4 ms·

>But what makes you think the government should decide either? The default position in the US system is that the government does decide these things - you're a

>But what makes you think the government should decide either? The default position in the US system is that the government does decide these things - you're arguing against the status quo here, which is fine, but the way you are positioning this seems like you think this is an aberration from the norm. >What makes you think that the government is capable of discerning the correct number? The economists and advisers they (hopefully) listen to, they don't pluck it out of the air, they base it on a significant body of research that they deem to be the most correct (at least in a perfect world, ideology and the complexity of it complicates this of course). >And if you think there should be a single number, why should it be $15/hr vs $10, $20, $50, or $100? >How is it possible for a federal minimum wage to magically be "correct" for all combinations of: <snip> This is a fair point, a living wage in NY is very different to a living wage out in the middle of nowhere. You could argue that if people are so desperate for work they should be willing to move across the country for jobs in a cheaper place to live, but life is usually not that simple of course. Ultimately, one minimum wage that is deemed a living wage across the USA is better than the alternative in my view. But I'd definitely be amenable to arguments as to how better to base the living wage depending on the area. (Though no doubt that'd have its own difficulties). >The real minimum wage is always 0, for the workers that didn't get hired. Minimum wage laws are ultimately restrictions an individual's right to enter into a contract. I mean, sure, contracts have laws around them based on what is legal, what is regulated etc. That's par the course for a government/legal system. I can't just add arbitrary things into a contract that have been deemed to be illegal. Positioning it as a "restriction" does not make this particularly negative. I'm not sure I get the point here.

gwright 8y ago
I feel like you are making a category error here. I'm arguing that minimum wage restrictions are an unwise restriction on contracts and you in turn are objecting to that argument by pointing to the fact that we do indeed have restrictions/regulation of contract terms and therefore my criticism is invalid. At least that seems what you are saying towards the end of your message. Accepting that there are proper reasons to regulate contracts does not mean that any particular constraint is proper.
- JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
  That was one portion of my post disagreeing with the way I perceived you positioning your argument. There were other parts directly disagreeing with the overall point you were making.
  - gwright 8y ago
    Well, I just chose not to tackle all your points but... * the default position in the US is that the government should stay out of things (limited government), not that the government should regulate things (although we are rapidly moving away from the former and towards the latter) * believing that "economists" and "advisors" can discern an hourly wage number that balances supply and demand across all variables is just wrong as there is no way for the central authorities to have as much information as the market has (the collective group of buyers and sellers), distributive decision making trumps centralized decision making in this regard * Your belief that a centralized decision making process is "better than the alternative" suggests no limit to the scope of this power, this is dangerous. You also provide no justification for your preference for the centralized approach. You agree that there can't be a single number that works in all cases and yet refuse to give up on the idea that there still needs to be a single number. Why?
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > the default position in the US is that the government should stay out of things (limited government) Limited government means that the government stays within prescribed bounds, not that it stays out of things by default. How that applies to minimum wage depends on whether we’re talking about state or federal minimums, and the provisions (and one's interpretation of them) of the applicable constitution.
      - gwright 8y ago
        Of course it means that it stays out of the way by default. We have a legal system based on blacklisting things that aren't permitted not a legal system based on whitelisting things that are allowed. And furthermore we have a meta-blacklist of things the government isn't allowed to blacklist (i.e. government can't add prohibitions that infringe on individual rights and liberty, broadly speaking)

gwright 8y ago

I feel like you are making a category error here. I'm arguing that minimum wage restrictions are an unwise restriction on contracts and you in turn are objecting to that argument by pointing to the fact that we do indeed have restrictions/regulation of contract terms and therefore my criticism is invalid. At least that seems what you are saying towards the end of your message. Accepting that there are proper reasons to regulate contracts does not mean that any particular constraint is proper.

JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
That was one portion of my post disagreeing with the way I perceived you positioning your argument. There were other parts directly disagreeing with the overall point you were making.
- gwright 8y ago
  Well, I just chose not to tackle all your points but... * the default position in the US is that the government should stay out of things (limited government), not that the government should regulate things (although we are rapidly moving away from the former and towards the latter) * believing that "economists" and "advisors" can discern an hourly wage number that balances supply and demand across all variables is just wrong as there is no way for the central authorities to have as much information as the market has (the collective group of buyers and sellers), distributive decision making trumps centralized decision making in this regard * Your belief that a centralized decision making process is "better than the alternative" suggests no limit to the scope of this power, this is dangerous. You also provide no justification for your preference for the centralized approach. You agree that there can't be a single number that works in all cases and yet refuse to give up on the idea that there still needs to be a single number. Why?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > the default position in the US is that the government should stay out of things (limited government) Limited government means that the government stays within prescribed bounds, not that it stays out of things by default. How that applies to minimum wage depends on whether we’re talking about state or federal minimums, and the provisions (and one's interpretation of them) of the applicable constitution.
    - gwright 8y ago
      Of course it means that it stays out of the way by default. We have a legal system based on blacklisting things that aren't permitted not a legal system based on whitelisting things that are allowed. And furthermore we have a meta-blacklist of things the government isn't allowed to blacklist (i.e. government can't add prohibitions that infringe on individual rights and liberty, broadly speaking)