Minimum Wage Study - MW Does Not Kill Jobs

[Worldtraveller]

Then there's no incentive to get the skills to be productive.

Of course there is. Living on a pittance sucks. Having enough to feed, clothe, and house yourself, but nothing else, is no fun at all, and most people will be more than happy to learn skills so that they can take work to earn a little extra money.

Your poor opinion of people who aren't you is not justified.

This is very much akin to religious people contending that without constraints imposed by their own God, other people are incapable of acting morally or ethically.
Saying that given a minimum of food, clothing and shelter most people would never get out of their cushy beds, is not only wrong, I think it’s a terrible view of humanity.

We see people in Europe trying to stay on benefits forever.

What percentage? What do the numbers show? How long are most people supported ONLY by living on 'free' benefits?

"we see people" is bullshit. We see people doing lots of things, but if you don't have any numbers, you're just being contrary at this point, because you're unwilling to admit how wrong you are (and how fucked up your worldview is).

 

[ZiprHead]

Then there's no incentive to get the skills to be productive.

Of course there is. Living on a pittance sucks. Having enough to feed, clothe, and house yourself, but nothing else, is no fun at all, and most people will be more than happy to learn skills so that they can take work to earn a little extra money.

Your poor opinion of people who aren't you is not justified.

This is very much akin to religious people contending that without constraints imposed by their own God, other people are incapable of acting morally or ethically.
Saying that given a minimum of food, clothing and shelter most people would never get out of their cushy beds, is not only wrong, I think it’s a terrible view of humanity.

We see people in Europe trying to stay on benefits forever.

What percentage? What do the numbers show? How long are most people supported ONLY by living on 'free' benefits?

"we see people" is bullshit. We see people doing lots of things, but if you don't have any numbers, you're just being contrary at this point, because you're unwilling to admit how wrong you are (and how fucked up your worldview is).

Yup. Sounds very much like a Trump speech. "Many people are saying...".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Then there's no incentive to get the skills to be productive.

Of course there is. Living on a pittance sucks. Having enough to feed, clothe, and house yourself, but nothing else, is no fun at all, and most people will be more than happy to learn skills so that they can take work to earn a little extra money.

Your poor opinion of people who aren't you is not justified.

Which is why I think a UBI scheme should only provide such a minimum, at least until we reach the point where many workers simply have no ability to contribute to society.

There is ALWAYS an ability to contribute to society, as long as the labor isn't valued by the person gaining the benefits from it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Then there's no incentive to get the skills to be productive.

Of course there is. Living on a pittance sucks. Having enough to feed, clothe, and house yourself, but nothing else, is no fun at all, and most people will be more than happy to learn skills so that they can take work to earn a little extra money.

Your poor opinion of people who aren't you is not justified.

This is very much akin to religious people contending that without constraints imposed by their own God, other people are incapable of acting morally or ethically.
Saying that given a minimum of food, clothing and shelter most people would never get out of their cushy beds, is not only wrong, I think it’s a terrible view of humanity.

We see people in Europe trying to stay on benefits forever.

But if it is a statistically small enough number then it’s not a problem that should merit any effort applied to fixing, right? That seems to be your logic with regard to other issues under discussion.

 

[DBT]

Again?

Google shows me 1.4% of workers are at or below minimum wage. Last I looked 2/3 of those were below minimum wage--which means they're tipped employees very often making well above minimum wage. So let's call it .5% are working for minimum wage. Unemployment is reported to .1% and that last digit is very shaky.

Realistically, this means the noise floor is approximately half of minimum wage workers losing their job.

This is a case where (like most) you can't prove the negative, only show that you can't detect the effect--but this is a case where you can't expect to detect an effect. Anyone who does this "research" isn't interested in the truth or they wouldn't have set out to measure something they obviously can't.

Try reading Chokepoint Capitalism to see just how much big business cares about workers, consumers, authors, artists or anything beyond their own profit margin, which it seems, comes first and foremost.

