missouri passes state law forcing cities to lower their minimum wage

[Loren Pechtel]

You may be right that it is not obviously above the point where we can tell it is doing harm due to the challenges of measuring such things, but fortunately we still have economic theory to tell us it is.

I don't trust theory as a replacement for empiricism.

The only minimum wage that does not do harm is one set below the point where anyone would voluntarily accept it.

Can you prove that, or is it just something you derived from economic theory?

And we know that empiricism simply doesn't handle the big issues.

- - - Updated - - -

As a side note. Here is a study that is saying there is an increase in number of health code violates as minimum wage increases.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2992783

No surprise. When you force workers to be overpaid you get mistreatment of workers.

 

[bilby]

No, I'm not. I never said profits were infinite; in fact, I specifically said that there is a point above which the minimum wage would be detrimental to the economy as a whole. In a later reply, I said that $1000 is obviously above this point, but $15 is not.

You are simply assuming businesses can fund the minimum wage you desire from profit. That only makes sense if the pool is infinite.

...or if the minimum wage he desires is within the amount that can be funded from profit.

Your fucking stupid astonishingly persistent claim that the pool needs to be infinite only holds true if the desired minimum wage is infinite; Which it clearly isn't.

 

[DBT]

Nope. Its the pay rate that make the difference. It being relatively easier ( a monumental understatement) to get by on a salary package of five million per annum with bonuses, save money, buy property, invest in business, etc, than for someone who earns twenty thousand a year with no bonuses or benefits.

It's all about income. Which is not to say that there aren't bad money managers at every pay scale, but that's not the point.

The pay rate makes it easier to save but I've known savers with moderate incomes and spenders with very large incomes.

If the cost of living for a couple living in Melbourne is calculated to be at $800pw and there is a couple who happen to have a combined earnings of $800pw, an income that virtually matches the cost of living, this makes the possibility of saving virtually impossible, unless they sleep on a park bench to save on housing or forgo eating for one or two days a week....which does not compare with the potential savings for couple with combined earnings of $1800 plus.

 

[dismal]

1. Raising the price of carrots means people can just buy them from somewhere else or not buy carrots, but a society-wide increase in the minimum price of labor will not allow employers to get it cheaper anywhere else, and they can't just not buy labor

Yes, they can. Have you ever actually been around when a decision of whether to hire someone has been discussed? I can't imagine this sort of belief could withstand the first contact with reality. There is not some stone tablet delivered from above that contains a list of the jobs that are needed. Employers constantly evaluate and re-evaluate what labor they do and don't need. When the price of labor goes up, more jobs get scratched from the list. More firms fail. There is always some job at the margin.

2. More expensive carrots means more disposable income in the hands of carrot growers/sellers, which is not likely to have much of a stimulative effect on the economy as a whole. More disposable income in the hands of all minimum wage workers is likely to have a large enough stimulative effect that it can offset the negative impact on employers

Every additional dollar in the hands of a worker due to an increase in minimum wage is a dollar taken out of the pocket of someone else. If Stan's Burger Stand is hit with a minimum wage increase it will do one or more of the following 1) raise burger prices, 2) cut staff, 3) earn less money. 2 results in less money in the pocket of minimum wage earners. Maybe this is offset by more money in the hands of those who keep their jobs and their hours, maybe not. 1 results in less money in the pocket of people who purchase goods in establishments that hire minimum wage employees. 3 results in less money in the pockets of people who hire minimum wage employees. The net money in the system is not changed at all, but the people who drive the hiring of minimum wage employees certainly have less of it.

 

[dismal]

Just remember there is no substitute for human labor!

Are goats taking jobs from union workers?

A battle is brewing at Western Michigan University this summer between a group of hungry goats and a labor union.

The 400-member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has filed a grievance contending that the work the goats are doing in a wooded lot is taking away jobs from laid-off union workers.

"AFSCME takes protecting the jobs of its members very seriously and we have an agreed-upon collective bargaining agreement with Western Michigan," said Union President Dennis Moore. "We expect the contract to be followed, and in circumstances where we feel it's needed, we file a grievance."

