missouri passes state law forcing cities to lower their minimum wage

[Bronzeage]

That is not the whole argument about minimum wage.

A large part of the argument against minimum wage is that it makes lire easier for poor people and thus encourages them to stay poor. The solution to this problem is always to make being poor more miserable, in some way or another. We see this in minimum wage arguments and from proponents of drug testing for food stamp recipients.

No, try actually listening to what people say if you want to hear the argument they are making.

The argument against the minimum wage is the same as the argument against a minimum price for anything.

What is the argument against a minimum price of $20 for pineapples?

Well, when the government bans pineapple sales below $20 it hurts people who want to voluntarily a) buy pineapples for less than $20 and b) sell pineapples for less than $20.

I find pineapple arguments to be specious.

In a world where there was no government participation in the economy, we could argue for pure market forces to set prices for good and labor. However, we don't live in that world. We live in a world where businesses benefit from government action, everything from uniform weights and measures, to a paved road to their door.

This is what makes the anti-minimum wage argument so hollow. One can't claim undue government intervention in labor costs, while benefiting from government intervention in other areas.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, try actually listening to what people say if you want to hear the argument they are making.

The argument against the minimum wage is the same as the argument against a minimum price for anything.

What is the argument against a minimum price of $20 for pineapples?

Well, when the government bans pineapple sales below $20 it hurts people who want to voluntarily a) buy pineapples for less than $20 and b) sell pineapples for less than $20.

I find pineapple arguments to be specious.

In a world where there was no government participation in the economy, we could argue for pure market forces to set prices for good and labor. However, we don't live in that world. We live in a world where businesses benefit from government action, everything from uniform weights and measures, to a paved road to their door.

This is what makes the anti-minimum wage argument so hollow. One can't claim undue government intervention in labor costs, while benefiting from government intervention in other areas.

Agreed, this wouldn't even be a debate except for excess government intervention in the economy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow, Missouri needs to set it's minimum wage to $1000 I guess.

Here we go again with Argumentum ad Absurderium. dismal loves dragging this fetid argument out every once in a while.

Airline safety: Let's just make planes out of concrete.
Food safety: People choke all the time, maybe we should ban food.
Day running car lights: Why not just put sirens and strobe lights on every car?
Minimum wage: Why not pay everyone at least $1000 /hr.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed, this wouldn't even be a debate except for excess government intervention in the economy.

And it all just happened out of the blue with no historical context whatsoever!

 

[dismal]

I find pineapple arguments to be specious.

I find your resistance to basic economic knowledge sad.

 

[dismal]

Here we go again with Argumentum ad Absurderium. dismal loves dragging this fetid argument out every once in a while.

Airline safety: Let's just make planes out of concrete.
Food safety: People choke all the time, maybe we should ban food.
Day running car lights: Why not just put sirens and strobe lights on every car?
Minimum wage: Why not pay everyone at least $1000 /hr.

I'm sorry Jimmy what did you find "absurd" about $1000 per hour? Are you suggesting it would hurt someone somehow?

How could it? It's my understanding that there is no known way the minimum wage hurts anyone ever.

What are you some sort of 19th century robber baron who wants poor people to be poooooooor?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Here we go again with Argumentum ad Absurderium. dismal loves dragging this fetid argument out every once in a while.

Airline safety: Let's just make planes out of concrete.
Food safety: People choke all the time, maybe we should ban food.
Day running car lights: Why not just put sirens and strobe lights on every car?
Minimum wage: Why not pay everyone at least $1000 /hr.

I'm sorry Jimmy what did you find "absurd" about $1000 per hour? Are you suggesting it would hurt someone somehow?

How could it? It's my understanding that there is no known way the minimum wage hurts anyone ever.

What are you some sort of 19th century robber baron who wants poor people to be poooooooor?

Now dismal, I was just dinging prideandfall (and also Jimmy) for ascribing maliciousness to the other side. Don't make me do the same for you.

I know you were doing a reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Wow, Missouri needs to set it's minimum wage to $1000 I guess.

Since it wouldn't hurt anyone and super-help the poor.

Why would you guess that? Also, this is a thread about lowering the minimum wage, not raising it to something stupid. Is the current minimum closer to $1000 or closer to $0? If lowering the minimum wage helps more than it hurts, why not lower it a nickel and employ everyone?

aa

 

[dismal]

Wow, Missouri needs to set it's minimum wage to $1000 I guess.

