Minimum Wage destroys jobs--again!

[Snide]

Poor people take on the expense of purchasing food, yes? This statement of something being 'at the exspense of the poor' has no significance outside the platitudes of vote-for-me politics.

No it's not "at their expense" if they get food for it. It was an even trade.

I am purposely playing devil's advocate with you; we are in agreement that the phrase is too flawed/vague/whatever to use.

 

[Snide]

Since people have taken it upon themselves to completely distort what I was saying (as usual), let me put it this way:

Why would anyone take on the stress and hard work of, for example, managing a company when he could be doing any number of other things--maybe almost as fulfilling--that are far less stressful and risky?

Just a question...am I one of those people? If so, please quote where. Just curious...really.

To answer your question...pride and ego come to mind, for starters. And you said "maybe almost as fulfilling." Not "definitely," and not "100% as," but "maybe almost." That's a lot of speculation there. Anyway, certain egos preclude any notion of "as fulfilling" if it doesn't come with, say, a new title and position of more superiority. It happens all the time where I work at a lower level. People get a 5% raise for a title change, but with longer hours and much more than a 5% increase in stress. If they really just wanted the raise, they could have been a lot stressed and worked fewer extra hours by getting a job at the driving range, liquor store, etc.

 

[Tmy]

Heres an ineresting article about a couple of Washington/Idaho boarder towns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/u...=rssnyt&emc=rss

LIBERTY LAKE, Wash., Jan. 9 — Just eight miles separate this town on the Washington side of the state border from Post Falls on the Idaho side. But the towns are nearly $3 an hour apart in the required minimum wage. Washington pays the highest in the nation, just under $8 an hour, and Idaho has among the lowest, matching 21 states that have not raised the hourly wage beyond the federal minimum of $5.15.

Idaho teenagers cross the state line to work in fast-food restaurants in Washington, where the minimum wage is 54 percent higher. That has forced businesses in Idaho to raise their wages to compete.

 

[Chaos]

*snip*
That's what I was saying. Let me re-iterate that I'd consider leasure time a form of wealth.

Let me just say you´re on to something here.

In Agency Theory, instead of money we use the "benefit" that the agent, i.e. employee, derives from a contract. This of course increased with higher salary, but in not equal, and usually not proportional, to "money".
We also consider the work effort you have to put in to fulfill a contract to be a "hardship", i.e. a negative amount of benefit.
So, while leisure time is not, technically speaking, considered wealth, it definitely contributes to your benefit, inasmuch as a lack of leisure time (i.e. having to work) decreases your benefit.

Ahhh, you're an Econommunist. I see where you're coming from, but the interests of the individual are more important than the interests of the economy to me.

To a certain extent - although certainly not as much as "the economy" would want us to believe - the interests of the economy overlap with those of the individual.

 

[burnvictim77]

Ahhh, you're an Econommunist. I see where you're coming from, but the interests of the individual are more important than the interests of the economy to me.

The interest of the individual is all that there are. I was making a general observation as to the viability of a system where every one decide to pursue gay porn stardom instead of entreprenuership. Not that anyone should be forced to stay out of porn, mind you.

That doesn't mean they're not idiots.

Nor does it mean that people in gay porn are not idiots.

Pixies, fairies, trolls, viable communsim, god, unicorns. It's fun to spell out mythological creatures.

Ah, dismissiveness. It's been a while since that tactic was used.

Tell me, how can you value the interest of the individual and not support the Free Market?

 

[burnvictim77]

No it's not "at their expense" if they get food for it. It was an even trade.

I understand you are playing devil's advocate. But 'even trade' is a bit of a redundant phrase in my opinion. We trade because it is in our interest to do so. Otherwise, we would not trade if we saw no benefit from it.

 

[burnvictim77]

Heres an ineresting article about a couple of Washington/Idaho boarder towns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/u...=rssnyt&emc=rss

LIBERTY LAKE, Wash., Jan. 9 — Just eight miles separate this town on the Washington side of the state border from Post Falls on the Idaho side. But the towns are nearly $3 an hour apart in the required minimum wage. Washington pays the highest in the nation, just under $8 an hour, and Idaho has among the lowest, matching 21 states that have not raised the hourly wage beyond the federal minimum of $5.15.