Why You Should Read "Chokepoint Capitalism" - Center for the Digital Future

Why you should read “Chokepoint Capitalism” A new book explains […]

www.digitalcenter.org

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Again?

Google shows me 1.4% of workers are at or below minimum wage. Last I looked 2/3 of those were below minimum wage--which means they're tipped employees very often making well above minimum wage. So let's call it .5% are working for minimum wage. Unemployment is reported to .1% and that last digit is very shaky.

Realistically, this means the noise floor is approximately half of minimum wage workers losing their job.

This is a case where (like most) you can't prove the negative, only show that you can't detect the effect--but this is a case where you can't expect to detect an effect. Anyone who does this "research" isn't interested in the truth or they wouldn't have set out to measure something they obviously can't.

Try reading Chokepoint Capitalism to see just how much big business cares about workers, consumers, authors, artists or anything beyond their own profit margin, which it seems, comes first and foremost.

Why You Should Read "Chokepoint Capitalism" - Center for the Digital Future

Why you should read “Chokepoint Capitalism” A new book explains […]

www.digitalcenter.org

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[DBT]

Again?

Google shows me 1.4% of workers are at or below minimum wage. Last I looked 2/3 of those were below minimum wage--which means they're tipped employees very often making well above minimum wage. So let's call it .5% are working for minimum wage. Unemployment is reported to .1% and that last digit is very shaky.

Realistically, this means the noise floor is approximately half of minimum wage workers losing their job.

This is a case where (like most) you can't prove the negative, only show that you can't detect the effect--but this is a case where you can't expect to detect an effect. Anyone who does this "research" isn't interested in the truth or they wouldn't have set out to measure something they obviously can't.

Try reading Chokepoint Capitalism to see just how much big business cares about workers, consumers, authors, artists or anything beyond their own profit margin, which it seems, comes first and foremost.

Why You Should Read "Chokepoint Capitalism" - Center for the Digital Future

Why you should read “Chokepoint Capitalism” A new book explains […]

www.digitalcenter.org

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It shows the nature of big business and its motives and practices in relation to those it profits from and deals with.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Again?

Google shows me 1.4% of workers are at or below minimum wage. Last I looked 2/3 of those were below minimum wage--which means they're tipped employees very often making well above minimum wage. So let's call it .5% are working for minimum wage. Unemployment is reported to .1% and that last digit is very shaky.

Realistically, this means the noise floor is approximately half of minimum wage workers losing their job.

This is a case where (like most) you can't prove the negative, only show that you can't detect the effect--but this is a case where you can't expect to detect an effect. Anyone who does this "research" isn't interested in the truth or they wouldn't have set out to measure something they obviously can't.

Try reading Chokepoint Capitalism to see just how much big business cares about workers, consumers, authors, artists or anything beyond their own profit margin, which it seems, comes first and foremost.

Why You Should Read "Chokepoint Capitalism" - Center for the Digital Future

Why you should read “Chokepoint Capitalism” A new book explains […]

www.digitalcenter.org

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It shows the nature of big business and its motives and practices in relation to those it profits from and deals with.

You're effectively just namecalling here.

 

[DBT]

Again?

Google shows me 1.4% of workers are at or below minimum wage. Last I looked 2/3 of those were below minimum wage--which means they're tipped employees very often making well above minimum wage. So let's call it .5% are working for minimum wage. Unemployment is reported to .1% and that last digit is very shaky.

Realistically, this means the noise floor is approximately half of minimum wage workers losing their job.

This is a case where (like most) you can't prove the negative, only show that you can't detect the effect--but this is a case where you can't expect to detect an effect. Anyone who does this "research" isn't interested in the truth or they wouldn't have set out to measure something they obviously can't.

Try reading Chokepoint Capitalism to see just how much big business cares about workers, consumers, authors, artists or anything beyond their own profit margin, which it seems, comes first and foremost.