Since it wouldn't hurt anyone and super-help the poor.

Why would you guess that? Also, this is a thread about lowering the minimum wage, not raising it to something stupid. Is the current minimum closer to $1000 or closer to $0? If lowering the minimum wage helps more than it hurts, why not lower it a nickel and employ everyone?

aa

If your brain can only process in one direction pretend that the non-robber barons are in charge and have set the minimum wage at $1000/hr and we're talking about whether it should be lowered.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry Jimmy what did you find "absurd" about $1000 per hour? Are you suggesting it would hurt someone somehow?

How could it? It's my understanding that there is no known way the minimum wage hurts anyone ever.

What are you some sort of 19th century robber baron who wants poor people to be poooooooor?

Now dismal, I was just dinging prideandfall (and also Jimmy) for ascribing maliciousness to the other side. Don't make me do the same for you.

I know you were doing a reductio ad absurdum.

I'm just going by what I see here.

If there are no conceivable ways the minimum wage could possibly hurt anyone, you'd have to be a 19th century robber baron not to want to raise it to $1000 to reeeeeeeaally help the shit out of the poor.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Why would you guess that? Also, this is a thread about lowering the minimum wage, not raising it to something stupid. Is the current minimum closer to $1000 or closer to $0? If lowering the minimum wage helps more than it hurts, why not lower it a nickel and employ everyone?

aa

If your brain can only process in one direction pretend that the non-robber barons are in charge and have set the minimum wage at $1000/hr and we're talking about whether it should be lowered.

Since it's hypothetical, is the economy comfortably supporting a $1000 min wage? Is unemployment currently the lowest it's been in over 5 years? If so, then why lower it?

aa

 

[prideandfall]

I'm here wondering how prideandfall knows their motive.

it's called "observing reality and applying a bare level of logic to a situation" - kind of like how i know that jerry falwell claiming that "easing the statute of limitations on prosecuting child sexual abuse cases is the government trying to bankrupt the catholic church" is jerry falwell admitting the catholic church are a bunch of boy fuckers.

I'm disputing the omniscience present in this thread that can tell me what the motives are behind the actions.

interesting that you get to clutching your pearls over this when you have no problems with projecting motivations on other people when you disagree with their position (for example "SJWs")

This may sound silly, but I think saying "you support this because you are a bad person" isn't very likely to convince people to change their minds.

this may sound callous, but since you're basing this entire straw man off my posts i feel warranted in stating this, but i don't think you understand what moral relativism means.

"fuck you, i got mine" is a core value of US conservative politics, that is simply an undeniable reality. that doesn't mean anyone is evil or has malicious intent, it just means that seeing to their own at the exclusion of all others is the driving moral focus of their world view.
"sacrifice superfluous resources for the benefit of others" is a core value of US liberal politics, that is simply an undeniable reality. that doesn't mean anyone is good or has altruistic intent, it means that sharing with the less fortunate is a driving moral focus of their world view.

if you want to ascribe "good" or "evil" value to either of these positions that's fine (i personally do not), but if you want to do that then you need to face the consequences of which value system is good and which is evil, instead of being snitty about the fact that other people are simply pointing out the fact that the difference exists.

 

[dismal]

Since it's hypothetical, is the economy comfortably supporting a $1000 min wage?

How could it not?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

"fuck you, i got mine" is a core value of US conservative politics,

There you go again.

that is simply an undeniable reality.

Do you think they would deny it? I'm not sure you have the ability to answer that.

"sacrifice superfluous resources for the benefit of others" is a core value of US liberal politics, that is simply an undeniable reality.

Do you think conservatives would deny it? I'm not sure you have the ability to answer that.

if you want to ascribe "good" or "evil" value to either of these positions that's fine (i personally do not), but if you want to do that then you need to face the consequences of which value system is good and which is evil, instead of being snitty about the fact that other people are simply pointing out the fact that the difference exists.

Do you think they might not see consequences that you see? Do you think they might see consequences that you do not see?

 

[prideandfall]

There you go again.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF6SNxNIV08[/YOUTUBE]

Do you think they might not see consequences that you see?

oh absolutely they do not - because their worldview is predicated on seeing things that aren't there and not seeing things that are.
that's the entire foundation of religion, and it's become the foundation of modern conservative politics in the US.

