Wealth 85 richest equals wealth 3.5 billion poorest.

[TenEightyOne]

So what happens when only one guy can afford to buy a banana or a fish?

So what happens when the money runs out? (Isn't that what's happening?)

Maybe someone will offer to lend him money in return for a payment that reflects their interest in it. That would also create value.

The bank (the gold guy) are going to have to make some more coins. The problem is that every coin is a share of the gold that it represents, so if you make 100 coins and then another 100, the value of all the coins halves. That's a simple form of inflation. IRL the banks quite strictly destroy currency and replace it with like-for-like values to keep inflation steady.

 

[Famine]

First of all, you need to define wealthy.

Generally it's "has more than me", which is how it seems to work for the 99% crowd.

But I'm pretty sure that increasing minimum wage to say £10/$14 per hour wouldn't turn any into wealthy people.

No - it'll turn many into incredibly poor people as their jobs are axed. Increasing the smallest amount you can pay an employee by 50% turns profitable companies into companies that break even and companies that break even into bankrupt ones.

But those that are left will earn 50% more than they did before, making them 50% more wealthy. Before tax, obviously - wouldn't want them earning too much now would we?

Donk.

Hellaflush.

So if you've spent all your money, how are you going to contribute more.

No idea - it's your argument...

Because poor people spend more of that money than rich people.

You're suggesting that if you give everyone £10, poor people will spend it all and rich people will save it, meaning that poor people spend more money and increase the cashflow of an economy (which is a bit Broken Window Fallacy anyway) while the rich people hoard it...

... by saving and buying stocks and shares in companies that allow the companies to expand, develop and innovate to create more, better and cheaper products to reduce the cost of living and employ more poor people. Those evil rich shareholder bastards.

 

[Zenith]

Scenario: Three similar companies in competition that pay their workers minimum wage. These companies are not making a killing, they're profiting marginally like most companies. These companies build products that are then sold by discerning customers. This describes a large portion of economic activity in the West.

You raise minimum wage by 50%. Now these companies need to make a decision to stay afloat.

Company A decides to fire some of its workers. It will replace some of these workers with machines and outsource other labour to a place which is not forced to pay workers more (China). The remaining workers will get their increased wage.

Company B decides to raise prices on the customer level. It keeps it's workers and pays them more due to minimum wage.

Company C does what you expect the world's companies to do and neither fires workers nor changes prices.

In a free market, Company C will fail hard. It is unlikely the management will be able to suddenly start paying workers more for the same performance. It also does not have the ability to grow without significant cost due to the newly increased minimum wage. This doesn't matter anyways since the company is likely losing money with every product it builds.

Company B will also fail. Consumers will discriminate between the products of B and A and note that A offers a similar product for less. With reduced income and increased operating costs, Company B will fail.

So we're left with Company A, who could conceivably hire the now unemployed workers from B and C, but why would they? Going away from that expensive labor was what kept them afloat. They are likely to expand by ordering more outsourced labor and automate more processes.

Company A's new strategy is great for China and engineers (high wage jobs, you know, rich people), not great for those poor people you wanted to help.

Thanks minimum wage! Hurting economies by promising people money they don't deserve.

 

[Enemem]

A new study sponsored by Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...sation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

Yeah , well I mentioned that, but since it doesn't fit in with their paradigm, and they can't argue against it, it gets ignored.

But they'll continue to spout economics thinking it's reality. As I've said before the map is not the territory. The menu is not the meal.

 

[Famine]

If you know the candlelight is fire, the meal has already been cooked.

 

[Joel]

Yeah , well I mentioned that, but since it doesn't fit in with their paradigm, and they can't argue against it, it gets ignored.

But they'll continue to spout economics thinking it's reality. As I've said before the map is not the territory. The menu is not the meal.

The lack of self awareness on display here is astounding.

 

[Zenith]

Yeah , well I mentioned that, but since it doesn't fit in with their paradigm, and they can't argue against it, it gets ignored.

But they'll continue to spout economics thinking it's reality. As I've said before the map is not the territory. The menu is not the meal.

So whenever you want to let me know how my Company A, B, C scenario went wrong, go ahead. Otherwise I guess we can assume "no contest."

Because if you couldn't that would be like ignoring something because it doesn't fit into your paradigm and you can't argue against it. How silly would that be? Especially after claiming that we do such a thing.

 

[Enemem]

If I make $10 per hour and then get $5 per hour in government welfare. Then I make $15 .

