missouri passes state law forcing cities to lower their minimum wage

[PyramidHead]

You're still missing the point.

I'm saying the pool must be infinite because you are making no effort to determine what is available, simply assuming that it is big enough. The only way it is valid to make that assumption is if it is infinite. I'm calling you guys out on an argument from faith rather than from reality.

These data are 4 years old; the trend hasn't gotten any better.


I think we have a ways to go before we scratch the bottom of "what is available."

 

[laughing dog]

I most certainly am paying attention; And I don't have nor represent a 'side'; I am simply pointing out that this one specific fucking stupid astonishingly persistent claim made by YOU (NB - not your 'side', just YOU) is utter horseshit.

Any business making a finite profit can support a finite increase in the minimum wage using those profits. This is not a hypothetical claim; it's simple arithmetic.

For any given level of profit, 'P', an increase in minimum wages can be funded from that profit without rendering the business unprofitable, if P>WN, where W is the increase in the minimum wage, and N is the number of minimum wage employees.

So for a company with ten minimum wage employees to be able to fund a $1/hour increase in Minimum Wage while remaining profitable, that company need only make $10/hour (~$20,000 per annum) or more in profit. Last time I checked, the following were both true:

\(10 < \infty\)

and

\(20,000 < \infty\)

Given a finite W and a finite N, P need never be infinite for this relationship to be satisfied. For large W or N, P also needs to be large; But for modest values of WN, P can also be modest.

Infinite P can only be required for the strawman condition where the term WN is infinite.

Your 'side' is clearly made up of arithmetic dunces and morons.

You're still missing the point.

I'm saying the pool must be infinite because you are making no effort to determine what is available, simply assuming that it is big enough.

Utter nonsense. bibly's response showed how idiotic your "infinite pool of profits" meme really is.

The only way it is valid to make that assumption is if it is infinite. I'm calling you guys out on an argument from faith rather than from reality.

No, you are using poor reasoning to justify your ideological biases.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're still missing the point.

I'm saying the pool must be infinite because you are making no effort to determine what is available, simply assuming that it is big enough. The only way it is valid to make that assumption is if it is infinite. I'm calling you guys out on an argument from faith rather than from reality.

These data are 4 years old; the trend hasn't gotten any better.
View attachment 11860
View attachment 11861
I think we have a ways to go before we scratch the bottom of "what is available."

Neither graph is useful.

1) Showing that corporate profits have gone up says nothing about how much money could be made available for wages. You need dollar figures, both for profits and wages.

2) Showing that corporate profits have gone up says nothing about the distribution of such profits. In reality it's very uneven, most companies don't have so much money.

3) The output graph is approximately what you would expect from the information revolution. Businesses are able to invest in tech that increases worker output--the capital/worker ratio is going up, of course the share of the proceeds that goes to the worker goes down.

Lets take the left's favorite whipping boy, WalMart.

Net profit for 2016: $14.69B
Employees: 2.3 million.

Suppose all their profit was directed to employees--that would be $6,300/employee. Lets look at the Seattle measure--$15/hr instead of the $10/hr they now pay. I'm not finding the wage distribution, so lets take a guess and figure it's 2 million workers that would actually get the raise. Now we are up to $7,300/employee. Full time at $10/hr is $20k/yr, $15/hr is $30k/yr. Oops, we only have $7,300 available, not $10k. The pool of profits is not adequate.

(Note that in digging for the numbers I found multiple articles stating they clearly could afford it--based on their gross revenue, not on their profits.)

 

[laughing dog]

Lets take the left's favorite whipping boy, WalMart.

Net profit for 2016: $14.69B
Employees: 2.3 million.

Suppose all their profit was directed to employees--that would be $6,300/employee. Lets look at the Seattle measure--$15/hr instead of the $10/hr they now pay. I'm not finding the wage distribution, so lets take a guess and figure it's 2 million workers that would actually get the raise. Now we are up to $7,300/employee. Full time at $10/hr is $20k/yr, $15/hr is $30k/yr. Oops, we only have $7,300 available, not $10k. The pool of profits is not adequate.

Thank you for providing another example of your poor reasoning. Your example assumes 1) no change in hours on the part of employees, 2) no change in revenue for Wal-Mart (i.e. no change in prices of their products), and 3) a handwaved assumption about the number of employees who would receive the increase.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The only way it is valid to make that assumption is if it is infinite.

Or make the assumption that it is "big enough."

Here you are again doubling down on a bullshit claim that you didn't think through clearly rather than backing off and saying "Okay, you're right, that makes sense."

