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

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The price of producing a widget will increase based on the increase on the cost of production increase per widget. In all cases many more widgets are made than a couple per hour, meaning the increase in production cost per widget will be a fraction of the wage increase.

The world won’t stop spinning.

 

[bilby]

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.

To be fair, that's mostly because Danes prefer to eat actual food.

 

[Bomb#20]

... 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.

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

Yes, that's what I said. The Catholic Church has been polishing that argument for eight hundred years. Of course, their version has a means-end condition. To be justifiable, "The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect." In the case at hand, making a subset of the workers unemployed is the means by which enough scarcity is induced to achieve the desired effect: to drive the marginal revenue of labor up to the level of the price-control.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

To be fair, that's mostly because Danes prefer to eat actual food.

You're biased -- you live in the only country in the world that knows how to make decent french fries.

 

[KeepTalking]

... 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.

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

Yes, that's what I said.

Then you agree with me that the intent is clearly not to keep minorities out of the workforce, even if that may end up being an effect. I am glad we are on the same page.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes, that's what I said.

Then you agree with me that the intent is clearly not to keep minorities out of the workforce,

Yes, that's what I said. What LP wrote was technically incorrect. You scored a point.

even if that maywill end up being an effect.

Fify.

I am glad we are on the same page.

Are we on the same page? The reason you and LP got into an argument over intent vs. effect in the first place is because of the widespread presumption that "I didn't mean to" is a valid defense when you do something that hurts somebody. But as Clifford famously pointed out in "The Ethics of Belief", that ain't necessarily so. The shipowner in his fable didn't mean to drown all the people he sent out in an unseaworthy ship, but...

"What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him."​

The people trying to raise the minimum wage will be keeping a minority out of the workforce. They don't mean to, but the sincerity of their intent can in no wise help them, because they have no right to believe they aren't throwing that minority under the bus in order to advantage the majority, on such evidence as is before them. So when you go back to the underlying dispute over whether those trying to raise the minimum wage are ethical, LP scored a point.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, that's what I said. What LP wrote was technically incorrect. You scored a point.

even if that maywill end up being an effect.

Fify.

I am glad we are on the same page.

Are we on the same page? The reason you and LP got into an argument over intent vs. effect in the first place is because of the widespread presumption that "I didn't mean to" is a valid defense when you do something that hurts somebody. But as Clifford famously pointed out in "The Ethics of Belief", that ain't necessarily so. The shipowner in his fable didn't mean to drown all the people he sent out in an unseaworthy ship, but...

"What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him."​

The people trying to raise the minimum wage will be keeping a minority out of the workforce. They don't mean to, but the sincerity of their intent can in no wise help them, because they have no right to believe they aren't throwing that minority under the bus in order to advantage the majority, on such evidence as is before them. So when you go back to the underlying dispute over whether those trying to raise the minimum wage are ethical, LP scored a point.

The dispute arose out of the clear implication of intent of discrimination. Intent does matter in ethical discussions as do outcomes (intended or not).
The actual effect of an increase in the minimum wage on employment is an empirical question. if there is a disparate effect by ______ (you name the characteristic), then policy implication is to identify why that is so and see if it is feasibly addressable.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yes, that's what I said. What LP wrote was technically incorrect. You scored a point.

Oh, cool, I wasn't aware there were points to be had.

even if that maywill end up being an effect.

Fify.

No, I'm not a fortune teller, so I don't think "will" fixes it. How about we settle on "may very well end up being an effect"?

I am glad we are on the same page.

Are we on the same page? The reason you and LP got into an argument over intent vs. effect in the first place is because of the widespread presumption that "I didn't mean to" is a valid defense when you do something that hurts somebody.

I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there, because we seem to not be on the same page, and I think that is because you are confusing me with someone else.

I'm not exactly sue LP and I got into an argument. I merely pointed out that he was contradicting himself by first saying that the intent behind current minimum wage legislation was to keep blacks out of the labor force, then he switched to saying that it wasn't about intent, but about the effect. I have had no other argument with LP in this thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Yeah, it will end up killing some jobs in the process. That won't be enough to make it noticeably less than 1 for 1. You get a temporary boost in exchange for a permanent loss. Short-sighted thinking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are we on the same page? The reason you and LP got into an argument over intent vs. effect in the first place is because of the widespread presumption that "I didn't mean to" is a valid defense when you do something that hurts somebody. But as Clifford famously pointed out in "The Ethics of Belief", that ain't necessarily so. The shipowner in his fable didn't mean to drown all the people he sent out in an unseaworthy ship, but...