My boss, who should be paying me $15 an hour, is being subsidised for not paying me $15, that's why there's a minimum wage. So whilst the rich consider me to be a scrounger, my boss, who employs 50 employees is scrounging 50 x $5 per hour.

 

[Zenith]

If I make $10 per hour and then get $5 per hour in government welfare. Then I make $15 .

My boss, who should be paying me $15 an hour, is being subsidised for not paying me $15, that's why there's a minimum wage. So whilst the rich consider me to be a scrounger, my boss, who employs 50 employees is scrounging 50 x $5 per hour.

Except I just showed you how the government telling your boss that he must pay you $15 per hour for a job that you agreed to do for $10 will likely lead to the failure of the company, outsourcing to China, unpaid internships, or the automation of your job.

So that'll have you going to $0/hr while a "rich" engineer or a "rich" Chinese business owner gets to pick up some extra business. Shot yourself in the foot, eh?

 

[Enemem]

Scenario: Three similar companies in competition that pay their workers minimum wage. These companies are not making a killing, they're profiting marginally like most companies. These companies build products that are then sold by discerning customers. This describes a large portion of economic activity in the West.

You raise minimum wage by 50%. Now these companies need to make a decision to stay afloat.

Company A decides to fire some of its workers. It will replace some of these workers with machines and outsource other labour to a place which is not forced to pay workers more (China). The remaining workers will get their increased wage.

Company B decides to raise prices on the customer level. It keeps it's workers and pays them more due to minimum wage.

Company C does what you expect the world's companies to do and neither fires workers nor changes prices.

In a free market, Company C will fail hard. It is unlikely the management will be able to suddenly start paying workers more for the same performance. It also does not have the ability to grow without significant cost due to the newly increased minimum wage. This doesn't matter anyways since the company is likely losing money with every product it builds.

No it won't. EVIDENCE ---->>>>>>>http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
It'll make very little difference to bottom line, or to the selling price of their products

Company B will also fail. Consumers will discriminate between the products of B and A and note that A offers a similar product for less. With reduced income and increased operating costs, Company B will fail.

This is moot, and of course why you employ salesmen, otherwise they're a waste of money.

So we're left with Company A, who could conceivably hire the now unemployed workers from B and C, but why would they? Going away from that expensive labor was what kept them afloat. They are likely to expand by ordering more outsourced labor and automate more processes. Thanks minimum wage! Hurting economies by promising people money they don't deserve.

Since this is a rehash of company C it's been answered. By the same token you must have a problem with this then. Bankers deserve to get huge bonuses for failing. Thanks bankers for hurting the economies for giving money to people who don't deserve it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...t-minimum-wage-state-beats-u-s-with-jobs.html

http://www.alternet.org/story/15068...lt_in_almost_no_pain_for_the_average_customer

You reading any of the links I'm posting? I'd read yours but there aren't any.

If I want to improve myself then I need to invest in my future, go to college, night-school etc. With no money, no investment. No change. Trapped.

 

[Danoff]

Blow his mind and show him what happens when the physical supply of coins run out, they'll have to talk to the Gold Guy.

So what happens when only one guy can afford to buy a banana or a fish?

So what happens when the money runs out? (Isn't that what's happening?)

The physical supply of coins stayed the same in my example.

 

[Enemem]

The physical supply of coins stayed the same in my example.

Yes, but from earlier, I apologise. I was responding to

Blow his mind and show him what happens when the physical supply of coins run out, they'll have to talk to the Gold Guy.

In your system you can't run out of money. Does this hold in the real world?


Go to 4:10 to skip pre-amble.




All your arguments against the minimum wage have the unmentioned assumption.
That profit margins need to be maintained at current levels.


Also if profits of owners go up then so should the wages, because if a company loses money then people either get laid off or reduced wages. Funny how the system seems to have arrived at a set-up like that isn't it?

And here's another one to blow your minds. The reason the economy in the UK and the US is because businesses(which are sitting on huge amounts of money, and we're talking trillions- oh that's where the money went) are not willing to expand. And why would they? They have no market in the UK and US. Because we don't have any extra money to spend on consuming, we're scared of losing our jobs and our houses, (major assets gone down in value by what 30% in 5 years). Most people I know are reducing their consumption, (and I don't disagree with this from an ecological point of view). This is not the way to keep the economy running. It's a vicious circle.

Still think minimum wage increase is going to have a negative effect on the economy?

If you do. Then lets see the evidence.

