missouri passes state law forcing cities to lower their minimum wage

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Would you care to address it now? What is a reasonable non-sinister motive for lowering the minimum wage? I entirely disagree with you, but I leave it to you to present evidence that conservatives are not 'cackling evilly whil twirling the ends of ther mustache'.

aa

Well, the point I was trying to get to wasn't addressed by you. But I can think of a few possible reasons why one might have less than sinister motives for a lower minimum wage. The point, though, wasn't what the particular motives are, but if you think it is even remotely possible that these motives might exist.

Is it even remotely possible that these motives might exist? Never mind the particulars of the motives, just whether the person taking the stand might think they are doing something that they consider to be for the greater good. You can disagree that it is for the greater good all you want, that's not the question. Do you think it is at all possible that they think they are doing something good?

Of course they think they are doing something good - for themselves and their rich business owning friends. And obviously I'm not automatically assuming a sinister motive if I'm here imploring anyone to provide a non-sinister, rational reason for the move. But you can't provide one, and no one else has either. So it's an easy conclusion to draw in this instance that the motives you are asking me to believe in do not exist.

aa

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, the point I was trying to get to wasn't addressed by you. But I can think of a few possible reasons why one might have less than sinister motives for a lower minimum wage. The point, though, wasn't what the particular motives are, but if you think it is even remotely possible that these motives might exist.

Is it even remotely possible that these motives might exist? Never mind the particulars of the motives, just whether the person taking the stand might think they are doing something that they consider to be for the greater good. You can disagree that it is for the greater good all you want, that's not the question. Do you think it is at all possible that they think they are doing something good?

I never really accepted that kind of argumentation when engaging in debates with apologists regarding the problem of evil and I can't accept it here.

The problem is that, for basically everything, the Republican response has been to take money out of the hands of ordinary Americans and put it into the hands of the wealthy. At what point does uttering PRATTs like "tax cuts will stimulate the economy" and the equivalents for the minimum wage "raising minimum wages hurt workers" and "if the minimum wage was lower more people would have jobs because businesses could afford to hire you" mean that if the person is not malicious then they are ignorant or stupid?

Having actually heard the other side of the argument, I would say that they don't believe that those reasons are PRATTs. That's why I can do something AA can't do (and refuses to consider) and actually assume good faith.

Personally I would go for a causal cure instead of a symptomatic cure. Raising minimum wage doesn't cause inflation, it is just part of the inflationary wave that impacts different parts of the economy at different times. Rather that constantly chasing the results of inflation, I would prefer to treat the cause of inflation. In 1964 the minimum wage was $1.25 per hour. That is five silver quarters. Current melt value for those five silver quarters is about $25, give or take for market fluctuations. The problem is the value of the dollar is going down faster than can be reasonably accommodated by minimum wage law.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Having actually heard the other side of the argument, I would say that they don't believe that those reasons are PRATTs. That's why I can do something AA can't do (and refuses to consider) and actually assume good faith.

Personally I would go for a causal cure instead of a symptomatic cure. Raising minimum wage doesn't cause inflation, it is just part of the inflationary wave that impacts different parts of the economy at different times. Rather that constantly chasing the results of inflation, I would prefer to treat the cause of inflation. In 1964 the minimum wage was $1.25 per hour. That is five silver quarters. Current melt value for those five silver quarters is about $25, give or take for market fluctuations. The problem is the value of the dollar is going down faster than can be reasonably accommodated by minimum wage law.

Do you believe we're less well off than we were in 1964?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Having actually heard the other side of the argument, I would say that they don't believe that those reasons are PRATTs. That's why I can do something AA can't do (and refuses to consider) and actually assume good faith.

Personally I would go for a causal cure instead of a symptomatic cure. Raising minimum wage doesn't cause inflation, it is just part of the inflationary wave that impacts different parts of the economy at different times. Rather that constantly chasing the results of inflation, I would prefer to treat the cause of inflation. In 1964 the minimum wage was $1.25 per hour. That is five silver quarters. Current melt value for those five silver quarters is about $25, give or take for market fluctuations. The problem is the value of the dollar is going down faster than can be reasonably accommodated by minimum wage law.