The grievance alleges that the university did not notify the union that it was planning to use goat crews on campus, according to a chief steward report supplied to the Battle Creek Enquirer.

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/story/news/2017/07/06/goats-taking-jobs-union-workers/455237001/

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes, they can. Have you ever actually been around when a decision of whether to hire someone has been discussed?

Have YOU? Based on your responses, I'm guessing you have not.

There is always some job at the margin.

And employers are very VERY slow to hire for the marginal jobs whether wages are high or not. That is the nature of marginal jobs: the people who do them are disposable, as are their positions.

But minimum wage jobs are not always marginal. A business that depends on low wages to maintain its profit margins at a particular rate is keeping those wages low whether they are marginal or not, either because they think they can get away with it, or because the business ITSELF is marginal.

A business that is so tight on the margins that it cannot survive a wage hike will (and should) fail to make room in the market for someone who has their shit together. A business that isn't so strapped for cash that it can afford the increase SHOULD sustain the increase for the good of the economy as a whole.

Every additional dollar in the hands of a worker due to an increase in minimum wage is a dollar taken out of the pocket of someone else.

And yet minimum wage workers are a lot more likely to SPEND that money than the company/corporation/employer who would have recorded it as profit. Consumer spending drives FAR greater demand for goods and services than corporate profits do. Partially this is because MOST goods and services in local economies cater to consumer needs, not corporate needs, but mostly it's because companies are incentivized to SAVE their profits rather than immediately spend them. Minimum wage employees may not be able to save anything at all since they still have to eat and pay their bills.


Now as to the question you didn't answer:
Can you think of anyone who would be HARMED by reducing the minimum wage to $0, and why is that harm less important to society than the benefits you mentioned?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are simply assuming businesses can fund the minimum wage you desire from profit. That only makes sense if the pool is infinite.

...or if the minimum wage he desires is within the amount that can be funded from profit.

Your fucking stupid astonishingly persistent claim that the pool needs to be infinite only holds true if the desired minimum wage is infinite; Which it clearly isn't.

You aren't paying attention.

The key point that your side is refusing to look at is that you are not attempting to consider whether the company can afford it or not, you are taking it on faith that they can.

If you can draw from a resource with no regard for the possibility of drawing too much you must consider the resource infinite.

Hence the infinite pool of profits.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The pay rate makes it easier to save but I've known savers with moderate incomes and spenders with very large incomes.

If the cost of living for a couple living in Melbourne is calculated to be at $800pw and there is a couple who happen to have a combined earnings of $800pw, an income that virtually matches the cost of living, this makes the possibility of saving virtually impossible, unless they sleep on a park bench to save on housing or forgo eating for one or two days a week....which does not compare with the potential savings for couple with combined earnings of $1800 plus.

And there's something magical about the figure that's it's exact and the same for everyone?

- - - Updated - - -

Every additional dollar in the hands of a worker due to an increase in minimum wage is a dollar taken out of the pocket of someone else. If Stan's Burger Stand is hit with a minimum wage increase it will do one or more of the following 1) raise burger prices, 2) cut staff, 3) earn less money. 2 results in less money in the pocket of minimum wage earners. Maybe this is offset by more money in the hands of those who keep their jobs and their hours, maybe not. 1 results in less money in the pocket of people who purchase goods in establishments that hire minimum wage employees. 3 results in less money in the pockets of people who hire minimum wage employees. The net money in the system is not changed at all, but the people who drive the hiring of minimum wage employees certainly have less of it.

You gotta have faith!! If they weren't greedy scumbags they would take option #3.

Never mind if Stan is barely scraping by as it is.

 

[laughing dog]

...or if the minimum wage he desires is within the amount that can be funded from profit.

Your fucking stupid astonishingly persistent claim that the pool needs to be infinite only holds true if the desired minimum wage is infinite; Which it clearly isn't.

You aren't paying attention.

The key point that your side is refusing to look at is that you are not attempting to consider whether the company can afford it or not, you are taking it on faith that they can.