 

[Zenith]

No it won't. EVIDENCE ---->>>>>>>http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
It'll make very little difference to bottom line, or to the selling price of their products

Let's see this article...

Adjustment Channels:
1. Reduction in hours worked...
2. Reductions in non-wage benefits
3. Reductions in training
...
5. Higher prices

Congratulations, you just helped prove my point. Are you reading these before you post them?

This is moot, and of course why you employ salesmen, otherwise they're a waste of money.

No. This market exists outside of retail. Customers who buy mass capital orders of parts and tools tend to be a bit more discerning and can see past hollow marketing.

Since this is a rehash of company C it's been answered. By the same token you must have a problem with this then. Bankers deserve to get huge bonuses for failing. Thanks bankers for hurting the economies for giving money to people who don't deserve it.

Entirely different discussion. You don't get to decide who deserves what, the market does.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...t-minimum-wage-state-beats-u-s-with-jobs.html

http://www.alternet.org/story/15068...lt_in_almost_no_pain_for_the_average_customer

You reading any of the links I'm posting? I'd read yours but there aren't any.

Links to Bloomberg are not exactly evidence. Logical arguments do not need to be written by someone else to be true. Especially when the links that you provide only support the argument you are opposing... I guess I don't need to post any for you to read since you don't even do that with your own.

If I want to improve myself then I need to invest in my future, go to college, night-school etc. With no money, no investment. No change. Trapped.

Loans, scholarships, also another subject. It's not the job of your employer to get you the tools to achieve your desires. It's yours.

 

[niky]

I think the glaring flaw in the Walmart article is the supposition that Walmart built its huge customer base on the back of excellent service and not rock-bottom prices and the corner-cutting and huge economies of scale required to get them there.

 

[Enemem]

Let's see this article...

Adjustment Channels:
1. Reduction in hours worked...

Even if the reduction in hours was so large that it exactly offset the increase in the hourly wage, minimum-wage workers would still be better off after the increase because they would be earning exactly what they made before, but would now be working fewer hours per week to earn it. Hours adjustments would only reduce a worker's standard of living if the fall in hours were steeper than the rise in wages.

2. Reductions in non-wage benefits

Within the competitive framework, employers might respond to a minimum-wage increase by lowering the value of non-wage benefits, such as health insurance and pension contributions. The empirical evidence, however, points to small or no effects along these lines. Based on their review of research as of the mid-1990s, Card and Krueger conclude: "The quantitative importance of non-wage offsets in response to a minimum-wage increase is an open question."
Their own study of fast-food restaurants in New Jersey showed no tendency for employers to cut the most common
non-wage benefit offered, which was free or low-priced meals.

3. Reductions in training

The empirical evidence is not conclusive. In their review of the recent research on the minimum wage and training, Neumark and Wascher write: "Summing up all of the evidence on training, we can only conclude that the evidence is mixed. Our own research tends to find negative effects of minimum wages on training, but most of the other recent research finds little evidence of an effect in either direction."

4. Changes in employment composition

So companies decide to be more discerning in who they choose to work for them.

5. Higher prices

"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%.

Congratulations, you just helped prove my point. Are you reading these before you post them?

Yes, but I'm not just, reading the headings.

The sections you did not refer to:-

6. Improvements in efficiency. - better attitude of workers
7. "Efficiency wage" responses from workers - better work from workers
8. Wage compression - hits the middle-management pockets. I wonder if anyone in this thread sits here?
9. Reduction in profits - doesn't happen - in fact only evidence points to the opposite
10. Increases in demand (minimum wage as stimulus) - benefits everyone
11. Reduced turnover - of staff. - benefits staff and company

I think the glaring flaw in the Walmart article is the supposition that Walmart built its huge customer base on the back of excellent service and not rock-bottom prices and the corner-cutting and huge economies of scale required to get them there.

So, why does that make a difference?

 

[niky]

So, why does that make a difference?

Because you want to know what happens when you pay more? Then you're not competitive. Walmart prices its labor according to what it takes to be the biggest, the cheapest and the most successful chain in America.

In fact, most of the successful chains pay the same wages as Walmart... or less.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/05/02/target-vs-walmart-which-one-is-a-better-place-to-work/

Walmart pays less for certain positions than other stores, but for their hourly wage workers, the dregs of their workforce, they pay just as much or more than other discount chains.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-hourly-wages-in-retail-industry-2013-4?op=1

And yet, Walmart has to maintain its reputation as the price leader. People shop at Walmart because it's cheaper.