It's just a windmill, Don Quixote. Get down from there, you look silly.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's a general rule that anything following "you miss the point that" or "in reality" or "except" in Loren's posts is going to be something he just pulled out of his ass. I can't make it any clearer for him that profits are at record highs and wages have remained stagnant, and this is prima facie reason to believe we have not YET reached the point where a gradual increase of the minimum wage by a few dollars would deplete all of their profits. If wages were higher and profits were lower, things would just be the way they were at previous timepoints on the graphs, like in 2000. If it was sustainable then, why not now? Why must the trajectory continue the way it has been, instead of going in the other direction or leveling out? He has no answers to these questions. The next time the topic comes up, it will be as if none of this was ever demonstrated, and anybody who suggests that the distance between wages and profits could be decreased from its current biblical proportions must believe all businesses print infinite supplies of their own money. No data are apparently sufficient to even suggest otherwise. No profits can be recouped from anywhere in the entire infrastructure of a corporation except labor costs. No improvements in efficiency or equability are even possible, because we right now are at the best possible distribution of wages, profits, hours, expenditures, and prices, so any deviation from this point will by definition be destructive. And by the way, 5 years from now when the gap is even wider, THAT will also be the optimum relationship between profits and wages, and anyone who suggests we return to the current levels must think money grows on trees.

 

[ksen]

amen

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lets take the left's favorite whipping boy, WalMart.

Net profit for 2016: $14.69B
Employees: 2.3 million.

Suppose all their profit was directed to employees--that would be $6,300/employee. Lets look at the Seattle measure--$15/hr instead of the $10/hr they now pay. I'm not finding the wage distribution, so lets take a guess and figure it's 2 million workers that would actually get the raise. Now we are up to $7,300/employee. Full time at $10/hr is $20k/yr, $15/hr is $30k/yr. Oops, we only have $7,300 available, not $10k. The pool of profits is not adequate.

Thank you for providing another example of your poor reasoning. Your example assumes 1) no change in hours on the part of employees, 2) no change in revenue for Wal-Mart (i.e. no change in prices of their products), and 3) a handwaved assumption about the number of employees who would receive the increase.

#1 and #2 are simply the proper way to make such a projection, to do otherwise would be dirty math. I admit that I had to take a guess at #3 but I think it's a fairly reasonable guess--most of their people at any large company are the ones at the bottom. To simply wipe out all their profits would mean reducing this to 1.4 million, a value I find way too low to be reasonable.

- - - Updated - - -

The only way it is valid to make that assumption is if it is infinite.

Or make the assumption that it is "big enough."

Here you are again doubling down on a bullshit claim that you didn't think through clearly rather than backing off and saying "Okay, you're right, that makes sense."

It's just a windmill, Don Quixote. Get down from there, you look silly.

Big enough for anything you might want to do = effectively infinite.

The thing is your side refuses to even consider whether the numbers work. Either you don't want to find out the answer is no or you think the number is enormous.

 

[laughing dog]

Thank you for providing another example of your poor reasoning. Your example assumes 1) no change in hours on the part of employees, 2) no change in revenue for Wal-Mart (i.e. no change in prices of their products), and 3) a handwaved assumption about the number of employees who would receive the increase.

#1 and #2 are simply the proper way to make such a projection, to do otherwise would be dirty math.

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

I admit that I had to take a guess at #3 but I think it's a fairly reasonable guess--most of their people at any large company are the ones at the bottom. To simply wipe out all their profits would mean reducing this to 1.4 million, a value I find way too low to be reasonable.

In otherwords, you admit you cooked your example. Wow.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Big enough for anything you might want to do = effectively infinite.

Big enough for exactly what you think can work without causing more problems than it solves = "big enough."

The thing is your side refuses to even consider whether the numbers work.

Seriously?

Two different threads on this subject now and "whether the numbers work" is literally all we have been talking about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

#1 and #2 are simply the proper way to make such a projection, to do otherwise would be dirty math.

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

I was trying to do an honest projection.

I admit that I had to take a guess at #3 but I think it's a fairly reasonable guess--most of their people at any large company are the ones at the bottom. To simply wipe out all their profits would mean reducing this to 1.4 million, a value I find way too low to be reasonable.

In otherwords, you admit you cooked your example. Wow.

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

- - - Updated - - -

Big enough for exactly what you think can work without causing more problems than it solves = "big enough."

The thing is your side refuses to even consider whether the numbers work.

Seriously?

Two different threads on this subject now and "whether the numbers work" is literally all we have been talking about.

No. Your side has simply taken it as a matter of faith that the numbers work I have kept calling you on that.

 

[LordKiran]

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

I was trying to do an honest projection.

