to $12/hr starting 09/01/2014. The tax money would be used to pay for tax breaks/subsidies for small businesses for which an immediate increase of the national minimum wage to $12/hr would be a hardship.

/just a thought


$12 by September first is going to do a lot of damage. MA has it spread out over a few years. It would be too big of a jump for the economy to handle.

MA has it right. $11 over 3 years is proper. That is about a $1 increment a year, plenty of time for the economy to adjust.
 
2014-06-20 06:43:47 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: You are simplistically ignoring the fact that increased costs to employers will be paid by society, just like taxes.   It's not free.

Except for every single time that wages have been raised in the past.


Facepalm.

Somebody pays for it. It isn't free money. Comes out of somebody's pocket.
 
2014-06-20 06:44:12 PM  

cman: mutterfark: Would a progressive "Trickle Down" tax beginning with single earners making $250k/yr or $500k/couple/year be workable? Maybe 1/2% at the bottom to 5% for income over $10mil/yr? Then jack up the minimum wage to $12/hr starting 09/01/2014. The tax money would be used to pay for tax breaks/subsidies for small businesses for which an immediate increase of the national minimum wage to $12/hr would be a hardship.

/just a thought

$12 by September first is going to do a lot of damage. MA has it spread out over a few years. It would be too big of a jump for the economy to handle.

MA has it right. $11 over 3 years is proper. That is about a $1 increment a year, plenty of time for the economy to adjust.


ADDENDUM

I don't want this to fail. If it does big business will have an excuse to lobby against minimum wage increases across the nation. MA has to take it slow and steady to ensure that we don't cause complete upheaval in their economy. When MA is successful, which it will be, the rest of the nation will see this and (hopefully) follow their example.
 
2014-06-20 06:46:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: I'm not so sure.  We've assumed as a society a minimum level of income (lets pretend its $15 per hour) is necessary and subsidize people who fall below that (whether they don't work at all or work at wal-mart at $8 per hour).   Unless you believe that absent that social safety net Walmart would have to pay its workers $15 per hour, then we aren't subsidizing walmart.  Rather we are subsidizing the low income worker, which is the intention.

Absent that safety net (remember, we didn't always have that) people also were not paid a living wage.

You're acting like this is a theoretical thing when in fact it is a real-world example.


When I argue against the idiotic idea that the govt is subsidizing walmarts wages it is a real world thing. Absent safety net, the market clearing price of walmarts wages would go DOWN.

I'm not arguing against safety net (here). Just pointing out the obvious flaw in an often made left wing argument re walmarts wages.
 
2014-06-20 06:47:16 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: You are simplistically ignoring the fact that increased costs to employers will be paid by society, just like taxes.   It's not free.

Except for every single time that wages have been raised in the past.

Facepalm.

Somebody pays for it. It isn't free money. Comes out of somebody's pocket.


Ok then, wise guy. Let me ask you this: how can we get money into the hands of consumers? Trickle down hasn't worked. Communism hasn't worked. What is your genius plan oh Herr Economic Professor?

/The faster money moves the better the economy is. Right now money is moving damn slow. It has to be remediated if we want to get out of this damn rut.
//Dont take my German as me calling you a Nazi. I used that phrase for artistic purposes.
 
2014-06-20 06:47:26 PM  

cman: $12 by September first is going to do a lot of damage. MA has it spread out over a few years. It would be too big of a jump for the economy to handle.

MA has it right. $11 over 3 years is proper. That is about a $1 increment a year, plenty of time for the economy to adjust.


And that is probably the least of the things wrong with my idea. :|
 
2014-06-20 06:52:54 PM  

austerity101: Debeo Summa Credo: Unless you believe that absent that social safety net Walmart would have to pay its workers $15 per hour, then we aren't subsidizing walmart.  Rather we are subsidizing the low income worker, which is the intention.

We're doing both--that money that goes to the worker through the government also takes the obligation off of Walmart to pay their employees more.  

If you truly believe that the market would force Walmarts wages up to $15 absent govt benefits to their minimum wage workers, then by all mean lets cut those benefits (gradually) and let the market drive wage prices to their natural clearing rate.

I'm pretty sure no one actually believes this.