Saying that Walmart MUST arbitrarily increase their prices to provide higher salaries than they do now, considering they pay more than other businesses and already pay above minimum is ridiculous. To what point? Why? Why encourage that huge customer base to move elsewhere?

To move to someone who sells for less?

http://business.time.com/2013/08/07...chain-being-called-wal-marts-worst-nightmare/

Here's how you sell for less. Cut out the distributor, which means cutting jobs from the retail economy... and have people self-bag, which means having less employees in the store.

So... which do you prefer? More jobs at modest wages, or much fewer jobs at higher wages?

Easy choice, right?

 

[Enemem]

Because you want to know what happens when you pay more? Then you're not competitive. Walmart prices its labor according to what it takes to be the biggest, the cheapest and the most successful chain in America.

In fact, most of the successful chains pay the same wages as Walmart... or less.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/05/02/target-vs-walmart-which-one-is-a-better-place-to-work/

Walmart pays less for certain positions than other stores, but for their hourly wage workers, the dregs of their workforce, they pay just as much or more than other discount chains.

Yes. That's right. Then all their competitors get to pay their workers decent money as well. Level playing field. So people get laid off, that's okay. You can't avoid it. What we're talking about is the fact that if you're working a full week, then you should be paid better for your time, and how it's good for the economy.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-hourly-wages-in-retail-industry-2013-4?op=1

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-hourly-wages-in-retail-industry-2013-4?op=1

And yet, Walmart has to maintain its reputation as the price leader. People shop at Walmart because it's cheaper.

Saying that Walmart MUST arbitrarily increase their prices to provide higher salaries than they do now, considering they pay more than other businesses and already pay above minimum is ridiculous. To what point? Why? Why encourage that huge customer base to move elsewhere?

While all these factors help WinCo compete with Walmart on price, what really might scare the world’s largest retailer is how WinCo treats its employees. In sharp contrast to Walmart, which regularly comes under fire for practices like understaffing stores to keep costs down and hiring tons of temporary workers as a means to avoid paying full-time workers benefits, WinCo has a reputation for doing right by employees. It provides health benefits to all staffers who work at least 24 hours per week. The company also has a pension, with employees getting an amount equal to 20% of their annual salary put in a plan that’s paid for by WinCo; a company spokesperson told the Idaho Statesman that more than 400 nonexecutive workers (cashiers, produce clerks and such) currently have pensions worth over $1 million apiece.

It's not the way they treat their staff that allows them to undercut Walmart, is it? But they do. I know let's just pay everyone just enough, so we can sell it 0.4% cheaper.

To move to someone who sells for less?

http://business.time.com/2013/08/07...chain-being-called-wal-marts-worst-nightmare/

Here's how you sell for less. Cut out the distributor, which means cutting jobs from the retail economy... and have people self-bag, which means having less employees in the store.

So... which do you prefer? More jobs at modest wages, or much fewer jobs at higher wages?

Easy choice, right?

If firms cut staff then presumably they aren't needed. Do you find many companies with excess staff round your way?

Well, I used the above link to prove my first point, nice find.


“When Henry Ford announced the 5-dollar-day, the response was that it would diminish the auto industry and bankrupt his company,” Harley Shaiken, a labor economist at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an interview. “Instead it jump-started purchasing power, reduced turnover and increased the profitability of Ford Motor Co. There’s a lesson we can still learn from that.”. Ford also said that the people who work for him, should be able to afford his products.

You obviously aren't keeping up. The price rises would be tiny. The attractive boost is the fact that their own workers will be able to spend more with them. So they get it back.

Just admit it. So far your objections to raising the minimum wage are
a) I'll have to pay an extra 20c for my happy meal
b) I have a vested interest in keeping the status quo
c) I can't admit I'm wrong, my world would collapse
d) .........................

 

[Famine]

Mine are:
It's immoral.
It's anticompetitive.
It's destructive to national employment.
It makes the country less appealing to foreign investment.
Inflation.

You've not managed to pull up a single article to support your viewpoint or dismiss any of the economic points - and you won't manage to find anything that will disprove the first one.

 

[niky]

Yes. That's right. Then all their competitors get to pay their workers decent money as well. Level playing field. So people get laid off, that's okay. You can't avoid it. What we're talking about is the fact that if you're working a full week, then you should be paid better for your time, and how it's good for the economy.

So...

