Minimum Wage destroys jobs--again!

[Roadtoad]

They like to misunderstand Adam Smith´s old adage that, paraphrasing, if everybody just looks out for themselves, everybody is taken care of.
What Smith meant is that, if everybody maximizes his own benefits, the economy does well, as if guided by an invisible hand. It´s not surprising that those who have to gain from that misunderstanding take this to mean that, if they´re just as greedy as they can, nobody needs this whole "responsibility" stuff.

All the more reason people ought to get back to basics and actually read Smith. (Looking for inexpensive books around here.) In the meantime, I'm reading Origins of the Crash. Fascinating stuff, there. While there are a few heroes, the reality is that far too many are willing to do what others are, simply because everyone else is doing it. (Reminds me of the old line from your mother, "If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you do it, too?")

 

[Chaos]

All the more reason people ought to get back to basics and actually read Smith. (Looking for inexpensive books around here.) In the meantime, I'm reading Origins of the Crash. Fascinating stuff, there. While there are a few heroes, the reality is that far too many are willing to do what others are, simply because everyone else is doing it. (Reminds me of the old line from your mother, "If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you do it, too?")

I´m not too sure they honestly misunderstand it, instead of intentionally misinterpreting it in a way that might *look* like a misunderstanding. We are, after all, talking about politicians and managers here, two species which are not exactly famous for honesty and moral fiber.

But you haven´t seen weirdness until you´ve read what the ancient Greeks - Plato and Aristotle in particular - had to say on the subject. For example, there is the notion that there are natural and unnatural professions, natural being the ones which occur among animals - hunting, fishing, farming, herding, and robbery; they state that it is immoral to make money with any of the unnatural professions (such as craftsman or trader).
They do not, however, state into which category "philosopher" falls.

 

[Roadtoad]

I´m not too sure they honestly misunderstand it, instead of intentionally misinterpreting it in a way that might *look* like a misunderstanding. We are, after all, talking about politicians and managers here, two species which are not exactly famous for honesty and moral fiber.

But you haven´t seen weirdness until you´ve read what the ancient Greeks - Plato and Aristotle in particular - had to say on the subject. For example, there is the notion that there are natural and unnatural professions, natural being the ones which occur among animals - hunting, fishing, farming, herding, and robbery; they state that it is immoral to make money with any of the unnatural professions (such as craftsman or trader).
They do not, however, state into which category "philosopher" falls.

Valid point. Makes me wonder where "Trucker" falls, or worse, "Software Engineer."

You're right, though, about politicians. I used to have some respect for Joseph Lieberman. Then I read about his activities in the Senate regarding Federal laws and stock options. Rod Serling would be having a field day with this one; I know for sure that Art Buchwald would.

 

[BPSCG]

The bottom line is that while I don't mind if the neighbour's kid cuts your lawn for less than $5.15, no, it's not a real job, it should not be considered a real job, and if people are doing such things instead of working a real job, this is harmful for the overall economy.

It is? News flash: Real people really do cut real lawns for a living in real life. That's not a real job? They're hurting the economy by mowing lawns? Explain how.

It's also a typical example of what Adam Smith would call an 'unproductive' job.

What, providing services is "unproductive"? Tell that to your doctor and the guy who collects your trash.

Lack of wisdom is unfortunately not limited to the government. Additionally, just because it may be profitable for the employer, doesn't mean it is productive for the overall economy. It only means they got somebody to pay for what may well be unproductive work.

You really need to explain what you mean by this strange term, "unproductive work," because I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's not really true in practice. Lots of people are working well and hard without ever getting promoted, perhaps because the boss doesn't like them.

Uh-huh. But you were saying they are being kept in unproductive jobs. Disregarding for the moment your use of this strange term, "unproductive jobs," nobody is forcing them to stay; indeed, what on Earth would induce you to stay at a minimum wage job where the boss is blocking your chance at advancement? There's another McDonald's or Starbucks or Wal-Mart just down the street.

There is also the incentive for an employer to keep someone who is doing well in doing what they currently do. For example, a person employing a burger flipper may not need another manager. Maybe the employer is the manager. Just because the burger flipper seems to learn fast and always flips burgers well, there's no guarantee they'll be good at something else. So better keep them flipping burgers indefinitely.

Actually, that's incorrect. In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. It's a well-established principle.

The price of gas around here is about 65% taxes, what's your point?

My point is that labor is the only cost of doing business for which government seems to believe it knows the proper price. Given that government all too often has trouble finding its head on its shoulders with its bare hands, I consider this to be a pretty far-fetched belief.

 

[Chaos]

Valid point. Makes me wonder where "Trucker" falls, or worse, "Software Engineer."

There are some insects, a "caste" of termites I think, that basically exist to carry loads - so "Trucker" has its equivalent in natures and is a natural profession. Anyway they said trade between cities was not bad (like a coastal city selling fish to an inland city), but trade within a city (that is, people who *only* trade, like a merchant buying fish from fishermen and then selling it to consumers) was bad.
Software engineers are craftsmen (sort of), I suppose, so they´d be considered unnatural - IF we could make Plato understand what "software" is.

 

[burnvictim77]

IF we could make Plato understand what "software" is.

If got him warmed up in the interrogation cell, if you want to give it a go.

 

[Merko]

You really need to explain what you mean by this strange term, "unproductive work," because I have no idea what you're talking about.

Try Smith's explanation in "Of the Accumulation of Capital, or of productive and unproductive Labour" (book II, chapter III).

Uh-huh. But you were saying they are being kept in unproductive jobs. Disregarding for the moment your use of this strange term, "unproductive jobs," nobody is forcing them to stay; indeed, what on Earth would induce you to stay at a minimum wage job where the boss is blocking your chance at advancement? There's another McDonald's or Starbucks or Wal-Mart just down the street.

I think your mistake here is in seeing things only from the perspective of the individual. Of course, the perspective of the individual must never be forgotten, but we also cannot forget the macroeconomic perspective. The market economy does not work on an individual level.

I would contend that force does not have to be absoute in order to be force. The force of gravity is there, even if we are able to rise. Likewise, a force keeping us in unproductive jobs may be there, even if some of us manage to escape it. The results of the force become apparent on the macro level. If a lot of people keep working in jobs that are unproductive for the overall economy, and getting lousy pay too individually, then there must be some force that keeps them there.

Actually, that's incorrect. In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. It's a well-established principle.

No, it's a controverial theory, competing with, for example, the Dilbert principle, which states that incompetent employees tend to be promoted to managers because then they won't do so much damage because they don't do actual work. There is probably truth to both theories. Additionally, your theory (the Peter principle) doesn't help your case in any way, because if this principle always applied, all management would be incompetent, which fortunately is not true. Both the Peter principle and the Dilbert principle aim to explain why things often go wrong.

It certainly sometimes happen that competent people get promoted. From this it does not follow, however, that all competent people get promoted sooner or later.

My point is that labor is the only cost of doing business for which government seems to believe it knows the proper price.

And as my example shows, you are wrong. True, there is no law here that says you can't sell gas lower than a certain limit, but in effect you couldn't go below about a dollar per litre because then the tax part would approach 100% of the price due to fixed carbon dioxide taxes.