I propose this all the time but nobody every takes me up on it.  Why?  Because the truth of the matter is that absent govt benefits to low and no income workers, labor supply to walmart would dramatically INCREASE as people at that level would seek additional employment to make up for the loss of govt benefits.  This increase would lower the wages walmart would need to pay.   So if anything, our social safety net increases the market clearing rate of low wage labor, the exact opposite of what liberals would have you believe.

In a sense, you're almost correct--Walmart isn't going to magically start paying people more if we get rid of the safety net.  Walmart doesn't care if their employees die in the streets from abject poverty--there are always more desperate workers available.

... which is exactly why the government has stepped in and created minimum wage, thus preventing such a scenario.


You are contradicting yourself.

The government doesn't "take the obligation off Walmart to pay their employees more" because as you say they wouldn't pay anybody any more if there was no social safety net.

They would continue to pay fair market wages, which would go down absent the safety net as it would increase the number of "desperate" workers and the number of hours those workers would want.
 
2014-06-20 06:57:57 PM  

cman: Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: You are simplistically ignoring the fact that increased costs to employers will be paid by society, just like taxes.   It's not free.

Except for every single time that wages have been raised in the past.

Facepalm.

Somebody pays for it. It isn't free money. Comes out of somebody's pocket.

Ok then, wise guy. Let me ask you this: how can we get money into the hands of consumers? Trickle down hasn't worked. Communism hasn't worked. What is your genius plan oh Herr Economic Professor?

/The faster money moves the better the economy is. Right now money is moving damn slow. It has to be remediated if we want to get out of this damn rut.
//Dont take my German as me calling you a Nazi. I used that phrase for artistic purposes.


I appreciate the artistic purposes and being called "Herr" is the nicest compliment I've ever received on fark.

I'd argue that we remain in an over consumptive/under saving society and I'm not at all bent about any decrease in consumption caused by the recession. We should be saving more, IMO, from both national competitiveness and personal responsibility standpoints.

Any short term discomfort will easily be made up with future gains.
 
2014-06-20 07:06:01 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: You are simplistically ignoring the fact that increased costs to employers will be paid by society, just like taxes.   It's not free.

Except for every single time that wages have been raised in the past.

Facepalm.

Somebody pays for it. It isn't free money. Comes out of somebody's pocket.


Sure, the people who actually use the business. Unlike with tax subsidies which are paid by everyone. Which one do YOU think is better?
 
2014-06-20 07:08:35 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: When I argue against the idiotic idea that the govt is subsidizing walmarts wages it is a real world thing.


How are you arguing against it from a factual standpoint? The data is clear. You are arguing a theoretical which does not exist. Walmart workers get a lot of government subsidies. How can you argue against facts?
 
2014-06-20 07:11:06 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cman: Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: You are simplistically ignoring the fact that increased costs to employers will be paid by society, just like taxes.   It's not free.

Except for every single time that wages have been raised in the past.

Facepalm.

Somebody pays for it. It isn't free money. Comes out of somebody's pocket.

Ok then, wise guy. Let me ask you this: how can we get money into the hands of consumers? Trickle down hasn't worked. Communism hasn't worked. What is your genius plan oh Herr Economic Professor?

/The faster money moves the better the economy is. Right now money is moving damn slow. It has to be remediated if we want to get out of this damn rut.
//Dont take my German as me calling you a Nazi. I used that phrase for artistic purposes.

I appreciate the artistic purposes and being called "Herr" is the nicest compliment I've ever received on fark.

I'd argue that we remain in an over consumptive/under saving society and I'm not at all bent about any decrease in consumption caused by the recession. We should be saving more, IMO, from both national competitiveness and personal responsibility standpoints.

Any short term discomfort will easily be made up with future gains.


Yet more claims without references or citations. Shocking.
 
2014-06-20 07:11:43 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The government doesn't "take the obligation off Walmart to pay their employees more" because as you say they wouldn't pay anybody any more if there was no social safety net.


Yes they would, if there were a higher minimum wage. There's no contradiction there.
 
2014-06-20 07:12:22 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: They would continue to pay fair market wages, which would go down absent the safety net as it would increase the number of "desperate" workers and the number of hours those workers would want.


Wow...that sounds like an awesome society
 
2014-06-20 07:14:35 PM  

sweetmelissa31: All the restaurants in Boston are going to close shop and move to RI.


Sure are!  worked out fantastic for Curt Schilling and Rhode Island!