You prefer higher unemployment?

While all these factors help WinCo compete with Walmart on price, what really might scare the world’s largest retailer is how WinCo treats its employees. In sharp contrast to Walmart, which regularly comes under fire for practices like understaffing stores to keep costs down and hiring tons of temporary workers as a means to avoid paying full-time workers benefits, WinCo has a reputation for doing right by employees. It provides health benefits to all staffers who work at least 24 hours per week. The company also has a pension, with employees getting an amount equal to 20% of their annual salary put in a plan that’s paid for by WinCo; a company spokesperson told the Idaho Statesman that more than 400 nonexecutive workers (cashiers, produce clerks and such) currently have pensions worth over $1 million apiece.

So... you would prefer that those temporary workers not get temporary employment? Hiring temps is legal, it's good business, and it helps people who aren't qualified or who are unable to find regular work to make some money in the interim.

As for understaffing: read the dates: That comes before the Temp article. Meaning: this is how WalMart deals with understaffing... by hiring more help for when it's needed.

WinCo provides more benefits to fewer people. Which is precisely the point I was putting across. By employing fewer people, you can pay more.

So, which is it? Do you want more people working, or fewer working for more money? Do you want to dictate that no one deserves part-time employment? The only alternative to hiring part-timers for peak hours is understaffing the stores or suffering big losses. If you were a small restaurant owner, would you hire an extra dozen waiters on a permanent basis if you only needed them on weekends? What's the cash flow like if you have more workers than customers?

You obviously aren't keeping up. The price rises would be tiny. The attractive boost is the fact that their own workers will be able to spend more with them. So they get it back.

Why would I buy from where I work if I could buy it cheaper outside? If you're working just above minimum wage, why would you spend extra on basic needs?

Remember: Discount retailers rely on low prices to attract business.

Just admit it. So far your objections to raising the minimum wage are
a) I'll have to pay an extra 20c for my happy meal

I don't care. I don't eat fast food. (Not often) And when I do, I buy my drinks from the grocery because I'm too cheap to pay good money for crappy vending machine drinks.

b) I have a vested interest in keeping the status quo

Seriously? Best you can come up with? Has my location changed to USA since I logged in? Do I suddenly have a million dollars in WalMart stocks in my $3,000 bank account?

c) I can't admit I'm wrong, my world would collapse

I can see how that would be a problem for you, if your world is truly that fragile.

d) .........................

Is Walmart the most ethical company on Earth? No. Should they change? Maybe. Because they lose market share if they don't, thanks to public perception.

Funnily enough, this doesn't affect me in the slightest, since I don't live in the US. The closest we have to Walmart here is a chain called SM, which hires almost its entire workforce on a contractual basis, renegotiated every year, has horrible labor relations with its workers, blatantly ignores building codes and zoning laws and screws its suppliers over in terms of payments (I have friends who they owe).

Do I shop there? As much as I possibly can, I don't. Because I'd rather my money not go to such a bloodsucking oepration. But guess what? These hardball tactics are effective at making them the biggest business in the country, and there are some items you just can't buy anywhere else, around here.

Sadly.

What Walmart does, on the other hand, paying the same wages as the competition and hiring temps for positions that are only needed during peak days, is just plain and simple business.

That's how things work. People would rather work minimum wage, or even as a temp rather than not work at all. It's not great, but the alternative is unemployment.

 

[Enemem]

Mine are:
It's immoral.

No it's not. You can't prove it. Want to talk morals - you lose.

It's anticompetitive.

No it's not. It's the same for anybody. And don't bring up that old chestnut of China will do it cheaper. Even they've got minimum wage.

It's destructive to national employment.

Got any evidence? Is it better to have everyone in work, but who can't afford to live.

It makes the country less appealing to foreign investment.

Great. Half of the USA is owned by China as it is.

Inflation.

Really? How?

You've not managed to pull up a single article to support your viewpoint or dismiss any of the economic points - and you won't manage to find anything that will disprove the first one.

It's not an economic argument, Millhouse, it's about people. And where is all your evidence, that support your argument?

 

[Omnis]

Yes, it's better to have everyone in work. How is this not getting through to you? Right now there are four guys panhandling every intersection in my town. One guy's sign actually says, "50 cents from 100 people is all I need." Really? That's $50 a day. He could make more than that working a $7/hour job and being productive instead of standing in the street baking in the sun all day long. But working for that pay is illegal thanks to minimum wage laws.