Why You Should Read "Chokepoint Capitalism" - Center for the Digital Future

Why you should read “Chokepoint Capitalism” A new book explains […]

www.digitalcenter.org

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It shows the nature of big business and its motives and practices in relation to those it profits from and deals with.

You're effectively just namecalling here.

Hardly. The book is about the underhanded business practices of large corporations. They are named because that is how they have engaged with their clients and customers.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Still waiting for your data.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Try reading Chokepoint Capitalism to see just how much big business cares about workers, consumers, authors, artists or anything beyond their own profit margin, which it seems, comes first and foremost.

Why You Should Read "Chokepoint Capitalism" - Center for the Digital Future

Why you should read “Chokepoint Capitalism” A new book explains […]

www.digitalcenter.org

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It shows the nature of big business and its motives and practices in relation to those it profits from and deals with.

You're effectively just namecalling here.

Hardly. The book is about the underhanded business practices of large corporations. They are named because that is how they have engaged with their clients and customers.

In other words, namecalling. You aren't addressing the point at all, you're just showing that businesses are often guilty of dirty deeds.

 

[Elixir]

Still waiting for your data.

{{{clears throat}}}

 

[DBT]

Try reading Chokepoint Capitalism to see just how much big business cares about workers, consumers, authors, artists or anything beyond their own profit margin, which it seems, comes first and foremost.

Why You Should Read "Chokepoint Capitalism" - Center for the Digital Future

Why you should read “Chokepoint Capitalism” A new book explains […]

www.digitalcenter.org

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It shows the nature of big business and its motives and practices in relation to those it profits from and deals with.

You're effectively just namecalling here.

Hardly. The book is about the underhanded business practices of large corporations. They are named because that is how they have engaged with their clients and customers.

In other words, namecalling. You aren't addressing the point at all, you're just showing that businesses are often guilty of dirty deeds.

The point has been addressed, it has been shown that minimum wage as a safety net does not kill jobs or harm the economy. Just as it has been shown that business interests can become more aligned with their own profit margin than fair market value pay for their workers or the betterment of society.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point has been addressed, it has been shown that minimum wage as a safety net does not kill jobs or harm the economy. Just as it has been shown that business interests can become more aligned with their own profit margin than fair market value pay for their workers or the betterment of society.

Except it hasn't been proven. These "studies" that supposedly prove it actually only show that under normal conditions any effect is below the noise floor. However, the noise floor is huge, that isn't proving anything.

 

[DBT]

The point has been addressed, it has been shown that minimum wage as a safety net does not kill jobs or harm the economy. Just as it has been shown that business interests can become more aligned with their own profit margin than fair market value pay for their workers or the betterment of society.

Except it hasn't been proven. These "studies" that supposedly prove it actually only show that under normal conditions any effect is below the noise floor. However, the noise floor is huge, that isn't proving anything.

Of course it has. Australia has had minimum wage and conditions for a long time without detriment to jobs or the economy.

 

[Worldtraveller]

You seem awfully invested for something that is below the noise threshold. Still waiting for you to provide that data to support your position.

 

[marc]

Ahh... I see now one of the most powerful tools in any argument, the quotation mark. It turns
Studies have shown
into
"Studies" have shown

countering the opponent's arguments without any need for extensive evidence

 

[Elixir]

You seem awfully invested for something that is below the noise threshold. Still waiting for you to provide that data to support your position.

QFT

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You seem awfully invested for something that is below the noise threshold. Still waiting for you to provide that data to support your position.

You misunderstand--we can't measure it because the noise floor is so high, not because the effects are so small.

We measure unemployment, not minimum-wage unemployment. Minimum wage employment is about 1% of the workforce. That means the noise floor is 100x the measurement accuracy--and we don't have 2 solid digits in the first place. Thus our derived value for minimum wage unemployment has no significant digits at all.

 

[bilby]

Thus our derived value for minimum wage unemployment has no significant digits at all.

Could you explain how this isn't just a tortuous way of saying "Therefore changes to minimum wage can have no significant effect on employment"?