3 ms·

Sure, double down and pull out the straw d man.

opo 5y ago
Please don't misrepresent what I wrote - that is arguing in bad faith. You simply wrote "Minimum wage increase do not increase unemployment." I pointed out "Small changes in the minimum wage will have minimal changes in short term total unemployment - less productive workers will have a harder time competing as more desirable workers will now compete with them and longer term there will be a bigger incentive to switch to automation to remove workers. Economists think larger increases in the minimum wage though will effect total unemployment as the law of supply of demand still holds. As one example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated a national $15 minimum would cause employment to be reduced by 1.4 million workers." You then respond with an insult and a link to the Nobel prize about the research showing that small increases in the minimum wage don't have an effect on employment levels and that sometimes higher pay would also attract more applicants, boosting labor supply. I pointed our that this was exactly what I said. Those 'more applicants' they refer to are why I said in the longer term less productive workers will have a harder time competing as more desirable workers will now compete with them - that won't be reflected in overall employment but it will hurt the most vulnerable workers. I also pointed out that "the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated a national $15 minimum would cause employment to be reduced by 1.4 million workers." While small increases of the minimum age won't have a major effect on employment you are acting as if you think that it would not be possible that increasing the minimum wage by over 100% could have no effect on employment. If everyone is already earning over $15 an hour it wouldn't have an effect, but for example, the wage rates in San Francisco are much higher than rural Mississippi. If you don't think a >100% increase could have an effect, please explain why you are right and economists at the CBO are wrong. You then falsely claim I am making a straw man argument. No, I am not - I pointed out that while small increases won't have a noticeable effect on employment level, economists think a large increase can have a direct effect on employment or otherwise economists would simply propose making a $100 minimum wage. If you don't think that a minimum wage can ever affect employment levels then say so, if you think there is some level where it would affect employment levels, then what is that level and how did you decide what that level is?
- pnutjam 5y ago
  I see you're really dedicated. Try this, click my link, press ctrl+f and type "small", hmm.... 0 hits. Strange if you search "increase", you get 7 hits. Let's further break down your post. economists think... (conjecture) ...a large increase can have a direct effect on employment... - ( 72% used to, now only 46% do. per my link) ...or otherwise economists would simply propose making a $100 minimum wage... (the most classic case of Straw Man ever. Who is proposing this huge increase?)
  - opo 5y ago
    >( 72% used to, now only 46% do. per my link) They are referring to the typical small increase in minimum wage that has been done for the last few decades. You seem to hold very very strong views for someone who found a press release. >......or otherwise economists would simply propose making a $100 minimum wage... (the most classic case of Straw Man ever. Who is proposing this huge increase?) This is exactly my point. If economists believed that a large increase could have no effect on employment levels, they would propose raising the minimum wage to say $100 an hour. Since they haven't proposed that, that means that they do believe that a large increase would directly impact employment levels. This really shouldn't be that hard for you to understand. If you don't think that a minimum wage can ever affect employment levels then say so, if you think there is some level where it would affect employment levels, then what is that level and how did you decide what that level is?
    - pnutjam 5y ago
      $100 would not cause the problems your positing, it would cause other problems. It would create a massive disruption in pricing and pay rates. That argument is dead stupid. I'm not sure why you're doubling down on it. Economists are not proposing massive changes, because economics is mostly about justifying current systems and getting paid by the wealthy.
      - opo 5y ago
        >...economics is mostly about justifying current systems and getting paid by the wealthy. My advice would be to take an economics class.

opo 5y ago

Please don't misrepresent what I wrote - that is arguing in bad faith. You simply wrote "Minimum wage increase do not increase unemployment." I pointed out "Small changes in the minimum wage will have minimal changes in short term total unemployment - less productive workers will have a harder time competing as more desirable workers will now compete with them and longer term there will be a bigger incentive to switch to automation to remove workers. Economists think larger increases in the minimum wage though will effect total unemployment as the law of supply of demand still holds. As one example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated a national $15 minimum would cause employment to be reduced by 1.4 million workers." You then respond with an insult and a link to the Nobel prize about the research showing that small increases in the minimum wage don't have an effect on employment levels and that sometimes higher pay would also attract more applicants, boosting labor supply. I pointed our that this was exactly what I said. Those 'more applicants' they refer to are why I said in the longer term less productive workers will have a harder time competing as more desirable workers will now compete with them - that won't be reflected in overall employment but it will hurt the most vulnerable workers. I also pointed out that "the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated a national $15 minimum would cause employment to be reduced by 1.4 million workers." While small increases of the minimum age won't have a major effect on employment you are acting as if you think that it would not be possible that increasing the minimum wage by over 100% could have no effect on employment. If everyone is already earning over $15 an hour it wouldn't have an effect, but for example, the wage rates in San Francisco are much higher than rural Mississippi. If you don't think a >100% increase could have an effect, please explain why you are right and economists at the CBO are wrong. You then falsely claim I am making a straw man argument. No, I am not - I pointed out that while small increases won't have a noticeable effect on employment level, economists think a large increase can have a direct effect on employment or otherwise economists would simply propose making a $100 minimum wage. If you don't think that a minimum wage can ever affect employment levels then say so, if you think there is some level where it would affect employment levels, then what is that level and how did you decide what that level is?

pnutjam 5y ago
I see you're really dedicated. Try this, click my link, press ctrl+f and type "small", hmm.... 0 hits. Strange if you search "increase", you get 7 hits. Let's further break down your post. economists think... (conjecture) ...a large increase can have a direct effect on employment... - ( 72% used to, now only 46% do. per my link) ...or otherwise economists would simply propose making a $100 minimum wage... (the most classic case of Straw Man ever. Who is proposing this huge increase?)
- opo 5y ago
  >( 72% used to, now only 46% do. per my link) They are referring to the typical small increase in minimum wage that has been done for the last few decades. You seem to hold very very strong views for someone who found a press release. >......or otherwise economists would simply propose making a $100 minimum wage... (the most classic case of Straw Man ever. Who is proposing this huge increase?) This is exactly my point. If economists believed that a large increase could have no effect on employment levels, they would propose raising the minimum wage to say $100 an hour. Since they haven't proposed that, that means that they do believe that a large increase would directly impact employment levels. This really shouldn't be that hard for you to understand. If you don't think that a minimum wage can ever affect employment levels then say so, if you think there is some level where it would affect employment levels, then what is that level and how did you decide what that level is?
  - pnutjam 5y ago
    $100 would not cause the problems your positing, it would cause other problems. It would create a massive disruption in pricing and pay rates. That argument is dead stupid. I'm not sure why you're doubling down on it. Economists are not proposing massive changes, because economics is mostly about justifying current systems and getting paid by the wealthy.
    - opo 5y ago
      >...economics is mostly about justifying current systems and getting paid by the wealthy. My advice would be to take an economics class.