 

[Famine]

No it's not. You can't prove it.

Yes I can.

An individual has the right to determine the value of the efforts of their labour. An individual has the right to sell their labour to whomever they wish. The only moral approach is to allow the individual to sell their labour for their rate to whomever will buy it. Telling them they cannot value themselves below an arbitrary value is immoral.

No it's not. It's the same for anybody.

Well done for disagreeing and then agreeing in the very next sentence. Anti-competitive means not rewarding competitivity...

And don't bring up that old chestnut of China will do it cheaper. Even they've got minimum wage.

Bet you it's not £10/hr - and in the subsequent response you're now thinking of writing you'll explain exactly why that is to yourself and thus exactly why minimum wage is anti-competitive and answer your last two questions from this response.

Got any evidence?

Basic economics - unless you increase the available money pot you can't forcibly increase wages and not see a decrease in employment levels - leading to the exact situation you posted about in the first place, where a few people get richer at the expense of others getting poorer and also your more recent objection regarding the velocity of money.

Increasing the available money pot without increasing the resources (for which you need employment) leads to inflation.

Is it better to have everyone in work, but who can't afford to live.

What on Earth does this mean? The first part scans, but the second part is just weird.

And no, it's not necessarily better to have everyone in work. Some people can't work at all and some are not suited to work. What would be better is if everyone who could work was working in a job that suited their abilities - but then that would also be anti-competitive to an extent.

Great. Half of the USA is owned by China as it is.

Okay. That's not a rebuttal or relevant. So I'll take it you agree with that too.

Really? How?

Give some people more money and more people less money and you slow the velocity of money, causing deflation. Increase the money pot to offset it and you cause short-term reflation and long-term inflation.

To put it another way, you'll briefly have the same amount of money divided amongst far fewer people as companies can no longer maintain solvency and employment levels. To correct this you add more money which decreases the value of the money already in circulation, leading to more money divided against the same number of people originally but with a lower real value.

So you increase the minimum wage again...

It's not an economic argument

Of course it is.

Millhouse

Who? You seem to be getting confused.

it's about people.

It's about the financial activity of people. Economics.

And where is all your evidence, that support your argument?

Look up.

In the meantime, everything you post disagrees with you. You should be asking where your evidence is.

 

[Enemem]

OK, I'll try and keep it simple for you. You say, that economists say, that upping the minimum wage costs jobs. Which study are you using to justify this conclusion?

Here's mine -> http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

and

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

To borrow a phrase "you dismiss the evidence, but put forward a theory".

You're so convinced that you're right, that you can't even concede that you might be wrong.

Consider an irony. The financial crisis has rightly shaken the beliefs of many economists that financial markets can do no wrong because they are disciplined by competition. But faith in the competitive nature of labor markets seems unshakable in the teeth of evidence to the contrary. Markets (labor markets as well as financial markets) need to be regulated to work well, and the minimum wage is a legitimate weapon in the regulatory arsenal. Next time you read that minimum wages hikes inevitably destroy jobs – that you don’t need an economist to tell which way the labor market blows – remember that economic theory is no better than the veracity of the assumptions on which it rests.


And are you saying that if your wages were reduced, then the economy would be better?

Do you know what a sweatshop is, and should all businesses be run like this? It seems that you're argument says that the economy would be better, lots of people working in sweatshops. Marvelous.

Yes, it's better to have everyone in work. How is this not getting through to you? Right now there are four guys panhandling every intersection in my town. One guy's sign actually says, "50 cents from 100 people is all I need." Really? That's $50 a day. He could make more than that working a $7/hour job and being productive instead of standing in the street baking in the sun all day long. But working for that pay is illegal thanks to minimum wage laws.

In ancient Rome there was no unemployment. Slavery was quite effective in keeping everyone at work. Nice to see the economic experts in the states, have people begging on the streets. Maybe they make more after tax, national insurance etc. Is it illegal? Also you assume that he makes $50 per day. What if it were $500? You also assume that there way of living is incorrect. Really, who are you to judge someone else's life-choice (assuming it's a choice- if it's not, then you're even more at fault).

Listen to Robert Reich - his talk starts at 20 minutes, and I think you'll get my point a bit better.



His new hips story is enlightening.

 

[Famine]

OK, I'll try and keep it simple for you.

You can try, but you're overcomplicating things for yourself. As I said previously:

You've not managed to pull up a single article to support your viewpoint or dismiss any of the economic points - and you won't manage to find anything that will disprove the first one.

