What does a minimum wage hike have to do with COVID relief?

[bilby]

No, but kicking them out of the kitchen altogether will stop them from passing the infection on to one another.

Raising minimum wage to $15 would cost 1.4 million jobs, CBO says

Doesn't it also improve the situation for 90% (80%?, it was substantial) of those targeted with the $15 /hr minimum wage?

I do ponder, whether that number means people that actually become unemployed, as a lot of those people work multiple jobs in the first place, and at a $15 /hr wage, it might mean they don't need that second job as depserately.

It's not a zero sum game, either.

If we accept ad argumentum that 1.4 million people lose their jobs, that doesn't tell us anything about the net effect on employment. If you lose your job because the boss can't afford to pay you $15, what's to say that you can't find a new job, created by the boost in economic activity from all the people who didn't lose their jobs, and are now able to afford stuff that previously they couldn't?

Looking only at one side of the equation is a recipe for poor decision making. Job losses may be a result of a minimum wage increase; And they may even occur on a large scale. But they're not the ONLY result, and the provision of greater income to people who are going to spend pretty much all of the increase (because they already have many unmet wants) will inevitably result in more jobs being created, albeit not necessarily the same jobs or in the same industries.

Whether the end result will be more total unemployment or less is very difficult to say. But even if lots of people lose their current jobs, there's a real possibility that unemployment overall could go down.

 

[Bomb#20]

You're joking right? The Bill of Rights was passed as a batch. They chose to have a smallish number of articles, rather than dozens.

Unless you come up with a real documented example for the type of "bundling" at issue, I'll treat your claim as retracted.

I'm mystified as to what distinction you're drawing. Every law that bundles two unrelated issues together is passed as a batch. It's hardly a matter of having dozens of articles -- the other amendments somehow managed to have provisions that were related to each other. And the effect of bundling is to keep legislators from voting on the provisions independently. How's the fifth amendment any different from this? Why shouldn't the state legislatures have had the option of ratifying defendants' procedural rights but not ratifying eminent domain limits, or vice versa, just as they had the option of ratifying the search warrant rule but not ratifying the rule for the number of congressmen?

 

[Swammerdami]

You're joking right? The Bill of Rights was passed as a batch. They chose to have a smallish number of articles, rather than dozens.

Unless you come up with a real documented example for the type of "bundling" at issue, I'll treat your claim as retracted.

I'm mystified as to what distinction you're drawing. Every law that bundles two unrelated issues together is passed as a batch.

I thought we were dealing specifically with the important topic: combining two issues either to pass a measure that would not have passed by itself or (less common) to ensure defeat of a measure which would pass if voted on separately.

I think documents detailing contemporary discussions of the Bill of Rights are available on-line. Can you point to a specific instance where the relevant deliberate bundling was actually in use?

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The minimum wage was implemented to keep blacks out of the labor force.

Raising the minimum wage is about keeping more of them out of the labor force.

And it's not about intent, but effect.

Are you sure you understand the argument you are making?

The original purpose was to keep marginal workers (blacks) out of the labor force.

The intent is no longer discriminatory but the effect remains the same--it keeps marginal workers out of the labor force. Inner city youth unemployment will go even higher. You're chopping off the bottom of the ladder to success.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not a zero sum game, either.

If we accept ad argumentum that 1.4 million people lose their jobs, that doesn't tell us anything about the net effect on employment. If you lose your job because the boss can't afford to pay you $15, what's to say that you can't find a new job, created by the boost in economic activity from all the people who didn't lose their jobs, and are now able to afford stuff that previously they couldn't?

The leftist version of the laffer curve. The right thinks you can grow government revenue by lowering government revenue, the left thinks you can grow business by harming business.

 

[bilby]

It's not a zero sum game, either.

If we accept ad argumentum that 1.4 million people lose their jobs, that doesn't tell us anything about the net effect on employment. If you lose your job because the boss can't afford to pay you $15, what's to say that you can't find a new job, created by the boost in economic activity from all the people who didn't lose their jobs, and are now able to afford stuff that previously they couldn't?

The leftist version of the laffer curve. The right thinks you can grow government revenue by lowering government revenue, the left thinks you can grow business by harming business.