Do you think they might see consequences that you do not see?

i have no doubt that they hallucinate a whole giant host of things that i don't see, like for example that white straight christian males are an oppressed minority.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Since it's hypothetical, is the economy comfortably supporting a $1000 min wage?

How could it not?

Well, the thread has been dismalized. *puts up the tape*

Move on people, nothing to see here.

 

[dismal]

How could it not?

Well, the thread has been dismalized. *puts up the tape*

Move on people, nothing to see here.

Yeah, I asked a question that could not be engaged without abandoning leftist religious belief and treading dangerously into intellectual honesty.

That will kill a thread here.

Or at least reduce it to (only) personal attacks.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If your brain can only process in one direction pretend that the non-robber barons are in charge and have set the minimum wage at $1000/hr and we're talking about whether it should be lowered.

Since it's hypothetical, is the economy comfortably supporting a $1000 min wage? Is unemployment currently the lowest it's been in over 5 years? If so, then why lower it?

aa

What is the unemployment rate of St. Louis black teens compared to white teens?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Since it's hypothetical, is the economy comfortably supporting a $1000 min wage?

How could it not?

No one is going to chase these stupid red herrings. Previously the economy was supporting the wage level and unemployment was at a record low. And the republican government intervened and lowered the minimum wage. We (progressives) are being asked to try to understand the conservative position - so again I ask why is this some sort of great policy?

Continuing to assert that we should raise the min wage it to $1000 answers none of my questions, nor provides any insight as to why conservatives wanted to intervene into a functional economy and cause harm where the benefits seem minimal to non-existent.

I would instead argue that I am taking the conservative position. "If it ain't broke, then the government better intervene and "fix" it before it's too late" is a position that conservatives consistently rail against. Why not now?

aa

 

[Bronzeage]

I find pineapple arguments to be specious.

In a world where there was no government participation in the economy, we could argue for pure market forces to set prices for good and labor. However, we don't live in that world. We live in a world where businesses benefit from government action, everything from uniform weights and measures, to a paved road to their door.

This is what makes the anti-minimum wage argument so hollow. One can't claim undue government intervention in labor costs, while benefiting from government intervention in other areas.

Agreed, this wouldn't even be a debate except for excess government intervention in the economy.

The problem with that is people like paved streets and sewers. They've been spoiled by what collective action can do to make life easier, and even though the "I did it my way" crowd calls them slaves, they know those guys are full of shit.

At the end of the day, the Libertarians get in their Jeep Wrangler and drive to private property which has a high market value because the government included it in the major infrastructure plan.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Do you think they might not see consequences that you see?

oh absolutely they do not - because their worldview is predicated on seeing things that aren't there and not seeing things that are.
that's the entire foundation of religion, and it's become the foundation of modern conservative politics in the US.

Do you think they might see consequences that you do not see?

i have no doubt that they hallucinate a whole giant host of things that i don't see, like for example that white straight christian males are an oppressed minority.

I was right, you would not be able to answer the questions I posted.

Now I like you you're trying to take an economic discussion, and include social issues. I consider it a shame that economic conservatism and social conservatism are so often found together, and economic liberalism and economic liberalism are so often found together, but that doesn't mean that you should run to social issues if you're having a problem with an economic issue.

"If you don't agree with raising minimum wage it is because you hate gays." Doesn't work, really.

Agreed, this wouldn't even be a debate except for excess government intervention in the economy.

The problem with that is people like paved streets and sewers.

Which can only be provided by government?

They've been spoiled by what collective action can do to make life easier, and even though the "I did it my way" crowd calls them slaves, they know those guys are full of shit.

Yep, if the government doesn't do it then it doesn't get done. That fallacy needs a name.

 

[dismal]

How could it not?

No one is going to chase these stupid red herrings. Previously the economy was supporting the wage level and unemployment was at a record low. And the republican government intervened and lowered the minimum wage. We (progressives) are being asked to try to understand the conservative position - so again I ask why is this some sort of great policy?

Continuing to assert that we should raise the min wage it to $1000 answers none of my questions, nor provides any insight as to why conservatives wanted to intervene into a functional economy and cause harm where the benefits seem minimal to non-existent.

I would instead argue that I am taking the conservative position. "If it ain't broke, then the government better intervene and "fix" it before it's too late" is a position that conservatives consistently rail against. Why not now?

aa

Your question is a nonsensical red herring.

If raising the minimum wage has no harmful effects, a $1000 minimum wage can't hurt the economy.