:D
 
2014-06-20 07:14:40 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Debeo Summa Credo: They would continue to pay fair market wages, which would go down absent the safety net as it would increase the number of "desperate" workers and the number of hours those workers would want.

Wow...that sounds like an awesome society


Didn't I read a book about that once? Something about grapes.
 
2014-06-20 07:15:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?

Because otherwise the taxpayers are. Why should we subsidize employers?

But, if employers can afford to pay their workers more, why don't they do so voluntarily?

Because they want to maximize profits. I figured that was obvious. Greed is good for the employer. Not for the employee.

But, they're the job creators!  They shouldn't be regulated!  It's their duty to provide for the economic well-being of their employees, not some socialist government's!

... Are you trying to say that the right wing doesn't really care about the economic well-being of the people?

That's exactly what I'm saying.


:O

I mean, if you start with the assumption that everyone should have a xiao kang life, that is "pretty well off," how can you say that capitalism will provide that, then in the next breath say that capitalism has no obligation to do that?

Makes no sense.

Now, don't get me wrong, capitalism is really really good at making money. Great tool. The best.

But you can't rely on it to be fair.
 
2014-06-20 07:15:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: When I argue against the idiotic idea that the govt is subsidizing walmarts wages it is a real world thing.

How are you arguing against it from a factual standpoint? The data is clear. You are arguing a theoretical which does not exist. Walmart workers get a lot of government subsidies. How can you argue against facts?


It's not theoretical at all. Walmart pays $8.81 per hour or whatever on average to hourly workers. It's you who believes the theory that absent govt benefits to some of those workers those wages would go higher.
 
2014-06-20 07:21:29 PM  
Mike_1962:

What really gets me about this argument is that it's no longer a theoretical excercise. Minimum wages exist and have been raised in the past. Not ONE SINGLE INSTANCE has caused an inflationary bump of statistical significance. Not one. Never. It doesn't happen. To argue that it does flies in the face of reality.

It's not about that.  It about the eval guv'mint telling me what I can derp with my bootstrap rand businesses.


Government is evil, taxes are evil, freedom (from laws I don't like or think should be applied just to me) is everything this country was built from and for.


Yeah, it's 100% certifiable crazy with no sense of actual history.  IE dangerous.
 
2014-06-20 07:21:47 PM  

sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?

Because otherwise the taxpayers are. Why should we subsidize employers?

But, if employers can afford to pay their workers more, why don't they do so voluntarily?

Because they want to maximize profits. I figured that was obvious. Greed is good for the employer. Not for the employee.

But, they're the job creators!  They shouldn't be regulated!  It's their duty to provide for the economic well-being of their employees, not some socialist government's!

... Are you trying to say that the right wing doesn't really care about the economic well-being of the people?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

:O

I mean, if you start with the assumption that everyone should have a xiao kang life, that is "pretty well off," how can you say that capitalism will provide that, then in the next breath say that capitalism has no obligation to do that?

Makes no sense.

Now, don't get me wrong, capitalism is really really good at making money. Great tool. The best.

But you can't rely on it to be fair.


I know, that's why I'm advocating for a higher minimum wage?
 
2014-06-20 07:22:32 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: When I argue against the idiotic idea that the govt is subsidizing walmarts wages it is a real world thing.

How are you arguing against it from a factual standpoint? The data is clear. You are arguing a theoretical which does not exist. Walmart workers get a lot of government subsidies. How can you argue against facts?

It's not theoretical at all. Walmart pays $8.81 per hour or whatever on average to hourly workers. It's you who believes the theory that absent govt benefits to some of those workers those wages would go higher.


They would, because there would be a higher minimum wage.

I don't see how this is so difficult to comprehend.
 
2014-06-20 07:27:10 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: What should happen in this situation?

Hey guys! Hey guys! He's arguing about macroeconomics by using a single microeconomics transaction!


Conservative tend to confuse accounting for economics.  Accounting sheets need to be balanced and are always zero sum, you have profits, debt, revenue, assets, and losses.  Economics (ie wealth creation) is not zero sum.  Not even close.

That is unless the markets are so poor and concentrated that they're not operating as real capitalistic competitive markets.  In that case they do become more zero sum, and they can price fix and pass on operating costs to consumers without fear of someone just slashing their own margins and being more competitive to consumer demands.
 
2014-06-20 07:29:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?