Do you believe we're less well off than we were in 1964?

That's actually a very loaded question. Some aspects of the US have improved since then, other aspects of the US have degraded since then. If you want an overly-simplistic yes-no answer, one isn't available.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Do you believe we're less well off than we were in 1964?

That's actually a very loaded question. Some aspects of the US have improved since then, other aspects of the US have degraded since then. If you want an overly-simplistic yes-no answer, one isn't available.

Are we wealthier, overall? Is our standard of living higher?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I never really accepted that kind of argumentation when engaging in debates with apologists regarding the problem of evil and I can't accept it here.

The problem is that, for basically everything, the Republican response has been to take money out of the hands of ordinary Americans and put it into the hands of the wealthy. At what point does uttering PRATTs like "tax cuts will stimulate the economy" and the equivalents for the minimum wage "raising minimum wages hurt workers" and "if the minimum wage was lower more people would have jobs because businesses could afford to hire you" mean that if the person is not malicious then they are ignorant or stupid?

Having actually heard the other side of the argument, I would say that they don't believe that those reasons are PRATTs. That's why I can do something AA can't do (and refuses to consider) and actually assume good faith.

By all means, let's don't think too critically about the issue or respond to requests for information confirming the same. Let's just assume good 'faith'.

aa



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ksen]

Having actually heard the other side of the argument, I would say that they don't believe that those reasons are PRATTs. That's why I can do something AA can't do (and refuses to consider) and actually assume good faith.

By all means, let's don't think too critically about the issue or respond to requests for information confirming the same. Let's just assume good 'faith'.

aa



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nah

 

[laughing dog]

No, it is a proper way to do a biased projection.

I was trying to do an honest projection.

That does not change the fact it is a biased projection.

I didn't know how the numbers came out when I chose that 2 million.

So? You take the result as reasonable and reject the result when the 1.4 million gives a result you don't like even though you have no empirical basis for any of the those. The fact you arbitrarily choose the result that confirms your bias while arbitrarily rejecting a result that rebuts your bias, is an admission that you cooked your example.

[

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's actually a very loaded question. Some aspects of the US have improved since then, other aspects of the US have degraded since then. If you want an overly-simplistic yes-no answer, one isn't available.

Are we wealthier, overall? Is our standard of living higher?

Again, mixed. We have technology that didn't exist then that definitely give us benefits that didn't exist then. On the other hand, on some key variables, things have definitely degraded. The cost of housing, education, and healthcare have all risen faster than inflation, and those are some very important factors to standard of living.

Having actually heard the other side of the argument, I would say that they don't believe that those reasons are PRATTs. That's why I can do something AA can't do (and refuses to consider) and actually assume good faith.

By all means, let's don't think too critically about the issue or respond to requests for information confirming the same. Let's just assume good 'faith'.

One can give the benefit of the doubt with regards to intentions and still think critically about the content. It is almost as if you WANT to dismiss all dissenting arguments with "you're evil so I can ignore you."

Or is the content so difficult that the only way you can deal with it is to attack the character of those disagreeing with you?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Are we wealthier, overall? Is our standard of living higher?

Again, mixed. We have technology that didn't exist then that definitely give us benefits that didn't exist then. On the other hand, on some key variables, things have definitely degraded. The cost of housing, education, and healthcare have all risen faster than inflation, and those are some very important factors to standard of living.

Having actually heard the other side of the argument, I would say that they don't believe that those reasons are PRATTs. That's why I can do something AA can't do (and refuses to consider) and actually assume good faith.

By all means, let's don't think too critically about the issue or respond to requests for information confirming the same. Let's just assume good 'faith'.

One can give the benefit of the doubt with regards to intentions and still think critically about the content. It is almost as if you WANT to dismiss all dissenting arguments with "you're evil so I can ignore you."

Or is the content so difficult that the only way you can deal with it is to attack the character of those disagreeing with you?