Feel free to try and demonstrate that someone may not be allowed to sell their time for whatever they see fit.

Incidentally, since you like irony:

Consider an irony. The financial crisis has rightly shaken the beliefs of many economists that financial markets can do no wrong because they are disciplined by competition. But faith in the competitive nature of labor markets seems unshakable in the teeth of evidence to the contrary. Markets (labor markets as well as financial markets) need to be regulated to work well

Were the financial markets that failed unregulated - free markets - or heavily regulated?

and the minimum wage is a legitimate weapon in the regulatory arsenal.

The financial crisis hit in August 2007. The G8 had employed this weapon by 1999. Some weapon.

Also, that's not irony, but then neither was your example.

And are you saying that if your wages were reduced, then the economy would be better?

This question doesn't seem to be relevant to anything. In any case, my wages are zero, so even if it were a relevant question it wouldn't be.

Do you know what a sweatshop is, and should all businesses be run like this? It seems that you're argument says that the economy would be better, lots of people working in sweatshops. Marvelous.

If an individual wishes to sell their time for sweatshop wages, they should be entirely permitted to. Remember, it's none of your business how someone values themselves.

Really, who are you to judge someone else's life-choice

When you suggest they cannot sell their time for less than an arbitrary value set by someone else, that's exactly what you're doing.

Alrighty then, take care, bye bye now.

 

[Zenith]

To borrow a phrase "you dismiss the evidence, but put forward a theory".

No minimum wage. This is something that is taught in Econ 101. It's a very simple question of whether or not you understand scarcity.

 

[Enemem]

No minimum wage. This is something that is taught in Econ 101. It's a very simple question of whether or not you understand scarcity.

So why is there a minimum wage then? Also where's your evidence? If economics is so brilliant then there must be at least a hundred studies backing it up. The world used to be flat, or was it just taught that way.

Economics - I'll put that in Room 101.

It's remarkable that this guy
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ate-both-sides-have-it-wrong/article16836873/

Gordon Betcherman is a professor in the School of International Development and Global Studies at the University of Ottawa. Before joining the university in 2009, he worked for 11 years at the World Bank.


Or

http://www.denverpost.com/nationwor...imillionaire-pushes-higher-state-minimum-wage

He dismisses the notion that countless jobs would evaporate, noting that most of the state's lower-wage jobs are in agriculture and the service sector, which can't be easily automated or transported elsewhere.

Ron Ruz

Age: 52, born in Los Angeles

Education: Harvard University, bachelor's degree, magna cum laude, 1983, studied theoretical physics and classical history; Cambridge University, England, 1983-84, Winston Churchill Foundation scholar, physics; Stanford University, doctoral study in physics, 1984-87.

Experience: 1987, founded Wall Street Analytics Inc., a financial services software company that was acquired by Moody's Corp. in 2006; 2006-13, publisher, The American Conservative magazine; 1999, ran briefly for U.S. Senate; 1998, spearheaded California proposition that dismantled state's bilingual education system; 1994, challenged Gov. Pete Wilson in Republican primary election, received 34 percent of the vote.

Is able to see both sides of the argument. I'm pretty sure that he would have agreed with what I'm saying, on at least one point. But not you guys. Stroll on. But hey, looking on the bright side, I've found some good articles, some entertaining video and an alternative viewpoint. You guys, not much.

You argue, on the basic economic principle that if the price of something goes up the demand will go down.That is a basic principle of economics but as with all economic principles it has the unstated assumption that everything else is equal. It's economics version of the elephant in the room.

 

[Zenith]

Nice job ignoring Famine.

So why is there a minimum wage then?

People like you who don't understand economics or human rights vote for politicians who don't understand economics or human rights. These politicians then go make policies (like minimum wage) that hurt the economy and human rights.

Also where's your evidence? If economics is so brilliant then there must be at least a hundred studies backing it up. The world used to be flat, or was it just taught that way.

You might notice that people feel the world owes them something for existing are more in favor of minimum wage increases than actual economists. Here's your token article.

http://www.maciverinstitute.com/201...ce-minimum-wage-hike-in-letter-to-washington/

It's remarkable that this guy
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ate-both-sides-have-it-wrong/article16836873/

Gordon Betcherman is a professor in the School of International Development and Global Studies at the University of Ottawa. Before joining the university in 2009, he worked for 11 years at the World Bank.