Because otherwise the taxpayers are. Why should we subsidize employers?

But, if employers can afford to pay their workers more, why don't they do so voluntarily?

Because they want to maximize profits. I figured that was obvious. Greed is good for the employer. Not for the employee.

But, they're the job creators!  They shouldn't be regulated!  It's their duty to provide for the economic well-being of their employees, not some socialist government's!

... Are you trying to say that the right wing doesn't really care about the economic well-being of the people?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

:O

I mean, if you start with the assumption that everyone should have a xiao kang life, that is "pretty well off," how can you say that capitalism will provide that, then in the next breath say that capitalism has no obligation to do that?

Makes no sense.

Now, don't get me wrong, capitalism is really really good at making money. Great tool. The best.

But you can't rely on it to be fair.

I know, that's why I'm advocating for a higher minimum wage?


If you are going use the hammer of capitalism to turn the screws of economic well being, it's necessary.

I'm awesome at analogies.
 
2014-06-20 07:32:35 PM  

TyrantII: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: What should happen in this situation?

Hey guys! Hey guys! He's arguing about macroeconomics by using a single microeconomics transaction!

Conservative tend to confuse accounting for economics.  Accounting sheets need to be balanced and are always zero sum, you have profits, debt, revenue, assets, and losses.  Economics (ie wealth creation) is not zero sum.  Not even close.

That is unless the markets are so poor and concentrated that they're not operating as real capitalistic competitive markets.  In that case they do become more zero sum, and they can price fix and pass on operating costs to consumers without fear of someone just slashing their own margins and being more competitive to consumer demands.


"Confuse economics for accounting."

That is an awesome way to put it.

Under that mistaken idea, laborers are costs to be reduced or eliminated, instead of economic drivers.
 
2014-06-20 08:00:15 PM  
Ontario, Canada (population 13.5M), raised its minimum wage to $11 several months ago and our economy didn't' collapse.
 
2014-06-20 08:04:28 PM  

mrshowrules: Ontario, Canada (population 13.5M), raised its minimum wage to $11 several months ago and our economy didn't' collapse.


But, you see, your burgers are now prohibitively expensive.
 
2014-06-20 08:16:33 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: mrshowrules: Ontario, Canada (population 13.5M), raised its minimum wage to $11 several months ago and our economy didn't' collapse.

But, you see, your burgers are now prohibitively expensive.


Hey dumbass, those extra 10 cents add up to a significant amount of money. Who gives a shiat on what that burger monkey makes? Its too goddamn expensive to pay a living wage. As long as the guy flipping burgers has a car to live in he should be happy and quit biatching about it.

Duh
 
2014-06-20 08:20:22 PM  

cman: cameroncrazy1984: mrshowrules: Ontario, Canada (population 13.5M), raised its minimum wage to $11 several months ago and our economy didn't' collapse.

But, you see, your burgers are now prohibitively expensive.

Hey dumbass, those extra 10 cents add up to a significant amount of money. Who gives a shiat on what that burger monkey makes? Its too goddamn expensive to pay a living wage. As long as the guy flipping burgers has a car to live in he should be happy and quit biatching about it.

Duh


Didn't you used to be a right wing troll? Or am I confused?
 
2014-06-20 08:23:37 PM  

sendtodave: cman: cameroncrazy1984: mrshowrules: Ontario, Canada (population 13.5M), raised its minimum wage to $11 several months ago and our economy didn't' collapse.

But, you see, your burgers are now prohibitively expensive.

Hey dumbass, those extra 10 cents add up to a significant amount of money. Who gives a shiat on what that burger monkey makes? Its too goddamn expensive to pay a living wage. As long as the guy flipping burgers has a car to live in he should be happy and quit biatching about it.

Duh

Didn't you used to be a right wing troll? Or am I confused?


The correct term is Fark Independent Troll

And I take many a-things on a case-by-case basis. Google Modern Whigs. Very similar to what I believe.
 
2014-06-20 08:30:22 PM  

sendtodave: TyrantII: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: What should happen in this situation?

Hey guys! Hey guys! He's arguing about macroeconomics by using a single microeconomics transaction!

Conservative tend to confuse accounting for economics.  Accounting sheets need to be balanced and are always zero sum, you have profits, debt, revenue, assets, and losses.  Economics (ie wealth creation) is not zero sum.  Not even close.