Jesus Harold Christ. For the 1000th time, what I WANT is for someone to PRESENT a dissenting argument. I assure you in 29 pages of thread, there isn't one. Continually imploring someone to present their side of the story is the opposite of "ignoring" them. And I have yet to find evidence of disagreement - other than someone continuously whining about how I'm ascribing evil intentions to someone else. Yes, that I disagree with.

aa

 

[Horatio Parker]

Are we wealthier, overall? Is our standard of living higher?

Again, mixed. We have technology that didn't exist then that definitely give us benefits that didn't exist then. On the other hand, on some key variables, things have definitely degraded. The cost of housing, education, and healthcare have all risen faster than inflation, and those are some very important factors to standard of living.

So you don't know, possibly we are worse off. Ok.

Presumably low wage earners would be hardest hit by these sector inflations. How then will removing a minimum wage help them? Or, what good is a wage that won't support you?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Again, mixed. We have technology that didn't exist then that definitely give us benefits that didn't exist then. On the other hand, on some key variables, things have definitely degraded. The cost of housing, education, and healthcare have all risen faster than inflation, and those are some very important factors to standard of living.

So you don't know, possibly we are worse off. Ok.

Presumably low wage earners would be hardest hit by these sector inflations. How then will removing a minimum wage help them? Or, what good is a wage that won't support you?

I wanted to round out the picture, but over all I do think we are overall worse off. It is a question with many variables, and some things have improved so I'm not seeking a return to 1964.

I don't seek a change to the rate of minimum wage, I seek a causal cure, which is to stop the inflation that necessitates eventual minimum wage increases as the wave spreads to that sector of the economy.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Again, mixed. We have technology that didn't exist then that definitely give us benefits that didn't exist then. On the other hand, on some key variables, things have definitely degraded. The cost of housing, education, and healthcare have all risen faster than inflation, and those are some very important factors to standard of living.

Having actually heard the other side of the argument, I would say that they don't believe that those reasons are PRATTs. That's why I can do something AA can't do (and refuses to consider) and actually assume good faith.

By all means, let's don't think too critically about the issue or respond to requests for information confirming the same. Let's just assume good 'faith'.

One can give the benefit of the doubt with regards to intentions and still think critically about the content. It is almost as if you WANT to dismiss all dissenting arguments with "you're evil so I can ignore you."

Or is the content so difficult that the only way you can deal with it is to attack the character of those disagreeing with you?

Jesus Harold Christ. For the 1000th time, what I WANT is for someone to PRESENT a dissenting argument.

I've seen people present a dissenting argument.

I assure you in 29 pages of thread, there isn't one.

Just because I haven't presented it doesn't mean that it hasn't been done. I have a different take about how we should tackle this problem at the source. Why, since you want a counter-argument, are you only addressing me?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Again, mixed. We have technology that didn't exist then that definitely give us benefits that didn't exist then. On the other hand, on some key variables, things have definitely degraded. The cost of housing, education, and healthcare have all risen faster than inflation, and those are some very important factors to standard of living.

Having actually heard the other side of the argument, I would say that they don't believe that those reasons are PRATTs. That's why I can do something AA can't do (and refuses to consider) and actually assume good faith.

By all means, let's don't think too critically about the issue or respond to requests for information confirming the same. Let's just assume good 'faith'.

One can give the benefit of the doubt with regards to intentions and still think critically about the content. It is almost as if you WANT to dismiss all dissenting arguments with "you're evil so I can ignore you."

Or is the content so difficult that the only way you can deal with it is to attack the character of those disagreeing with you?

Jesus Harold Christ. For the 1000th time, what I WANT is for someone to PRESENT a dissenting argument.

I've seen people present a dissenting argument.

People have presented a 'reasonable' dissenting argument against raising the minimum wage. No one has presented ANY argument as a proponent for the government to intervene and lower it. If I've missed one, I'm happy to be called out on it.

I assure you in 29 pages of thread, there isn't one.

Just because I haven't presented it doesn't mean that it hasn't been done. I have a different take about how we should tackle this problem at the source. Why, since you want a counter-argument, are you only addressing me?

Only because you are the only one assuming that there is some altruistic reason for the measure WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY dismissing my opposition to the measure as an inconsiderate appeal to good vs evil. If there is such a creature as altruism in this pursuit of lowering the minimum wage, why is it so hard to produce?

aa

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't seek a change to the rate of minimum wage, I seek a causal cure, which is to stop the inflation that necessitates eventual minimum wage increases as the wave spreads to that sector of the economy.