Idaho teenagers cross the state line to work in fast-food restaurants in Washington, where the minimum wage is 54 percent higher. That has forced businesses in Idaho to raise their wages to compete.

Yes, causing costs to rise in Idaho, leading to inflation.

 

[shanek]

Ahhh, you're an Econommunist.

A what?

I see where you're coming from, but the interests of the individual are more important than the interests of the economy to me.

Why do you see them as separate? If someone can be encouraged to do something to help out a company, the people they employ, the investors, and the economy as a whole, just by charging some extra money for it, what's the problem?

 

[shanek]

Just a question...am I one of those people?

No.

To answer your question...pride and ego come to mind, for starters.

But if pride and ego can be put into motion to help a company, its employees, its investors, and the economy, just by paying some extra money for it, why not do it?

And you said "maybe almost as fulfilling." Not "definitely," and not "100% as," but "maybe almost." That's a lot of speculation there.

Of course. Any such undertaking is speculative.

 

[shanek]

So, here's an idea: if the MW is such a good thing, why not pass a law requiring all wages to be increased every year to adjust for inflation? Think it's a good idea?

(Hint: look what happened in Brazil when they tried that.)

 

[Tony]

The interest of the individual is all that there are. I was making a general observation as to the viability of a system where every one decide to pursue gay porn stardom instead of entreprenuership. Not that anyone should be forced to stay out of porn, mind you.

Of course, and said system would be just as unviable if everyone pursued entreprenuership.

Nor does it mean that people in gay porn are not idiots.

Yep.

Ah, dismissiveness. It's been a while since that tactic was used.

It's not dismissiveness. It's the conclusion to which I've come after participating in many discussions about the freemarket.

Tell me, how can you value the interest of the individual and not support the Free Market?

Because I think the individual should be entitled to things like bathroom breaks, a life away from work, a limit on required hours per week, weekends, time off, vacations, lunch hours, a fair wage ect.. In short, I think the individual shouldn't be a slave to his/her employer.

 

[Tony]

A what?

Pretty much a communist who, instead of subjugating the individual to the collective, subjugates the individual to the economy.

Why do you see them as separate?

Because they fundamentally are.

If someone can be encouraged to do something to help out a company, the people they employ, the investors, and the economy as a whole, just by charging some extra money for it, what's the problem?

I don't see how this question relates to anything I've said.

 

[burnvictim77]

Because I think the individual should be entitled to things like bathroom breaks, a life away from work, a limit on required hours per week, weekends, time off, vacations, lunch hours, a fair wage ect.. In short, I think the individual shouldn't be a slave to his/her employer.

Okay, I think we are both man enough to skip the bickering on the minor points.

Here's our real contention: 1. What are the rights of the individual?
Does an individual not have the right to make themselves more competitive by agreeing to work in conditions that others may choose not to (ie. gay porn, or work in a job that does not permit a break)?

2. Who is an individual?

Meaning - If I start a business, do I have different rights than my employees?

 

[Tony]

Heres an ineresting article about a couple of Washington/Idaho boarder towns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/u...=rssnyt&emc=rss

LIBERTY LAKE, Wash., Jan. 9 — Just eight miles separate this town on the Washington side of the state border from Post Falls on the Idaho side. But the towns are nearly $3 an hour apart in the required minimum wage. Washington pays the highest in the nation, just under $8 an hour, and Idaho has among the lowest, matching 21 states that have not raised the hourly wage beyond the federal minimum of $5.15.

Idaho teenagers cross the state line to work in fast-food restaurants in Washington, where the minimum wage is 54 percent higher. That has forced businesses in Idaho to raise their wages to compete.

Wait, are you telling us the minimum wage creates jobs?

 

[Tony]

Here's our real contention: 1. What are the rights of the individual?
Does an individual not have the right to make themselves more competitive by agreeing to work in conditions that others may choose not to (ie. gay porn, or work in a job that does not permit a break)?

