3 ms·

No. You've transfered from customers/restaurant owners/unemployed to the workers. The unemployed get unemployment, which is a transfer from the workers. There

by acover 9y ago

No. You've transfered from customers/restaurant owners/unemployed to the workers. The unemployed get unemployment, which is a transfer from the workers. There are smarter people than us who are debating this. Maybe you shouldn't hold this opinion so strongly. Edit: Downvotes for what?

malandrew 9y ago
> There are smarter people than us who are debating this. Maybe you shouldn't hold this opinion so strongly. An ad hominem is not an argument. If we're going with logical fallacies to make our case, I'm going to appeal to authority: I understand this pretty well as I used to work directly on macro-economic reports at the largest broker dealer in Latin America upon which many international institutional investors based their investment decisions. Unfortunately, the citizens of the country whose economy I covered (Brazil) didn't understand these economics issues (among many), which among the reasons why its economy has contracted over 3% for the past 2+ years. You're assuming that it's a strict wealth transfer where the size of the pie stays the same. It does not. The pie gets smaller when you reduce economic activity, which raising the minimum wage accomplishes as it eliminates jobs and puts businesses out of business. You can lie to yourself by using welfare to prop things up, but that doesn't work so well when the amount of taxes you collect to fund your welfare state drops as the economy shrinks. Eventually that gravy train runs out of steam.
- acover 9y ago
  I didn't assume that. I was just correcting your statement about what transfers were occurring. I do not consider myself an expert on this topic. It's good that you do. However, your evidence is weak. You have made a leap from restaurant exits to minimum wage is bad for the workers. That there is disagreement among people better informed than I suggests I shouldn't hold my opinion strongly without good reason.

by acover 9y ago

malandrew 9y ago

> There are smarter people than us who are debating this. Maybe you shouldn't hold this opinion so strongly. An ad hominem is not an argument. If we're going with logical fallacies to make our case, I'm going to appeal to authority: I understand this pretty well as I used to work directly on macro-economic reports at the largest broker dealer in Latin America upon which many international institutional investors based their investment decisions. Unfortunately, the citizens of the country whose economy I covered (Brazil) didn't understand these economics issues (among many), which among the reasons why its economy has contracted over 3% for the past 2+ years. You're assuming that it's a strict wealth transfer where the size of the pie stays the same. It does not. The pie gets smaller when you reduce economic activity, which raising the minimum wage accomplishes as it eliminates jobs and puts businesses out of business. You can lie to yourself by using welfare to prop things up, but that doesn't work so well when the amount of taxes you collect to fund your welfare state drops as the economy shrinks. Eventually that gravy train runs out of steam.

acover 9y ago
I didn't assume that. I was just correcting your statement about what transfers were occurring. I do not consider myself an expert on this topic. It's good that you do. However, your evidence is weak. You have made a leap from restaurant exits to minimum wage is bad for the workers. That there is disagreement among people better informed than I suggests I shouldn't hold my opinion strongly without good reason.