That is unless the markets are so poor and concentrated that they're not operating as real capitalistic competitive markets.  In that case they do become more zero sum, and they can price fix and pass on operating costs to consumers without fear of someone just slashing their own margins and being more competitive to consumer demands.

"Confuse economics for accounting."

That is an awesome way to put it.

Under that mistaken idea, laborers are costs to be reduced or eliminated, instead of economic drivers.


Well you do have to deal with Accounting running a business.  Workers are always a cost on a balance sheet, but were more seen as Assets.  Now a days they've been strictly regulated to liabilities to be driven down, unless you're in the executive circle.

The concept of maximizing shareholder value went a long way to pushing that idea.  Every cost had to be bludgeoned to death with a Buick and be passed on to executives, the board, and shareholders; regardless of long term negative consequences.  Growth is hard when you do that, so instead you buy your way to growth through acquisitions and shrinking the competition to where you extract higher rents instead of competing legitimately.
 
2014-06-20 08:43:39 PM  

cman: Google Modern Whigs. Very similar to what I believe.


ORLY??

/owl joke
 
2014-06-20 08:44:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: mrshowrules: Ontario, Canada (population 13.5M), raised its minimum wage to $11 several months ago and our economy didn't' collapse.

But, you see, your burgers are now prohibitively expensive.


Thats why all Canadians have to drive to America to get heal... burgers... I know because I heard it on rush!
 
2014-06-20 09:11:05 PM  
I forget, is this the thread where we all point to our best end-of-days scenario while doing our damndest to ignore the fact that prices have always been increasing despite wages not increasing with them?

Or is this the thread where we pretend that we cook 100% of our meals and never need to stop in to a fast food place for any reason, ever, therefore the staff of teenagers doesn't deserve to get paid?

/Fighting this hard to feign so much ignorance must be tiring
 
2014-06-20 09:11:54 PM  

TyrantII: Well you do have to deal with Accounting running a business.  Workers are always a cost on a balance sheet, but were more seen as Assets.  Now a days they've been strictly regulated to liabilities to be driven down, unless you're in the executive circle.

The concept of maximizing shareholder value went a long way to pushing that idea.  Every cost had to be bludgeoned to death with a Buick and be passed on to executives, the board, and shareholders; regardless of long term negative consequences.  Growth is hard when you do that, so instead you buy your way to growth through acquisitions and shrinking the competition to where you extract higher rents instead of competing legitimately.


Astute observations.  I mean, it seems self evident, but there's lots of hand waving.

What I'm wondering is if capitalism truly is a better system for eliminating waste when compared to the alternatives... When will we see the C-level salaries be slashed?

If they aren't, then capitalism isn't that efficient.  It's still just the guys on top skimming off as much as they can, same as monarchy, socialism, heck, tribal chiefs.

At least, our brand of capitalism.  But if capitalism is all about efficiency, why don't the CEOs get downsized?
 
2014-06-20 09:12:38 PM  
Also, I'm drunk now, so... pretend that was a coherent statement.
 
2014-06-20 09:24:11 PM  
All out of talking points,  DSD goes home.
 
2014-06-20 09:33:15 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: All out of talking points,  DSD goes home.


Who's that?
 
2014-06-20 09:34:45 PM  

sendtodave: Also, I'm drunk now, so... pretend that was a coherent statement.


It made perfect sense to me but I'm drunk also.  Capitalism is excellent at concentrating capital.  However, right not the US does not need any more concentration of capital.
 
2014-06-20 09:43:40 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Our minimum wages aren't oppressive, therefore there aren't huge impacts and exogenous variables swamp the min wage impact in most cases. But they do come with a cost.


Paying people shiat wages has a societal cost also.
 
2014-06-20 09:45:08 PM  

mrshowrules: sendtodave: Also, I'm drunk now, so... pretend that was a coherent statement.

It made perfect sense to me but I'm drunk also.  Capitalism is excellent at concentrating capital.  However, right not the US does not need any more concentration of capital.


Happy Friday!

Is it that capitalism is especially good at concentrating wealth, or are humans good at that, no matter the system?

Even in small tribes in the middle of nowhere, the majority of the (small amount of) wealth goes to the chiefs (and priests).
 
2014-06-20 09:48:16 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages!

This statement implies that halving everyone's wages would be a net benefit to the economy. Is that your intent?

