missouri passes state law forcing cities to lower their minimum wage

[Loren Pechtel]

Except the whole argument back and forth about minimum wage is that some workers get helped by it, some get hurt. One side says the people that are helped is ignored while the opposite argument about not caring about the group that gets hurt. So if one side cares about the group that gets hurt, how is that not caring?

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.

I can't recall ever hearing this argument before. Been investing in straw?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If MW is bad for the economy why don't dettactors claim it'll cause a recession instead of inflation?

And you think inflation isn't bad for the economy??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So if we raised it to $100 an hour the only problem would be inflation? Why wouldn't the raise in pay outpace inflation?

Dude, look it up yourself. I'm not wasting more time trying to explain the obvious.

We understand. Your side apparently doesn't because you never acknowledge the downside of the minimum wage.

 

[ksen]

If MW is bad for the economy why don't dettactors claim it'll cause a recession instead of inflation?

And you think inflation isn't bad for the economy??

Did I say inflation couldn't be bad?

MW detractors by worrying about inflation are implicitly agreeing that the MW is good for the economy since they are worried about the economy having so much activity going on in it that inflation starts to spike up. You do realize right that inflation comes from an active, vibrant economy . . . right?

 

[laughing dog]

Dude, look it up yourself. I'm not wasting more time trying to explain the obvious.

We understand. Your side apparently doesn't because you never acknowledge the downside of the minimum wage.

Repetition of a falsehood does not make it any truer. Nor does it advance whatever position one is arguing.

For some reason that only you can explain, you are unable to comprehend the basic idea that many people who think a particular increase in the minimum wage is a good idea come to that conclusion because they think or believe that the positive effects of that proposed increase outweigh the negative effects. Coming to that conclusion does not require the claim that there are no negative effects, just that the positive consequences exceed the negative ones.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dude, look it up yourself. I'm not wasting more time trying to explain the obvious.

We understand. Your side apparently doesn't because you never acknowledge the downside of the minimum wage.

What the death spiral threads go into via strawman arguments on minimum wage? Believe me, we know that exists!

 

[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.

I can't recall ever hearing this argument before. Been investing in straw?

That's because you haven't been listening to Paul Ryan or Ben Carson.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Not really surprised a libertarian is more concerned about how people in power fucking over the poor are having their motives maligned than the fact that people in power are using their power to fuck over the poor.

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.

For instance, coloradoatheist gave what might be the motive for some disagreeing with this. Is he lying?

I've noticed a lot of libertarians and conservatives banging on about this concept of "Please don't call me mean names or you'll never convince me of anything." Here's a clue. They're not going to be convinced anyway. They are closed minded. Partisanship is, like it or not, more of a problem on the right than the left. As is fake news. People have tried to charm them, cajole them, and even (gulp) compromise with them. They're having none of it. Most of them are heartless bastards. Those that aren't heartless bastards are enabling heartless bastards by supporting zombie economics and ideology that is damaging to the human condition. They won't like when you point this out, after all, no one likes being forced to look in the mirror. The same can be said for Trumpies that talk anti-semitic, talk about building walls and kicking out illegals, support Blue Lives Matter, and then get all pissy because you call them racists. Know why? Because they're fucking racists. No amount of reasonable discourse is going to make most of these people change their racism. That leaves you only one way to fight it. Call it out for what it is and give an alternative view. Counter them, and when they bitch and moan about being called names, keep reminding them that what they do to everyone else is by far, much worse.

 

[dismal]

Because there is a mechanism that describes what happens when B6 or other vitamins and what happens. No such mechanism has been explained by the supporters of minimum wage. There would be a laffer curve for min wage supporters.

You haven't heard about inflation?

I have heard of it but how could the minimum wage cause it? Wages go up Evil business owners profits go down. There is no more money in the system, so why would there be "inflation"?

 

[LordKiran]

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.

For instance, coloradoatheist gave what might be the motive for some disagreeing with this. Is he lying?

I've noticed a lot of libertarians and conservatives banging on about this concept of "Please don't call me mean names or you'll never convince me of anything." Here's a clue. They're not going to be convinced anyway. They are closed minded. Partisanship is, like it or not, more of a problem on the right than the left. As is fake news. People have tried to charm them, cajole them, and even (gulp) compromise with them. They're having none of it. Most of them are heartless bastards. Those that aren't heartless bastards are enabling heartless bastards by supporting zombie economics and ideology that is damaging to the human condition. They won't like when you point this out, after all, no one likes being forced to look in the mirror. The same can be said for Trumpies that talk anti-semitic, talk about building walls and kicking out illegals, support Blue Lives Matter, and then get all pissy because you call them racists. Know why? Because they're fucking racists. No amount of reasonable discourse is going to make most of these people change their racism. That leaves you only one way to fight it. Call it out for what it is and give an alternative view. Counter them, and when they bitch and moan about being called names, keep reminding them that what they do to everyone else is by far, much worse.