How will that help low wage workers?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So you don't know, possibly we are worse off. Ok.

Presumably low wage earners would be hardest hit by these sector inflations. How then will removing a minimum wage help them? Or, what good is a wage that won't support you?

I wanted to round out the picture, but over all I do think we are overall worse off. It is a question with many variables, and some things have improved so I'm not seeking a return to 1964.

I don't seek a change to the rate of minimum wage, I seek a causal cure, which is to stop the inflation that necessitates eventual minimum wage increases as the wave spreads to that sector of the economy.

A lot of long-term investment and financial calculus depends on a predictable (if not consistent) rate of inflation, and that investment primes a lot of economic activity which is why we need inflation for the health of the economy or something. "Buy low, sell high" is the driving principal here, and if prices are falling then investment activity stops.

That, at least, is what all the economics majors and professors told me in college. I'm still pretty sure that answer is at least partially bullshit since investors could just as easily bet on DEFLATION by changing the way they invest. I'm guessing you would see a shift away from stocks and towards bonds.

 

[Horatio Parker]

A lot of long-term investment and financial calculus depends on a predictable (if not consistent) rate of inflation, and that investment primes a lot of economic activity which is why we need inflation for the health of the economy or something. "Buy low, sell high" is the driving principal here, and if prices are falling then investment activity stops.

That, at least, is what all the economics majors and professors told me in college. I'm still pretty sure that answer is at least partially bullshit since investors could just as easily bet on DEFLATION by changing the way they invest. I'm guessing you would see a shift away from stocks and towards bonds.

Seems to me that since economies don't grow unless someone spends more than their income, IOW growth is dependent on credit growth, inflation makes borrowing and therefore risk taking more attractive.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A lot of long-term investment and financial calculus depends on a predictable (if not consistent) rate of inflation, and that investment primes a lot of economic activity which is why we need inflation for the health of the economy or something. "Buy low, sell high" is the driving principal here, and if prices are falling then investment activity stops.

That, at least, is what all the economics majors and professors told me in college. I'm still pretty sure that answer is at least partially bullshit since investors could just as easily bet on DEFLATION by changing the way they invest. I'm guessing you would see a shift away from stocks and towards bonds.

Seems to me that since economies don't grow unless someone spends more than their income, IOW growth is dependent on credit growth, inflation makes borrowing and therefore risk taking more attractive.

Assuming this is true, WHY do economies only grow when people spend more than their income, again?

Also, why is constant growth in an economy a necessary or even desirable thing if the population isn't growing at the same pace?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Assuming this is true, WHY do economies only grow when people spend more than their income, again?

Presumably because expansion requires investment and investment requires credit.

Also, why is constant growth in an economy a necessary or even desirable thing if the population isn't growing at the same pace?

Is this a test? To achieve a higher standard of living, I guess.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I wanted to round out the picture, but over all I do think we are overall worse off. It is a question with many variables, and some things have improved so I'm not seeking a return to 1964.

I don't seek a change to the rate of minimum wage, I seek a causal cure, which is to stop the inflation that necessitates eventual minimum wage increases as the wave spreads to that sector of the economy.

A lot of long-term investment and financial calculus depends on a predictable (if not consistent) rate of inflation, and that investment primes a lot of economic activity which is why we need inflation for the health of the economy or something. "Buy low, sell high" is the driving principal here, and if prices are falling then investment activity stops.

That, at least, is what all the economics majors and professors told me in college. I'm still pretty sure that answer is at least partially bullshit since investors could just as easily bet on DEFLATION by changing the way they invest. I'm guessing you would see a shift away from stocks and towards bonds.

We've lived in this abnormal condition for so long that people actually consider it to be normal. It is Prison Normal to the point that people actually believe that deflation will destroy the economy. It is not necessary for an economy to have continuous inflation. To answer Horatio's question, wouldn't deflation be a wage increase even though the numbers on the paycheck are the same? If you can buy more with the same amount of money, that is basically a pay increase.