Letting the market decide wages, without price floors, would be optimal for the economy.   Wouldn't remotely reduce in anything close to halving wages.


Do you have an example in the world or history of a thriving economy with no wage floors?
 
2014-06-20 09:48:45 PM  

mrshowrules: t made perfect sense to me but I'm drunk also


I wish I had weed D:

Being sober sucks ass
 
2014-06-20 09:52:51 PM  
Also, totally off topic, but, this idea that welfare makes a dependent class...  (REALTIME DRUNK OBSERVATION)

Did you know that feral and wild cats don't typically meow?

But my house cat does.  See, meowing is a trick that cats learn to get our attention.

And he licks me.  Purrs.  Cuddles up on me.  As far as he's concerned, I'm mom.  Or God.  Or whatever.  I'm the one that keeps him from having to suffer in the cold, and he knows it.  He was a stray.  I keep him fed and warm, and he meows and purrs.

Is the idea that people that need help, and should be kept  from suffering in the cold so, uh, insufferable, that people believe we should, because then they'd be dependent?

If I tossed my cat out, and gave him the freedom of independence!  He'd be OK.  He's a good mouser.  He'd survive.

But now he's fat and happy.  Can't we come up with a system where everyone is fat and happy?  We can still leave the door open for those that want to brave the wilderness with their bootstraps.

OK, yeah, I'm kinda plowed.
 
2014-06-20 09:56:26 PM  
As a conservative, I have no problem with the states handling this.
 
2014-06-20 10:00:39 PM  

cchris_39: As a conservative, I have no problem with the states handling this.


How does that work out in the end?   Some states pay much better wages.  Competition good!

People leave the poor paying states to move to the better paying states.

The poor paying states wither, because no one is left to pay taxes, everyone is poor, except the very rich, who don't have to pay taxes.

These poor states need to be subsidized by the richer states.

Oh, yeah that's what already happens.
 
2014-06-20 10:06:03 PM  

sendtodave: mrshowrules: sendtodave: Also, I'm drunk now, so... pretend that was a coherent statement.

It made perfect sense to me but I'm drunk also.  Capitalism is excellent at concentrating capital.  However, right not the US does not need any more concentration of capital.

Happy Friday!

Is it that capitalism is especially good at concentrating wealth, or are humans good at that, no matter the system?

Even in small tribes in the middle of nowhere, the majority of the (small amount of) wealth goes to the chiefs (and priests).


Happy Friday unto you.  Capitalism is a tool useful for the distribution of resources.  Socialism is another tool for the same thing.  One tool is good for one thing and bad for another.  Neither should be a goal in and of itself.  The goals is prosperity or at least it should be.
 
2014-06-20 10:09:42 PM  

sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: All out of talking points,  DSD goes home.

Who's that?


Sorry, DSC. Damn keyboard.
 
2014-06-20 10:11:34 PM  

cchris_39: As a conservative, I have no problem with the states handling this.


Right. Tyranny! Unless a state does it, then magically it's not tyranny to you anymore.

Jesus Christ.
 
2014-06-20 10:21:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: cchris_39: As a conservative, I have no problem with the states handling this.

Right. Tyranny! Unless a state does it, then magically it's not tyranny to you anymore.

Jesus Christ.


That's right. I can move to another state.

If Massachusetts wants a big tax and spend government why should I here in No State Income Tax Texas and care one way or the other?
 
2014-06-20 10:22:36 PM  

mrshowrules: Debeo Summa Credo: Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages!

This statement implies that halving everyone's wages would be a net benefit to the economy. Is that your intent?

Letting the market decide wages, without price floors, would be optimal for the economy.   Wouldn't remotely reduce in anything close to halving wages.

Do you have an example in the world or history of a thriving economy with no wage floors?


Industrial revolution United States. But dumb and irrelevant question anyway.
 
2014-06-20 10:23:48 PM  

sendtodave: Also, I'm drunk now, so... pretend that was a coherent statement.


I'd have to be pretty damn drunk to think that was a coherent statement.
 
2014-06-20 10:25:45 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: When I argue against the idiotic idea that the govt is subsidizing walmarts wages it is a real world thing.

How are you arguing against it from a factual standpoint? The data is clear. You are arguing a theoretical which does not exist. Walmart workers get a lot of government subsidies. How can you argue against facts?