It's interesting that you had to chop off my conclusion in order to appear to be reasonable in contradicting me. Not clever or surprising, but interesting.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Are you sure you understand the argument you are making?

The original purpose was to keep marginal workers (blacks) out of the labor force.

The intent is no longer discriminatory but the effect remains the same--it keeps marginal workers out of the labor force. Inner city youth unemployment will go even higher. You're chopping off the bottom of the ladder to success.

I'm not going to do your homework for you (again).

Can you back any of this up?

Do a comparison of whatever economic indicators you think should be used, and tie those to cities, states, and federal min wage increases and see if you can find the correlation you think should be there. We'll be here to check your work.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's not a zero sum game, either.

If we accept ad argumentum that 1.4 million people lose their jobs, that doesn't tell us anything about the net effect on employment. If you lose your job because the boss can't afford to pay you $15, what's to say that you can't find a new job, created by the boost in economic activity from all the people who didn't lose their jobs, and are now able to afford stuff that previously they couldn't?

The leftist version of the laffer curve. The right thinks you can grow government revenue by lowering government revenue, the left thinks you can grow business by harming business.

All businesses would be impacted, prices can increase to manage this. The price increases will hardly be 1 to 1. So the ultimate people paying the cost will be the consumers.

This has nothing to do with harming anyone, but requiring a minimal wage that makes it less a slave wage. $15 an hour is not wealth!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are you sure you understand the argument you are making?

The original purpose was to keep marginal workers (blacks) out of the labor force.

If memory serves, there were companies that imported cheap labor from the South (African American) to do work up north. Laws were created to keep out much cheaper out of state workers from the North. Race could definitely have been involved with these restrictions, but there were economic issues as well, with the local work forces being displaced by out of state workers.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's not a zero sum game, either.

If we accept ad argumentum that 1.4 million people lose their jobs, that doesn't tell us anything about the net effect on employment. If you lose your job because the boss can't afford to pay you $15, what's to say that you can't find a new job, created by the boost in economic activity from all the people who didn't lose their jobs, and are now able to afford stuff that previously they couldn't?

The leftist version of the laffer curve. The right thinks you can grow government revenue by lowering government revenue, the left thinks you can grow business by harming business.

All businesses would be impacted, prices can increase to manage this. The price increases will hardly be 1 to 1. So the ultimate people paying the cost will be the consumers.

This has nothing to do with harming anyone, but requiring a minimal wage that makes it less a slave wage. $15 an hour is not wealth!

$31,200 per year, before taxes.

 

[TV and credit cards]

All businesses would be impacted, prices can increase to manage this. The price increases will hardly be 1 to 1. So the ultimate people paying the cost will be the consumers.

This has nothing to do with harming anyone, but requiring a minimal wage that makes it less a slave wage. $15 an hour is not wealth!

$31,200 per year, before taxes.

View attachment 32232

Very interesting. More at Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-workers-denmark/
Must be coming from those razor thin profits.

 

[ZiprHead]

How Much A Big Mac Costs In These 20 Different Countries
McDonald's locations around the world often have different menu items, but the Big Mac is always there, even if the cost varies by the countries.

 

[KeepTalking]

Are you sure you understand the argument you are making?

The original purpose was to keep marginal workers (blacks) out of the labor force.

The intent is no longer discriminatory but the effect remains the same--it keeps marginal workers out of the labor force. Inner city youth unemployment will go even higher. You're chopping off the bottom of the ladder to success.

Then the second sentence of your initial post, which is arguably more important than the first in this context, was incorrect.

You said "Raising the minimum wage is about keeping more of them out of the labor force". The phrase "is about" denotes intent. In order to convey your new meaning, you would have wanted to use a phrase like "has the effect of", or "results in".

Now, would you like to retract your initial post, or this more recent one?

 

[Bomb#20]

Very interesting. More at Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-workers-denmark/
Must be coming from those razor thin profits.

Profitability varies from one franchise to another. Some outlets have razor thin profits; some have axe-thick profits; some have no profits. Expenses vary; number of customers varies; management skill varies; amount of local competition varies. If costs rise, some franchises will be able to absorb it and some won't.