Companies should be mandated to permit breaks and should be aggressively prosecuted for coercing, or encouraging employees to forego their breaks. However, the individual should remain free to work during the break should he/she want. Just like, although I think we need a 30-35 hour work week, people should still be free to work more if they want. In both instances, the choice is up to the individual alone.

The same goes for gay porn, if someone is willing to do it, they should have that right. But, outside of working in the gay porn industry of course, an individual shouldn't be coerced into being in a gay porn simply because their boss might decide one day to make that a condition of employment. So far, I have seen no protection in the "free market" that would prevent such a situation.

2. Who is an individual?

Meaning - If I start a business, do I have different rights than my employees?

Short answer yes. It's your business, you can do things with it that your employees can't.

 

[69dodge]

Not in any tangible, economic sense. Now, it may indirectly inspire others to become better producers (though, I'm not sure what sort of a book one would have to write to accomplish that, and it doesn't sound like one I'd read if that's the case). And indirrectly improve the economy, increasing overall wealth in our system. But your writing, itself, is not wealth until someone else values it with dollars.

I think you are conflating two different kinds of value. Wealth is more specific. It is something that people will trade for.

Odd.

What's so great about "inspir[ing] others to become better producers"? Producers of what? Stuff that people want, presumably. If people want to read what he writes, then he's already directly producing stuff that people want. Why the perceived need for an extra step?

If we all had magic wands we could wave, which could give us whatever we wanted, would you not agree that we'd all be very wealthy, even though no one would be paying anyone any money for anything?

As I see it, money is just to buy stuff I want. If stuff I want is available for free, then of course that's better, not worse. If you value nothing for itself, but rather consider that the sole purpose of everything is to be sold for as much money as you can sell it for, then what's the point of anything?

 

[burnvictim77]

Odd.

What's so great about "inspir[ing] others to become better producers"? Producers of what? Stuff that people want, presumably. If people want to read what he writes, then he's already directly producing stuff that people want. Why the perceived need for an extra step?

If we all had magic wands we could wave, which could give us whatever we wanted, would you not agree that we'd all be very wealthy, even though no one would be paying anyone any money for anything?

As I see it, money is just to buy stuff I want. If stuff I want is available for free, then of course that's better, not worse. If you value nothing for itself, but rather consider that the sole purpose of everything is to be sold for as much money as you can sell it for, then what's the point of anything?

I think you are trying to pick a fight here that I won't give you. Money is not the most important thing in my life, nor do I recommend people stop pursuing their art or entertainment.

It's just that we are talking about an economy, and my personal pursuits don't contribute as much to that economy as do things like my labor that I see to a business to produce goods and services people pay for.

 

[shanek]

It's not dismissiveness. It's the conclusion to which I've come after participating in many discussions about the freemarket.

Okay, then: why do you think a free market cannot exist?

Because I think the individual should be entitled to things like bathroom breaks, a life away from work, a limit on required hours per week, weekends, time off, vacations, lunch hours, a fair wage ect.. In short, I think the individual shouldn't be a slave to his/her employer.

They aren't. They can demand shorter hours, quit, whatever. I think it's an insult to the millions of people who really were enslaved when someone equates a Wal-Mart employee with slavery.

 

[burnvictim77]

Companies should be mandated to permit breaks and should be aggressively prosecuted for coercing, or encouraging employees to forego their breaks. However, the individual should remain free to work during the break should he/she want. Just like, although I think we need a 30-35 hour work week, people should still be free to work more if they want. In both instances, the choice is up to the individual alone.

The same goes for gay porn, if someone is willing to do it, they should have that right. But, outside of working in the gay porn industry of course, an individual shouldn't be coerced into being in a gay porn simply because their boss might decide one day to make that a condition of employment. So far, I have seen no protection in the "free market" that would prevent such a situation.



Short answer yes. It's your business, you can do things with it that your employees can't.

I'll have to get back to you on this one, for now I must pursue my art and my passion (seriously!).

But you are getting us started in a good direction. I will address these points.

 

[shanek]

Pretty much a communist who, instead of subjugating the individual to the collective, subjugates the individual to the economy.

How does one become subjugated to the economy?

Because they fundamentally are.

That's not an answer.

I don't see how this question relates to anything I've said.

It directly relates to the point at hand.