It's not theoretical at all. Walmart pays $8.81 per hour or whatever on average to hourly workers. It's you who believes the theory that absent govt benefits to some of those workers those wages would go higher.

They would, because there would be a higher minimum wage.

I don't see how this is so difficult to comprehend.


Jesus cripes. "Brawndo's got electrolytes. It's what plants crave."
 
2014-06-20 10:28:43 PM  

cchris_39: cameroncrazy1984: cchris_39: As a conservative, I have no problem with the states handling this.

Right. Tyranny! Unless a state does it, then magically it's not tyranny to you anymore.

Jesus Christ.

That's right. I can move to another state.

If Massachusetts wants a big tax and spend government why should I here in No State Income Tax Texas and care one way or the other?


Because you're also American. Maybe you should move to a country that is smaller?
 
2014-06-20 10:29:20 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: When I argue against the idiotic idea that the govt is subsidizing walmarts wages it is a real world thing.

How are you arguing against it from a factual standpoint? The data is clear. You are arguing a theoretical which does not exist. Walmart workers get a lot of government subsidies. How can you argue against facts?

It's not theoretical at all. Walmart pays $8.81 per hour or whatever on average to hourly workers. It's you who believes the theory that absent govt benefits to some of those workers those wages would go higher.

They would, because there would be a higher minimum wage.

I don't see how this is so difficult to comprehend.

Jesus cripes. "Brawndo's got electrolytes. It's what plants crave."


So basically you have no logical response to that statement. Is that right?
 
2014-06-20 10:31:00 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: But dumb and irrelevant question anyway.


Yeah, dumb and irrelevant because you can't defend the effects of the below-poverty wages on the population.
 
2014-06-20 11:14:12 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: whidbey: This is getting tiresome.

1. There is no evidence that raising a minimum wage will suddenly "make everything more expensive"
2. People deserve to be paid decent wages or they shouldn't be working

It is getting tiresome.

1) every economist in the world will tell you that the cost of inputs will work its way into the cost of outputs, either directly as producers raise prices or indirectly as increased costs drive producers or potential producers from the market, reducing supply
2) people deserve to be paid whatever they can mutually agree with an employer. If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.


Take what you can!  Give nothing back!  A pirate's life for us!

Seriously though.  A minimum wage exists to keep the little guy from getting fleeced.  You know this.  The economy in general does better when lots of people are working, lots of people are buying things, and lots of people are paying taxes.

If the wages go up by law businesses will have to get bootstrappy.  You know, the American way.

/the rest of your rhetoric is also old and busted.
 
2014-06-21 12:28:16 AM  
If the GOP were smart, they would concede to a raise in the minimum wage to Reagan-era equivalents, and then permanently tie it to inflation.

By letting it lag behind, it lets the Democrats occasionally raise the issue as one of fairness, and it also undermines the notion that lowering the minimum wage somehow improves the economy.  Because it's not inflation-adjusted, it's constantly being lowered without legislative action, and the GOP will inevitably lose every time it comes up provided the Democrats time it right.

It's like constantly slow-walking a guaranteed win to your political opponent and then acting shocked and outraged when they keep bashing you over the head with it at fairly regular intervals.
 
2014-06-21 03:19:24 AM  

jaerik: If the GOP were smart, they would...


Yeah I see the problem right there.
The argument that prices are intrinsically tied to the wages of the lowest earning workers is crazy. Every fiscal conservative should understand that prices are set where "the market will bear." That's your favorite catchphrase. The reason a burger cost say $4.25 is because that's what enough people are willing to pay for it. If he raises prices he doesn't make more money to cover increased costs, he makes less money because he's not selling burgers. If Bob could sell as many burgers for five bucks, he'd do it in a heartbeat. He's not waiting for an increase in minimum wage to make a bigger profit margin. But he can't, because there is not enough demand. This fact does not change when there is a change in overhead.
The GOP wants to make the argument that with an increase in cost, a businessman will set his prices so high that nobody can afford them anymore. Shame, just when the working poor get some spare cash to invest in the community grill, suddenly nobody can buy anything! All those hungry customers will be wandering around town with pockets full of useless money.
 
