6 ms·

- How do you call a skilled laborer being fairly compensated for his work having a "plight"? - Also that laborer isn't being "brought down"; others are being "

- How do you call a skilled laborer being fairly compensated for his work having a "plight"? - Also that laborer isn't being "brought down"; others are being "lifted up." Others don't have to lose for you to win. And anyway, if the proponents of a higher minimum wage are correct, then this will result in a boom in the gross domestic product of LA as people who previously couldn't afford homes, appliances, or better food will be spending money on those things, increasing the income of LA businesses, which in fact would lead to rising wages for those skilled laborers you're so worried about… this is textbook Keynesian economics.

pdonis 11y ago
> this will result in a boom in the gross domestic product of LA At the expense of what? If you raise wages but don't increase productivity, you're just robbing one sector of society to pay another. And nobody has mentioned any change accompanying this that would increase productivity.
- Eric_WVGG 11y ago
  What makes you think productivity necessarily needs to be increased? The United States has the most productive workers in the world. There's plenty of wealth here to go around, and this "experiment" is happening because a lot of us believe that it isn't going around fairly. And stop acting like wealth redistribution is "robbing", unless you're willing to admit that when the rules changed from Keynesian guidelines in the 1950s to supply-side guidelines in the 1980s as "robbing" from the middle class and the poor.
  - pdonis 11y ago
    > What makes you think productivity necessarily needs to be increased? I wasn't saying it "needs" to be increased. I was saying that, if it doesn't increase, the value of whatever the workers are doing doesn't increase. So any increase in their wages means an increase in what they are being paid, relative to the value of what they are producing. Someone else has to make up that difference by accepting a decrease in the the value of what they are getting, relative to what they are paying for it--either they pay more for the same product, or they pay the same as before but get a product of less value. > stop acting like wealth redistribution is "robbing" Wealth redistribution in itself is not "robbing". I redistribute wealth every time I buy something. What is "robbing" is wealth redistribution disguised as something else, so the people whose wealth is being taken don't know it and don't make a voluntary choice to give it up.
    - zevyoura 11y ago
      > What is "robbing" is wealth redistribution disguised as something else, so the people whose wealth is being taken don't know it and don't make a voluntary choice to give it up. Do you object to taxes in general?
      - pdonis 11y ago
        > Do you object to taxes in general? Strictly speaking, I voluntarily choose to be taxed, because I vote for representatives that make laws that impose those taxes. So I can't say I object to taxes as robbery (though there are extreme libertarians who do view taxation that way).
        zevyoura 11y ago
        How is that different than if those representatives chose to enact tax laws that cause wealth distribution (as they currently do)?
        pdonis 11y ago
        Again, if elected representatives pass laws that take tax money and give it to people for various reasons--welfare programs--that's not robbery, strictly speaking, because people voluntarily elect the representatives knowing that they are going to redistribute wealth in this way. What's different about a minimum wage is that the wealth redistribution is covert, not overt. The government claims that the minimum wage won't take anything away from anybody. But it does.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >At the expense of what? Profits. >If you raise wages but don't increase productivity, you're just robbing one sector of society to pay another. Yes, won't somebody think of the poor Waltons. They've worked so hard for their money.
  - pdonis 11y ago
    > Profits. That's one possibility, yes. But if you think that Walmart, for example, is just going to roll over and accept decreased profits without trying to finagle a way out of it, you might want to think again. See below. > won't somebody think of the poor Waltons Who said they would be taking the hit? In fact, they're much more likely to figure out some way to have either their customers or the other companies in their supply chain take the hit.
    - crdoconnor 11y ago
      >That's one possibility, yes. But if you think that Walmart, for example, is just going to roll over and accept decreased profits without trying to finagle a way out of it Of course they won't. However, they know as well as anybody that their ability to finagle themselves out of it is limited to their ability to lobby and shape public opinion - against minimum wage hikes. >Who said they would be taking the hit? Economic studies on this generally all show that profits get hit first and hardest. Inflation happens in some industries, but only generally industries with wafer thin profit margins. If that phrase accurately described Walmart, the Waltons wouldn't be the richest family in America.
    - BrandonMarc 11y ago
      > Who said they would be taking the hit? In fact, they're much more likely to figure out some way to have either their customers or the other companies in their supply chain take the hit. Likely, both: * customers - pass the cost on via higher prices * suppliers - either force them to use overseas suppliers, or skip them and user overseas suppliers (where, conveniently, minimum wage, OSHA, ObamaCare(tm), etc etc etc simply don't apply)
- bdcravens 11y ago
  Haven't programmers been doing that for years? Pay me $75 an hour so I can reduce the number of $20/hour employees you need.
  - pdonis 11y ago
    Yes, software certainly increases productivity, and that often results in decreasing the need for low wage human workers. And if companies choose to respond this way to increases in the minimum wage, it's not going to increase the number of people who are able to make a living at low wage jobs, which was supposed to be the point of increasing the minimum wage.
Igglyboo 11y ago
Goods will become more expensive if the minimum wage goes up to $15, so yes that laborer is being "brought down".
- zevyoura 11y ago
  There will also be increased demand for the goods the skilled person is producing since more people can now afford them, so there is a counterbalance to that too.

pdonis 11y ago

> this will result in a boom in the gross domestic product of LA At the expense of what? If you raise wages but don't increase productivity, you're just robbing one sector of society to pay another. And nobody has mentioned any change accompanying this that would increase productivity.

