6 ms·

rising minimum wage makes for more spenders I don't see that at all. Raising the minimum wage results in people at the bottom losing their jobs, hence fewer s

by Dove 14y ago

rising minimum wage makes for more spenders I don't see that at all. Raising the minimum wage results in people at the bottom losing their jobs, hence fewer spenders. I can't imagine why on earth you'd think there would be more. Nor do you explain why you think the idea that it raises unemployment is 'intellectually stunted'. I find the argument that we would expect the minimum wage to increase unemployment, and the data indicating that it historically has done just that, to be persuasive. (A good presentation of the argument; I honestly find this video persuasive) http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/does-minimum-wage-hurt-workers http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/does-minimum-wage-hurt-wo... (Historical data) http://www.learnliberty.org/sites/default/files/Davies_0.pdf http://www.learnliberty.org/sites/default/files/Davies_0.pdf What do you think I'm missing?

superuser2 14y ago
The people who are actually necessary (worth the additional cost) can buy more things, and businesses in turn have more money.
- Dove 14y ago
  I'll accept the first proposition: the people who were earning below the minimum wage before, who keep their jobs, have more money to spend. (Limitation: I accept the argument that says if they are producing significantly more than they are paid, they will eventually be paid more anyway, so the gain is both temporary and small.) But balance against that against the fact that those who are laid off, whose businesses close down, or who are never hired in the first place, have much less money to spend. Is the first force is bigger than the second, and hence businesses would see more demand? You'd have to prove that to me. I don't have evidence or a strong opinion either way, but I consider it unlikely.
  - bluedanieru 14y ago
    >Limitation: I accept the argument that says if they are producing significantly more than they are paid, they will eventually be paid more anyway, so the gain is both temporary and small. Where the flying fuck have you been for the last 30 years?
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    My experience with minimum wage jobs is that employers like employees who would struggle to calculate their actual value.
rodgerd 14y ago
Henry Ford?
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
Hint: anyone preaching an economics based on moral dogma (ie: Learn "Liberty") is heavily biasing their economics lessons.
- Dove 14y ago
  Criticize the argument, not the name of the website.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    The problem with the argument is that their basic claim, at bottom of all of it, is, "Governments cannot make economic policy because it's immoral for them to do so. Any economic outcome produced by a government action is incorrect; any economic outcome produced by a 'free market' (and no, I can't point to a completely free market, it's a spectrum) is right. Thus, all positive aspects of actually-existing economies are thanks to the free market, and all negative aspects I can blame on the government." It's a completely typical example of utopian-totalitarian argumentation. We always apparently need one less marginal unit of government action, no matter how much we actually have at the moment, at least until real life looks like a Neal Stephenson novel. For a last point, if we really want to evaluate laissez-faire versus social democracy without resorting to moralization, we can. We simply have to agree on what desirable versus undesirable outcomes look like ahead of time, and then look at the various natural experiments (or even near-controlled experiments, as when Canada or Australia do one thing and the USA does another). We can argue about the quality of the experiments, but in the end, results will out.
    - Dove 14y ago
      You still aren't criticizing the argument. You're criticizing the motivations of the people who wrote it. Even if you're correct, even if the people who wrote it are against government action in every form (and they aren't, by the way!), the fact remains that I find their criticism of this particular government intervention persuasive. I find the argument persuasive. I'm absolutely not kidding about that. If you demonstrate the argument is invalid, you will change my mind. But since it's the argument, not the authors I find persuasive, it doesn't particularly matter why they believe it. I happen to think they're honest, but who knows? Maybe they're crazy or demon-possessed. I don't know. All I know is, what they said makes sense to me. -------- The argument, in a nutshell, is that minimum wage increases unemployment because some people are less productive than that. Some people are only making $8/hr worth of stuff, so requiring that they paid $9/hr is tantamount to making it illegal for them to work. Hence, unemployment. The data shows that there is a correlation between the minimum wage level and unemployment among lower-educated workers. That doesn't prove that the theory is correct, but it supports it pretty well. Those are the things you have to criticize if you want to change my mind (or persuade the folks reading along).

by Dove 14y ago

superuser2 14y ago

The people who are actually necessary (worth the additional cost) can buy more things, and businesses in turn have more money.

Dove 14y ago
I'll accept the first proposition: the people who were earning below the minimum wage before, who keep their jobs, have more money to spend. (Limitation: I accept the argument that says if they are producing significantly more than they are paid, they will eventually be paid more anyway, so the gain is both temporary and small.) But balance against that against the fact that those who are laid off, whose businesses close down, or who are never hired in the first place, have much less money to spend. Is the first force is bigger than the second, and hence businesses would see more demand? You'd have to prove that to me. I don't have evidence or a strong opinion either way, but I consider it unlikely.
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  >Limitation: I accept the argument that says if they are producing significantly more than they are paid, they will eventually be paid more anyway, so the gain is both temporary and small. Where the flying fuck have you been for the last 30 years?
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  My experience with minimum wage jobs is that employers like employees who would struggle to calculate their actual value.

rodgerd 14y ago

Henry Ford?

eli_gottlieb 14y ago

Hint: anyone preaching an economics based on moral dogma (ie: Learn "Liberty") is heavily biasing their economics lessons.

Dove 14y ago
Criticize the argument, not the name of the website.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  The problem with the argument is that their basic claim, at bottom of all of it, is, "Governments cannot make economic policy because it's immoral for them to do so. Any economic outcome produced by a government action is incorrect; any economic outcome produced by a 'free market' (and no, I can't point to a completely free market, it's a spectrum) is right. Thus, all positive aspects of actually-existing economies are thanks to the free market, and all negative aspects I can blame on the government." It's a completely typical example of utopian-totalitarian argumentation. We always apparently need one less marginal unit of government action, no matter how much we actually have at the moment, at least until real life looks like a Neal Stephenson novel. For a last point, if we really want to evaluate laissez-faire versus social democracy without resorting to moralization, we can. We simply have to agree on what desirable versus undesirable outcomes look like ahead of time, and then look at the various natural experiments (or even near-controlled experiments, as when Canada or Australia do one thing and the USA does another). We can argue about the quality of the experiments, but in the end, results will out.
  - Dove 14y ago
    You still aren't criticizing the argument. You're criticizing the motivations of the people who wrote it. Even if you're correct, even if the people who wrote it are against government action in every form (and they aren't, by the way!), the fact remains that I find their criticism of this particular government intervention persuasive. I find the argument persuasive. I'm absolutely not kidding about that. If you demonstrate the argument is invalid, you will change my mind. But since it's the argument, not the authors I find persuasive, it doesn't particularly matter why they believe it. I happen to think they're honest, but who knows? Maybe they're crazy or demon-possessed. I don't know. All I know is, what they said makes sense to me. -------- The argument, in a nutshell, is that minimum wage increases unemployment because some people are less productive than that. Some people are only making $8/hr worth of stuff, so requiring that they paid $9/hr is tantamount to making it illegal for them to work. Hence, unemployment. The data shows that there is a correlation between the minimum wage level and unemployment among lower-educated workers. That doesn't prove that the theory is correct, but it supports it pretty well. Those are the things you have to criticize if you want to change my mind (or persuade the folks reading along).