If you can draw from a resource with no regard for the possibility of drawing too much you must consider the resource infinite.

That does not follow. One may not care about the resource. Or that there is a disagreement about the capability of the resource to handle the increase (which does not necessarily mean there is no regard for its ability).

Hence your meme of "infinite pool of profits" is the result of poor reasoning.

 

[DBT]

If the cost of living for a couple living in Melbourne is calculated to be at $800pw and there is a couple who happen to have a combined earnings of $800pw, an income that virtually matches the cost of living, this makes the possibility of saving virtually impossible, unless they sleep on a park bench to save on housing or forgo eating for one or two days a week....which does not compare with the potential savings for couple with combined earnings of $1800 plus.

And there's something magical about the figure that's it's exact and the same for everyone?

Obviously it was an example showing that pay rate counts when it comes to the ability to put money away and build a surplus, allowing the possibility to build wealth.

Minimum rate of pay barely covers the most basic of living expenses, so unless something changes, this basic rate of pay excludes the possibility of building wealth in the short, medium or long term.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You aren't paying attention.

The key point that your side is refusing to look at is that you are not attempting to consider whether the company can afford it or not, you are taking it on faith that they can.

If you can draw from a resource with no regard for the possibility of drawing too much you must consider the resource infinite.

That does not follow. One may not care about the resource. Or that there is a disagreement about the capability of the resource to handle the increase (which does not necessarily mean there is no regard for its ability).

Hence your meme of "infinite pool of profits" is the result of poor reasoning.

Then you don't care if the business world survives or not.

 

[laughing dog]

That does not follow. One may not care about the resource. Or that there is a disagreement about the capability of the resource to handle the increase (which does not necessarily mean there is no regard for its ability).

Hence your meme of "infinite pool of profits" is the result of poor reasoning.

Then you don't care if the business world survives or not.

You need to explain how showing that your meme about the "infinite pool of profits" is false means that one does not care if the business world survives or not, because I can see no necessary connection.

Of course, one would have to be either very drunk or very stupid to seriously imply that a particular minimum wage threatens the very existence of "the business world", so perhaps I misunderstood your post. Would you please rephrase it so that it does not appear nonsensical?

 

[LordKiran]

That does not follow. One may not care about the resource. Or that there is a disagreement about the capability of the resource to handle the increase (which does not necessarily mean there is no regard for its ability).

Hence your meme of "infinite pool of profits" is the result of poor reasoning.

Then you don't care if the business world survives or not.

Guys it finally happened, Our Loren Pechtel broke and the warranty just ran out.

 

[none]

it seems only the business that aren't profitable enough to have employees are the ones that would suffer

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then you don't care if the business world survives or not.

You need to explain how showing that your meme about the "infinite pool of profits" is false means that one does not care if the business world survives or not, because I can see no necessary connection.

Of course, one would have to be either very drunk or very stupid to seriously imply that a particular minimum wage threatens the very existence of "the business world", so perhaps I misunderstood your post. Would you please rephrase it so that it does not appear nonsensical?

While you talk about the capability to handle the increase you take it as a matter of faith that business can handle the increase. Since you're not checking if business can handle the increase you think the pool is bigger than any possible demand you're going to put on it--effectively infinite.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then you don't care if the business world survives or not.

Guys it finally happened, Our Loren Pechtel broke and the warranty just ran out.

Much easier to engage in personal attacks than address your flawed position, isn't it?

 

[LordKiran]

Guys it finally happened, Our Loren Pechtel broke and the warranty just ran out.

Much easier to engage in personal attacks than address your flawed position, isn't it?

You know, technically speaking, ascribing a malevolent or callous motive to the person you're debating like "You don't care if businesses fail" is considered a personal attack.

 

[laughing dog]

You need to explain how showing that your meme about the "infinite pool of profits" is false means that one does not care if the business world survives or not, because I can see no necessary connection.

Of course, one would have to be either very drunk or very stupid to seriously imply that a particular minimum wage threatens the very existence of "the business world", so perhaps I misunderstood your post. Would you please rephrase it so that it does not appear nonsensical?