"What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him."​

The people trying to raise the minimum wage will be keeping a minority out of the workforce. They don't mean to, but the sincerity of their intent can in no wise help them, because they have no right to believe they aren't throwing that minority under the bus in order to advantage the majority, on such evidence as is before them. So when you go back to the underlying dispute over whether those trying to raise the minimum wage are ethical, LP scored a point.

Exactly. In the long run effect means a lot more than intent. I'm sure you know where the road paved with good intentions leads. I'd like every worker to have a good job--it's just I know that the proposals meant to accomplish this will have major negative consequences that are always being handwaved away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not exactly sue LP and I got into an argument. I merely pointed out that he was contradicting himself by first saying that the intent behind current minimum wage legislation was to keep blacks out of the labor force, then he switched to saying that it wasn't about intent, but about the effect. I have had no other argument with LP in this thread.

I didn't contradict myself.

I said that the original intent was to keep blacks out and it had the intended effect.

That is no longer the intent but getting rid of that intent doesn't change the effect--keep marginal workers out.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm not exactly sue LP and I got into an argument. I merely pointed out that he was contradicting himself by first saying that the intent behind current minimum wage legislation was to keep blacks out of the labor force, then he switched to saying that it wasn't about intent, but about the effect. I have had no other argument with LP in this thread.

I didn't contradict myself.

I said that the original intent was to keep blacks out and it had the intended effect.

That is no longer the intent but getting rid of that intent doesn't change the effect--keep marginal workers out.

You have yet to provide proof of this intent.

Frankly, white people didn't need minimum wage to discriminate against black people in this country. It was common, minimum wage or not.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not exactly sue LP and I got into an argument. I merely pointed out that he was contradicting himself by first saying that the intent behind current minimum wage legislation was to keep blacks out of the labor force, then he switched to saying that it wasn't about intent, but about the effect. I have had no other argument with LP in this thread.

I didn't contradict myself.

I said that the original intent was to keep blacks out and it had the intended effect.

That is no longer the intent but getting rid of that intent doesn't change the effect--keep marginal workers out.

In post 38, you wrote

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.

As people pointed out, there were many rationales for implementing the minimum wage - at best, it is extremely sloppy thinking to attribute only one motive.

Given your 1st sentence, it is reasonable to think your 2nd sentence also attributes the same single motive for the minimum wage law.

 

[bilby]

Are we on the same page? The reason you and LP got into an argument over intent vs. effect in the first place is because of the widespread presumption that "I didn't mean to" is a valid defense when you do something that hurts somebody. But as Clifford famously pointed out in "The Ethics of Belief", that ain't necessarily so. The shipowner in his fable didn't mean to drown all the people he sent out in an unseaworthy ship, but...

"What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him."​

The people trying to raise the minimum wage will be keeping a minority out of the workforce. They don't mean to, but the sincerity of their intent can in no wise help them, because they have no right to believe they aren't throwing that minority under the bus in order to advantage the majority, on such evidence as is before them. So when you go back to the underlying dispute over whether those trying to raise the minimum wage are ethical, LP scored a point.

Exactly. In the long run effect means a lot more than intent. I'm sure you know where the road paved with good intentions leads. I'd like every worker to have a good job--it's just I know that the proposals meant to accomplish this will have major negative consequences that are always being handwaved away.

But you don't want every worker to have a good job. You want every worker to have a job.

And that's only a good thing if there's no alternative way for them to have an income.

Now, that's perhaps a reasonable assumption in today's USA; But it needn't be in tomorrow's, and it certainly isn't in many developed nations today.

"They can always get a job" is an excuse for inadequate provision to the unemployed; So you are fighting to ensure that it remains true, but disregading the fact that in order to be true, it also needs to be inadequate.

Given that the poorest people will need an income support from the public purse regardless, forcing them to waste their time doing shit work for inadequate pay is just cruelty. Though it's great for those business owners who want a dirt cheap labour force.

Fuck that.

It's better for everyone (except business owners who want government subsidy of their labour force) to let unemployed people be unemployed without being poor. This leads to lower crime, greater happiness, greater opportunities for the poor (who can use their time to benefit themselves, rather than their bosses), it's an all round good thing.

But you're treating "unemployment is bad" as an axiom, so your conclusions are inevitably flawed.