Calling them 'racist' is bad, because it carries plausible deniability. I prefer "Prejudiced" much easier to prove and hang over their heads.

 

[DBT]

Meanwhile wealth is being channeled into the hands of a small percentage of the World's population, a small percentage who hold the bulk of the resources and capital. The rich getting ever richer while we are told ''the minimum wage (already a pittance) needs to be reduced''

It's obscene.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The problem with employers is they run their businesses through entities known as Human Resources. Such staffs are frequently recruited from a pool of idiots who study at college or university but are incapable of anything which requires application. It may sound like a generality but this is from experience over the years dealing with staff in my own employer's company or sorting out disputes between subcontractors and their staffs.

Such person in HR fail to understand the meaning of cost effectiveness vs. bottom dollar. An efficient company can complete of efficiency, shortness of process, getting things done faster. This is also rooted in poor management.

Take Lidle, a German supermarket chain which fv
https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillempert/2017aans more efficiency.

The minimum wage in Britain is £7.25. (US$9.34) Shop workers tend to be on the lower rung of the workforce. Lidl pay £9.75 (US$12.75) as a starting wage and that rises. It's not great money but for a company running on low overheads but it is paying 27% over the odds. In real terms £9.00 is barely enough to live on.

The pay isn't great considering the cost of rent is prohibitive in the big cities to lower paid workers who have to spend about 3 hours or more a day travelling but is achieved through efficiency.

Likewise good staff who produce more are cost effective. In UAE low cost engineers who incorrectly complete a design followed by construction means an add-on of a few million US$ for re-design, scrapping the work, purchasing the new materials and hiring new labour.

There again lousy contractors faced with this say their labour costs are too high.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Meanwhile wealth is being channeled into the hands of a small percentage of the World's population, a small percentage who hold the bulk of the resources and capital. The rich getting ever richer while we are told ''the minimum wage (already a pittance) needs to be reduced''

It's obscene.

This is exacerbated by lousy management who waste money then try toe claim staff wages are too high my post just before this. Never mind the CEO bonus or the new jet.

 

[Philos]

Do you actually think their moral value system is "fuck you, I got mine"?

Jason,

You express the conservative mindset beautifully.

A.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Do you actually think their moral value system is "fuck you, I got mine"?

Jason,

You express the conservative mindset beautifully.

A.

Impossible, they never ask questions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You haven't heard about inflation?

I have heard of it but how could the minimum wage cause it? Wages go up Evil business owners profits go down. There is no more money in the system, so why would there be "inflation"?

So whenever you are near a farm, do you argue with scarecrows?

 

[Horatio Parker]

If MW is bad for the economy why don't dettactors claim it'll cause a recession instead of inflation?

Because increased spending is expansionary and decreased spending is contractionary.

If profits were spent in the same proportion as wages, it might not matter. But workers spend a larger portion of their income.

The perceived risk of inflation is influenced by your view of the economy. If you think that consumer demand is pent up, that investment is down, that there's an output gap, and consumer debt is high, then the risk of inflation is lower because there's enough goods and services available to satisfy worker demand plus deleveraging.

OTOH, if you believe that we're at full employment, and there's no output gap, then the inflation risk is higher because increased worker dollars will compete for goods.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you think inflation isn't bad for the economy??

Did I say inflation couldn't be bad?

MW detractors by worrying about inflation are implicitly agreeing that the MW is good for the economy since they are worried about the economy having so much activity going on in it that inflation starts to spike up. You do realize right that inflation comes from an active, vibrant economy . . . right?

Wrong. An active, vibrant economy tends to cause inflation in the absence of careful watching by the Fed but it's not the only cause of inflation.

- - - Updated - - -

We understand. Your side apparently doesn't because you never acknowledge the downside of the minimum wage.

Repetition of a falsehood does not make it any truer. Nor does it advance whatever position one is arguing.

For some reason that only you can explain, you are unable to comprehend the basic idea that many people who think a particular increase in the minimum wage is a good idea come to that conclusion because they think or believe that the positive effects of that proposed increase outweigh the negative effects. Coming to that conclusion does not require the claim that there are no negative effects, just that the positive consequences exceed the negative ones.

Thinking the upside exceeds the downside is one thing. Most people on here aren't willing to even consider the downside, you just dismiss it as trivial.

 

[laughing dog]

Thinking the upside exceeds the downside is one thing. Most people on here aren't willing to even consider the downside, you just dismiss it as trivial.

When someone posts "It is an empirical question", one is not dismissing the positives or the negatives, so your statement indicates a complete lack either of reading comprehension or of intellectual honesty. It does not suffer from a lack of monumental irony.

 

[dismal]

I have heard of it but how could the minimum wage cause it? Wages go up Evil business owners profits go down. There is no more money in the system, so why would there be "inflation"?

So whenever you are near a farm, do you argue with scarecrows?

Can you walk me through your assumptions?

1) St Louis raises its minimum wage to $1000 per hour
2) No one is harmed
3) Poor people are better off
4) ????
.
.
.
X) Inflation!