2014-06-21 04:32:54 AM  

Ablejack: The argument that prices are intrinsically tied to the wages of the lowest earning workers is crazy. Every fiscal conservative should understand that prices are set where "the market will bear." That's your favorite catchphrase. The reason a burger cost say $4.25 is because that's what enough people are willing to pay for it. If he raises prices he doesn't make more money to cover increased costs, he makes less money because he's not selling burgers. If Bob could sell as many burgers for five bucks, he'd do it in a heartbeat. He's not waiting for an increase in minimum wage to make a bigger profit margin. But he can't, because there is not enough demand. This fact does not change when there is a change in overhead.
The GOP wants to make the argument that with an increase in cost, a businessman will set his prices so high that nobody can afford them anymore. Shame, just when the working poor get some spare cash to invest in the community grill, suddenly nobody can buy anything! All those hungry customers will be wandering around town with pockets full of useless money.


Please tack this post to the top of the next ten minimum wage threads thank you and good night.
 
2014-06-21 08:04:52 AM  

SauronWasFramed: Who can live on $11 an hour?  If the argument is to pay a living wage, minimum wage should be $25 an hour.

/another shing example of meaningless feel good legislation.


I make 11 dollars an hour, and can more or less get by.

I can't imagine what it would be like to make 25.

I wish I lived in your world.
 
2014-06-21 08:44:23 AM  
So if the minimum wage worker gets a raise up to $11.00
 Then isn't the supervisor entitled to a raise for their superior skills and responsibility.
Let's not forget the plant manager .
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-21 10:17:04 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: So if the minimum wage worker gets a raise up to $11.00
 Then isn't the supervisor entitled to a raise for their superior skills and responsibility.
Let's not forget the plant manager .
[img.fark.net image 259x194]


Or have a minimum wage and a maximum wage; no more than, say, 15x (Just the first random number that came to mind) what the lowest-paid worker in the company makes. Want a higher salary? Pay your employees more. Or, if you're so "superior", you can figure out other ways to make more money.
 
2014-06-21 12:55:47 PM  

ginandbacon: $11 in most of Mass won't get you far, but this is a start.


That's why many MA workers live in NH instead.
 
2014-06-21 01:46:13 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: If you think you deserve $11 but can only get $9, don't take the job. Nobody owes you a living.

In the meantime, what is our minimum wage worker supposed to eat? Bootstraps? Unicorn steaks?

Do you even externalities, bro?

Whatever he eats isn't the concern of the economist. If you want welfare or foodstamps or EITC so higher income people will subsidize lower income people, that's another topic.

It's completely independent of the economics of minimum wages and fair market wages.



I think an actual, honest, completely aboveboard and transparent federal wage subsidy for American citizens might be better than setting a minimum wage for employers. It would (I think) make labor less "sticky," so people would be freer to move to where better-paying jobs are.

But since I am not one that thinks a program should be rolled out to the nation on a guess, I think we could start giving people in Mississippi a 7.25/hr wage subsidy (in addition to whatever their employer pays) -- paid for by taxes, of course -- instead of unemployment compensation and a minimum wage, and see what happens to employment. If it doesn't work -- hey, it's Mississippi. We can always try another experiment.
 
2014-06-21 01:51:03 PM  

aevorea: ginandbacon: $11 in most of Mass won't get you far, but this is a start.

That's why many MA workers live in NH instead.


..and get socked with ridiculous property taxes and fees for everything.  One the balance sheet COL is pretty much the same in both states.  Rents are actually higher than in most of MA when compared to similar property values.

But most people don't really move to NH after doing a deep cost/benefit analysis on taxes.  It's more cultural and being able to wag your finger at that other group. 

Which is stupid, since New England is a tight regional economy and very dependent on each other.
 
2014-06-21 03:14:39 PM  

doczoidberg: SauronWasFramed: Who can live on $11 an hour?  If the argument is to pay a living wage, minimum wage should be $25 an hour.

/another shing example of meaningless feel good legislation.

I make 11 dollars an hour, and can more or less get by.

I can't imagine what it would be like to make 25.

I wish I lived in your world.


You both do. That's part of the problem with that attitude.
 
2014-06-21 11:27:16 PM  

sendtodave: Is it that capitalism is especially good at concentrating wealth, or are humans good at that, no matter the system?

Even in small tribes in the middle of nowhere, the majority of the (small amount of) wealth goes to the chiefs (and priests).


You know how I can tell you never took anthropology?
 
Displayed 278 of 278 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report