 

[KeepTalking]

I'm not exactly sue LP and I got into an argument. I merely pointed out that he was contradicting himself by first saying that the intent behind current minimum wage legislation was to keep blacks out of the labor force, then he switched to saying that it wasn't about intent, but about the effect. I have had no other argument with LP in this thread.

I didn't contradict myself.

Yes, you did, and I have pointed it out several times already.

I said that the original intent was to keep blacks out and it had the intended effect.

Yes, you are correct there, but you went on to say, in the same post:

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

That is intent ascribed to current MW efforts. Either retract it, or own it.

That is no longer the intent but getting rid of that intent doesn't change the effect--keep marginal workers out.

And that is exactly where you contradict yourself. I just posted above where you ascribed intent to keep blacks out of the labor force to current MW legislation. Would you like to retract that statement now?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are we on the same page? The reason you and LP got into an argument over intent vs. effect in the first place is because of the widespread presumption that "I didn't mean to" is a valid defense when you do something that hurts somebody. But as Clifford famously pointed out in "The Ethics of Belief", that ain't necessarily so. The shipowner in his fable didn't mean to drown all the people he sent out in an unseaworthy ship, but...

"What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him."​

The people trying to raise the minimum wage will be keeping a minority out of the workforce. They don't mean to, but the sincerity of their intent can in no wise help them, because they have no right to believe they aren't throwing that minority under the bus in order to advantage the majority, on such evidence as is before them. So when you go back to the underlying dispute over whether those trying to raise the minimum wage are ethical, LP scored a point.

Exactly. In the long run effect means a lot more than intent. I'm sure you know where the road paved with good intentions leads

Where? To cliches?

I'd like every worker to have a good job--it's just I know that the proposals meant to accomplish this will have major negative consequences that are always being handwaved away.

If minorities are the ones hurt, why are there so many whites in poverty?

We have a study showing that a minimum wage hike to $15 will increase wages for nearly 10 million people, and unemploy 1.4 million. The price of production rises nominally, and we address the potential loss of 1.4 million jobs while lots of other people see their wages increase, increasing their potential to be more self-sufficient.

And at some point we can address the issue with how our labor force shifting from manufacturing to services and how AI and further automation is seriously going to fuck things up even more. It is time to stop pretending that low wages are a viable punishment for being poor.

 

[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.

Yeah, it will end up killing some jobs in the process. That won't be enough to make it noticeably less than 1 for 1. You get a temporary boost in exchange for a permanent loss. Short-sighted thinking.

Another substandard economic argument. No jobs are permanent - changes in technologies and tastes cause job gains and loss in dynamic economies. You have presented no theoretical nor empirical evidence to support your claims that
1) any minimum wage increase gets passed one for one into the cost of products/services,
2) any gain is temporary, or
3) any job lost (assuming jobs as opposed to hours are lost) would have remained in the long run.

Whether or not a minimum wage increase causes a net gain or a net loss is a social/moral question (agreement on what constitutes a net gain or a net loss) and an empirical question (what actually happens). A priori arguments based on unsubstantiated assumptions of fact and about how people react are opinions not analysis. And any argument that excludes the possibility of an empirical net gain or a net loss (regardless of the definition of gain or loss) is economically illiterate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's better for everyone (except business owners who want government subsidy of their labour force) to let unemployed people be unemployed without being poor. This leads to lower crime, greater happiness, greater opportunities for the poor (who can use their time to benefit themselves, rather than their bosses), it's an all round good thing.

But you're treating "unemployment is bad" as an axiom, so your conclusions are inevitably flawed.

If failure doesn't hurt you'll have a lot more failure.

 

[KeepTalking]

It's better for everyone (except business owners who want government subsidy of their labour force) to let unemployed people be unemployed without being poor. This leads to lower crime, greater happiness, greater opportunities for the poor (who can use their time to benefit themselves, rather than their bosses), it's an all round good thing.

But you're treating "unemployment is bad" as an axiom, so your conclusions are inevitably flawed.

If failure doesn't hurt you'll have a lot more failure.

Unemployment is not necessarily due to a failure of the unemployed. Treating it like it is does nothing to help the problem.

 

[Elixir]

If failure doesn't hurt you'll have a lot more failure.

They say that about stupidity too. Judging from the robustness of Qonspiracy Qulture, it doesn't hurt enough.
IMO it should hurt a LOT more than unemployment.