Is able to see both sides of the argument. I'm pretty sure that he would have agreed with what I'm saying, on at least one point. But not you guys. Stroll on. But hey, looking on the bright side, I've found some good articles, some entertaining video and an alternative viewpoint. You guys, not much.

Because there is no good side to minimum wage. Minimum wage hurts the people it's supposed to help. The only people minimum wage helps are outside sources like China and people who get to design the replacements for humans.

Think of minimum wage this way. The government is telling people that they are not allowed to have a job unless they find someone willing to pay them $X/hr. Pretty silly right? Sometimes jobs aren't worth that much money, and that person gets screwed. The higher you go with X, the more people you screw.

The person who you linked to has invested a considerable portion of their life into "International Development and Global Studies" and worked at a bank specifically designed to help poor people. You could easily write a 10 page paper full of BS reasoning, being long-winded does not make one correct.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationwor...imillionaire-pushes-higher-state-minimum-wage

He dismisses the notion that countless jobs would evaporate, noting that most of the state's lower-wage jobs are in agriculture and the service sector, which can't be easily automated or transported elsewhere.

Ron Ruz

That's hilarious, considering how much food you find on store shelves has been imported from China. There were also people saying the same thing about manufacturing 20 years ago. Look how that turned out.

Age: 52, born in Los Angeles

Education: Harvard University, bachelor's degree, magna cum laude, 1983, studied theoretical physics and classical history; Cambridge University, England, 1983-84, Winston Churchill Foundation scholar, physics; Stanford University, doctoral study in physics, 1984-87.

Experience: 1987, founded Wall Street Analytics Inc., a financial services software company that was acquired by Moody's Corp. in 2006; 2006-13, publisher, The American Conservative magazine; 1999, ran briefly for U.S. Senate; 1998, spearheaded California proposition that dismantled state's bilingual education system; 1994, challenged Gov. Pete Wilson in Republican primary election, received 34 percent of the vote.

Why would you post the credentials of somebody when it does nothing but harm your sources credibility? Are you even reading what you're copy-pasting?

Your tactic of piling up articles that you think support your point (but often don't) isn't very good since one could easily find hundreds of articles from experts and "experts" to support either point. You'll notice that I just did that above. Googling stuff is easy.

Bring actual reasoning instead of asking us to plow through pages upon pages of crappy reasoning from an unqualified source. I simply won't. The arguments aren't good enough for all that reading to be worth my time. Also considering it was clear that you hadn't even read the last article you posted, why would I bother?

You argue, on the basic economic principle that if the price of something goes up the demand will go down.That is a basic principle of economics but as with all economic principles it has the unstated assumption that everything else is equal. It's economics version of the elephant in the room.

I never said that. In fact, that's completely untrue. That was the very first "gotcha" question that I was asked when I took an introductory economics class.

You don't understand basic economic principles yet you feel qualified to argue with a bunch of people who do. Interesting.

 

[Enemem]

I thought this forum was for everybody. Not just "self-proclaimed" experts. Who says you know anything about economics? And if you're a qualified economics person, then you have a vested interest in economics, being seen to be working.

Sorry but the rest of your post isn't worth reading. Good way to communicate.

It's not about supply/demand. It's about moving the economy. Got any ideas or you just going to refute arguments illogically?

You say it's simple. Really, maybe that's your problem. Too simplistic, it's a model, that's all.

Who said market forces dictate wages. Wrong. Union workers get better pay than non-union. Not because of market forces, but because of bargaining power.

So if everyone's income went up would that benefit the economy? Or would it benefit the economy if everyone's income went down? That surely is economics 101, so should be easy to answer.

Economics is infallible then. No.

 

[Famine]

Who said market forces dictate wages. Wrong. Union workers get better pay than non-union. Not because of market forces, but because of

regulation.

Incidentally, that's not actually true in the UK either - your salary isn't dependent on what union you're in, or if you're in one at all.

 

[niky]

Economics is infallible then. No.

So why quote economists as your sources, then?

Here is a more... sober... look at WalMart and drastically increasing minimum wage.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/03/why-walmart-is-the-big-winner-in-dcs-min

Something, if you've ever managed a small business (like I did, briefly), you would understand.

Small increases in minimum wage, to keep up with inflationary pressures from overseas (rising petroleum costs, material costs, etecetera), are easy to cope with. A drastic increase in daily wage, however, is not something small retailers and business owners can absorb as easily as Walmart, which has the capacity to mass-hire temps or to shuffle regular employees around to where they're needed.