Eric_WVGG 11y ago
What makes you think productivity necessarily needs to be increased? The United States has the most productive workers in the world. There's plenty of wealth here to go around, and this "experiment" is happening because a lot of us believe that it isn't going around fairly. And stop acting like wealth redistribution is "robbing", unless you're willing to admit that when the rules changed from Keynesian guidelines in the 1950s to supply-side guidelines in the 1980s as "robbing" from the middle class and the poor.
- pdonis 11y ago
  > What makes you think productivity necessarily needs to be increased? I wasn't saying it "needs" to be increased. I was saying that, if it doesn't increase, the value of whatever the workers are doing doesn't increase. So any increase in their wages means an increase in what they are being paid, relative to the value of what they are producing. Someone else has to make up that difference by accepting a decrease in the the value of what they are getting, relative to what they are paying for it--either they pay more for the same product, or they pay the same as before but get a product of less value. > stop acting like wealth redistribution is "robbing" Wealth redistribution in itself is not "robbing". I redistribute wealth every time I buy something. What is "robbing" is wealth redistribution disguised as something else, so the people whose wealth is being taken don't know it and don't make a voluntary choice to give it up.
  - zevyoura 11y ago
    > What is "robbing" is wealth redistribution disguised as something else, so the people whose wealth is being taken don't know it and don't make a voluntary choice to give it up. Do you object to taxes in general?
    - pdonis 11y ago
      > Do you object to taxes in general? Strictly speaking, I voluntarily choose to be taxed, because I vote for representatives that make laws that impose those taxes. So I can't say I object to taxes as robbery (though there are extreme libertarians who do view taxation that way).
      - zevyoura 11y ago
        How is that different than if those representatives chose to enact tax laws that cause wealth distribution (as they currently do)?
        pdonis 11y ago
        Again, if elected representatives pass laws that take tax money and give it to people for various reasons--welfare programs--that's not robbery, strictly speaking, because people voluntarily elect the representatives knowing that they are going to redistribute wealth in this way. What's different about a minimum wage is that the wealth redistribution is covert, not overt. The government claims that the minimum wage won't take anything away from anybody. But it does.
crdoconnor 11y ago
>At the expense of what? Profits. >If you raise wages but don't increase productivity, you're just robbing one sector of society to pay another. Yes, won't somebody think of the poor Waltons. They've worked so hard for their money.
- pdonis 11y ago
  > Profits. That's one possibility, yes. But if you think that Walmart, for example, is just going to roll over and accept decreased profits without trying to finagle a way out of it, you might want to think again. See below. > won't somebody think of the poor Waltons Who said they would be taking the hit? In fact, they're much more likely to figure out some way to have either their customers or the other companies in their supply chain take the hit.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >That's one possibility, yes. But if you think that Walmart, for example, is just going to roll over and accept decreased profits without trying to finagle a way out of it Of course they won't. However, they know as well as anybody that their ability to finagle themselves out of it is limited to their ability to lobby and shape public opinion - against minimum wage hikes. >Who said they would be taking the hit? Economic studies on this generally all show that profits get hit first and hardest. Inflation happens in some industries, but only generally industries with wafer thin profit margins. If that phrase accurately described Walmart, the Waltons wouldn't be the richest family in America.
  - BrandonMarc 11y ago
    > Who said they would be taking the hit? In fact, they're much more likely to figure out some way to have either their customers or the other companies in their supply chain take the hit. Likely, both: * customers - pass the cost on via higher prices * suppliers - either force them to use overseas suppliers, or skip them and user overseas suppliers (where, conveniently, minimum wage, OSHA, ObamaCare(tm), etc etc etc simply don't apply)
bdcravens 11y ago
Haven't programmers been doing that for years? Pay me $75 an hour so I can reduce the number of $20/hour employees you need.
- pdonis 11y ago
  Yes, software certainly increases productivity, and that often results in decreasing the need for low wage human workers. And if companies choose to respond this way to increases in the minimum wage, it's not going to increase the number of people who are able to make a living at low wage jobs, which was supposed to be the point of increasing the minimum wage.

Igglyboo 11y ago

Goods will become more expensive if the minimum wage goes up to $15, so yes that laborer is being "brought down".

zevyoura 11y ago
There will also be increased demand for the goods the skilled person is producing since more people can now afford them, so there is a counterbalance to that too.