While you talk about the capability to handle the increase you take it as a matter of faith that business can handle the increase. Since you're not checking if business can handle the increase you think the pool is bigger than any possible demand you're going to put on it--effectively infinite.

Sorry, that is poor reasoning. An individual business either handles an increase in its expenses or it doesn't. How it handles the increase is up to the business. It may reduce hours of employees. It may find other ways to reduce expenses or increase productivity. It may accept lower profits. None of which require anything close to the notion of "infinite profits" or even something as nebulous as "effectively infinite profits".

There has been no minimum wage in North America that has destroyed the business world. To my knowledge, there never has been a movement that has proposed a minimum wage that would destroy "the business world". Idiotic and hysterical rhetoric like "destroy the business world" or "infinite pool of profits" cannot be taken seriously by rational people, especially when those terms are used as straw men.

 

[bilby]

...or if the minimum wage he desires is within the amount that can be funded from profit.

Your fucking stupid astonishingly persistent claim that the pool needs to be infinite only holds true if the desired minimum wage is infinite; Which it clearly isn't.

You aren't paying attention.

The key point that your side is refusing to look at is that you are not attempting to consider whether the company can afford it or not, you are taking it on faith that they can.

If you can draw from a resource with no regard for the possibility of drawing too much you must consider the resource infinite.

Hence the infinite pool of profits.

I most certainly am paying attention; And I don't have nor represent a 'side'; I am simply pointing out that this one specific fucking stupid astonishingly persistent claim made by YOU (NB - not your 'side', just YOU) is utter horseshit.

Any business making a finite profit can support a finite increase in the minimum wage using those profits. This is not a hypothetical claim; it's simple arithmetic.

For any given level of profit, 'P', an increase in minimum wages can be funded from that profit without rendering the business unprofitable, if P>WN, where W is the increase in the minimum wage, and N is the number of minimum wage employees.

So for a company with ten minimum wage employees to be able to fund a $1/hour increase in Minimum Wage while remaining profitable, that company need only make $10/hour (~$20,000 per annum) or more in profit. Last time I checked, the following were both true:

\(10 < \infty\)

and

\(20,000 < \infty\)

Given a finite W and a finite N, P need never be infinite for this relationship to be satisfied. For large W or N, P also needs to be large; But for modest values of WN, P can also be modest.

Infinite P can only be required for the strawman condition where the term WN is infinite.

Your 'side' is clearly made up of arithmetic dunces and morons.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You aren't paying attention.

The key point that your side is refusing to look at is that you are not attempting to consider whether the company can afford it or not, you are taking it on faith that they can.

If you can draw from a resource with no regard for the possibility of drawing too much you must consider the resource infinite.

Hence the infinite pool of profits.

I most certainly am paying attention; And I don't have nor represent a 'side'; I am simply pointing out that this one specific fucking stupid astonishingly persistent claim made by YOU (NB - not your 'side', just YOU) is utter horseshit.

Any business making a finite profit can support a finite increase in the minimum wage using those profits. This is not a hypothetical claim; it's simple arithmetic.

For any given level of profit, 'P', an increase in minimum wages can be funded from that profit without rendering the business unprofitable, if P>WN, where W is the increase in the minimum wage, and N is the number of minimum wage employees.

So for a company with ten minimum wage employees to be able to fund a $1/hour increase in Minimum Wage while remaining profitable, that company need only make $10/hour (~$20,000 per annum) or more in profit. Last time I checked, the following were both true:

\(10 < \infty\)

and

\(20,000 < \infty\)

Given a finite W and a finite N, P need never be infinite for this relationship to be satisfied. For large W or N, P also needs to be large; But for modest values of WN, P can also be modest.

Infinite P can only be required for the strawman condition where the term WN is infinite.

Your 'side' is clearly made up of arithmetic dunces and morons.

You're still missing the point.

I'm saying the pool must be infinite because you are making no effort to determine what is available, simply assuming that it is big enough. The only way it is valid to make that assumption is if it is infinite. I'm calling you guys out on an argument from faith rather than from reality.