Denmark has three times fewer McDonald's outlets per capita than the U.S.

 

[Bomb#20]

Then the second sentence of your initial post, which is arguably more important than the first in this context, was incorrect.

You said "Raising the minimum wage is about keeping more of them out of the labor force". The phrase "is about" denotes intent. In order to convey your new meaning, you would have wanted to use a phrase like "has the effect of", or "results in".

Now, would you like to retract your initial post, or this more recent one?

Hmm. The intent is to keep a subset of the workers from competing to be in the workforce -- to prevent the proverbial "race to the bottom". Does that count as an intent to keep that subset from being in the workforce? They transparently won't be in the work force unless they compete to be in the workforce; but since the world seems to be overflowing with magical thinkers who make believe they can have the being without the competing, I guess it really is two different kinds of intent -- sort of like the semantic hairsplitting Dr. Kevorkian went in for when he said he intended to end his patients' pain, not their lives.

"There's a default presumption in the law that a defendant probably intended the easily foreseeable consequences of his actions. Those who apply this principle to government actions are called 'conspiracy theorists'."​

 

[KeepTalking]

Then the second sentence of your initial post, which is arguably more important than the first in this context, was incorrect.

You said "Raising the minimum wage is about keeping more of them out of the labor force". The phrase "is about" denotes intent. In order to convey your new meaning, you would have wanted to use a phrase like "has the effect of", or "results in".

Now, would you like to retract your initial post, or this more recent one?

Hmm. The intent is to keep a subset of the workers from competing to be in the workforce -- to prevent the proverbial "race to the bottom". Does that count as an intent to keep that subset from being in the workforce? They transparently won't be in the work force unless they compete to be in the workforce; but since the world seems to be overflowing with magical thinkers who make believe they can have the being without the competing, I guess it really is two different kinds of intent -- sort of like the semantic hairsplitting Dr. Kevorkian went in for when he said he intended to end his patients' pain, not their lives.

"There's a default presumption in the law that a defendant probably intended the easily foreseeable consequences of his actions. Those who apply this principle to government actions are called 'conspiracy theorists'."​

You are still talking about something that might be an effect, when the intent is clearly not that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not a zero sum game, either.

If we accept ad argumentum that 1.4 million people lose their jobs, that doesn't tell us anything about the net effect on employment. If you lose your job because the boss can't afford to pay you $15, what's to say that you can't find a new job, created by the boost in economic activity from all the people who didn't lose their jobs, and are now able to afford stuff that previously they couldn't?

The leftist version of the laffer curve. The right thinks you can grow government revenue by lowering government revenue, the left thinks you can grow business by harming business.

It's interesting that you had to chop off my conclusion in order to appear to be reasonable in contradicting me. Not clever or surprising, but interesting.

You're not addressing the point at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not a zero sum game, either.

If we accept ad argumentum that 1.4 million people lose their jobs, that doesn't tell us anything about the net effect on employment. If you lose your job because the boss can't afford to pay you $15, what's to say that you can't find a new job, created by the boost in economic activity from all the people who didn't lose their jobs, and are now able to afford stuff that previously they couldn't?

The leftist version of the laffer curve. The right thinks you can grow government revenue by lowering government revenue, the left thinks you can grow business by harming business.

All businesses would be impacted, prices can increase to manage this. The price increases will hardly be 1 to 1. So the ultimate people paying the cost will be the consumers.

This has nothing to do with harming anyone, but requiring a minimal wage that makes it less a slave wage. $15 an hour is not wealth!

Unwarranted assumption! In the long run the price increases will be 1 for 1 as you haven't actually changed the economy. It will just take time for the changes to trickle through the whole system.

 

[laughing dog]

Unwarranted assumption! In the long run the price increases will be 1 for 1 as you haven't actually changed the economy. It will just take time for the changes to trickle through the whole system.

Your one for one is an unwarranted assumption. As you admit, the minimum wage affects a very small portion of the workforce. And in the long-run, rising wages give firms incentives to substitute capital for labor to reduce their costs. So in the long-run, there is absolutely no reason to think there would be a one for one increase in the price.