I admit that I had to take a guess at #3 but I think it's a fairly reasonable guess--most of their people at any large company are the ones at the bottom. To simply wipe out all their profits would mean reducing this to 1.4 million, a value I find way too low to be reasonable.

In otherwords, you admit you cooked your example. Wow.

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

- - - Updated - - -

Big enough for exactly what you think can work without causing more problems than it solves = "big enough."

The thing is your side refuses to even consider whether the numbers work.

Seriously?

Two different threads on this subject now and "whether the numbers work" is literally all we have been talking about.

No. Your side has simply taken it as a matter of faith that the numbers work I have kept calling you on that.

So where's this massive corporate apocalypse you keep talking about in places like Seattle? Seems the evidence doesn't support your notions. What? A few people here and there lost a job? One or two businesses went under? That's economic collapse? Seriously?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was trying to do an honest projection.

I admit that I had to take a guess at #3 but I think it's a fairly reasonable guess--most of their people at any large company are the ones at the bottom. To simply wipe out all their profits would mean reducing this to 1.4 million, a value I find way too low to be reasonable.

In otherwords, you admit you cooked your example. Wow.

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

- - - Updated - - -

Big enough for exactly what you think can work without causing more problems than it solves = "big enough."

The thing is your side refuses to even consider whether the numbers work.

Seriously?

Two different threads on this subject now and "whether the numbers work" is literally all we have been talking about.

No. Your side has simply taken it as a matter of faith that the numbers work I have kept calling you on that.

So where's this massive corporate apocalypse you keep talking about in places like Seattle? Seems the evidence doesn't support your notions. What? A few people here and there lost a job? One or two businesses went under? That's economic collapse? Seriously?

Reality: Businesses raise prices, they don't just swallow it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Reality: Businesses raise prices, they don't just swallow it.

Assuming you have evidence of prices rising (you don't, obviously, but let's just pretend for a few minutes that you do), how does this demonstrate that the "numbers don't work" as you put it? Seems to me they work just fine since businesses are finding ways to compensate for the rising wages.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reality: Businesses raise prices, they don't just swallow it.

Assuming you have evidence of prices rising (you don't, obviously, but let's just pretend for a few minutes that you do), how does this demonstrate that the "numbers don't work" as you put it? Seems to me they work just fine since businesses are finding ways to compensate for the rising wages.

This is just wishful thinking.

If a business can reduce costs without harming the product they do so whether or not costs are going up.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Assuming you have evidence of prices rising (you don't, obviously, but let's just pretend for a few minutes that you do), how does this demonstrate that the "numbers don't work" as you put it? Seems to me they work just fine since businesses are finding ways to compensate for the rising wages.

This is just wishful thinking.

If a business can reduce costs without harming the product they do so whether or not costs are going up.

I feel that lost in the conversation (in this thread) is the fact that in Missouri the government intervened to lower the cost of employment. By your own logic that should reduce the costs. Is that your prediction?

(still waiting on any conservative to address this notion of government intervention to lower the minimum wage - this entire thread has mostily only discussed increasing it.)

aa

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Actually, fuck you. You were the one who implored the left to try to understand the right wing/libertarian position. Why don't you explain (finally) why those in Missouri helped by a move from $10 MW to $7.50 outweigh those hurt by it? - other than you're just being an asshole about it.

No, I questioned automatically assuming a sinister motive. I didn't even get as far as asking people to understand the other side.

I suppose even that is too much for some people. If someone disagrees with you it is because they are cackling evilly while twirling the ends of their mustache.

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

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, I questioned automatically assuming a sinister motive. I didn't even get as far as asking people to understand the other side.

I suppose even that is too much for some people. If someone disagrees with you it is because they are cackling evilly while twirling the ends of their mustache.

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?

 

[Jaecp]

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?

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?

To assume that experienced people, the heads of nationwide orgs, congresspeople, senators, governors, and the President himself are arguing for these kinds of things in good faith means assuming that they're fucking idiots. The Rank and File isn't whats driving this. It's coming from the people at the top. The people in the know. Mitch McConnell knows that tens of millions of people are going to lose healthcare if he gets that bill through. Many people will die as a result. Mitch McConnell is aware of this.

Which side of the "conniving v stupid" line do you think the most powerful man in the senate, the longest serving senator in his states history, falls more closely?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Assuming you have evidence of prices rising (you don't, obviously, but let's just pretend for a few minutes that you do), how does this demonstrate that the "numbers don't work" as you put it? Seems to me they work just fine since businesses are finding ways to compensate for the rising wages.

This is just wishful thinking.

If a business can reduce costs without harming the product they do so whether or not costs are going up.

Note the bolded part, which begs the question: "Can they?"