I Cringe When I Hear The Term "living Wage."

[NotreDame]

These are dumb conversations.  I don't have time to do this all day.  Last time you spent a whole Saturday arguing that race (which you can scientifically DNA test for) was a social construct that didn't exist outside of our social environment. 

 

We are never going to agree. I don't find these back and forths interesting and neither does anybody else.  I'll agree to ignore you.  You can choose to ignore me if you want. 

[arfink]

Arfink,  I'm not sure what you are getting at here.  Could you expand on it a bit?
 

 

What I'm trying to get at is, should human society be based solely around consumption and production? When I read Pliny's post, I have to wonder if that's what he is trying to say. But human worth is not based on what we can produce for ourselves or others to consume.

[4588686]

These are dumb conversations.  I don't have time to do this all day.  Last time you spent a whole Saturday arguing that race (which you can scientifically DNA test for) was a social construct that didn't exist outside of our social environment. 

 

We are never going to agree. I don't find these back and forths interesting and neither does anybody else.  I'll agree to ignore you.  You can choose to ignore me if you want. 

 

 

I'm going to point out the various factual inaccuracies you proclaim.  Like your claim that we spent Trillions of dollars in the name of equality.  A claim that is so false that you are either chronically ill-informed or just blatantly lying (saying something clearly untrue for rhetorical effect).  I'm personally inclined to believe that the latter is the case.  If you don't want to respond to me then don't. Stop being so melodramatic.  

Edited February 11, 2014 by Hasan

[NotreDame]

I'm going to point out the various factual inaccuracies you proclaim.  Like your claim that we spent Trillions of dollars in the name of equality.  A claim that is so false that you are either chronically ill-informed or just blatantly lying (saying something clearly untrue for rhetorical effect).  I'm personally inclined to believe that the latter is the case.  If you don't want to respond to me then don't. Stop being so melodramatic.  

 

Every post you make on economics is deeply flawed.  I don't have the time to go through each one and explain all the inaccuracies only to have you jump to something else that's equally inaccurate in the next reply.   If I thought it would benefit the readers I might do it, but my impression is that people find the back and forth annoying.

 

To say it is in the name of "equality" is a bit of hyperbole, but I reserve the right to be hyperbolic when I want to because it amuses me.  The actual reason we have spent trillions we don't have and printed trillions more is because democrats want to.   The reasons they want these things change every speech depending on the latest focus group.  Everything else in my post is correct.

 

 

 

 

 

[NotreDame]

What I'm trying to get at is, should human society be based solely around consumption and production? When I read Pliny's post, I have to wonder if that's what he is trying to say. But human worth is not based on what we can produce for ourselves or others to consume.

 

You are absolutely right, Human worth isn't based on what we can produce or consume.   What part of Pliny's post makes you think that is what he is trying to say?
 

[4588686]

Every post you make on economics is deeply flawed.  I don't have the time to go through each one and explain all the inaccuracies only to have you jump to something else that's equally inaccurate in the next reply.   If I thought it would benefit the readers I might do it, but my impression is that people find the back and forth annoying.

 

To say it is in the name of "equality" is a bit of hyperbole, but I reserve the right to be hyperbolic when I want to because it amuses me.  The actual reason we have spent trillions we don't have and printed trillions more is because democrats want to.   The reasons they want these things change every speech depending on the latest focus group.  Everything else in my post is correct.

 

 

Right.  Well I find your posts highly frustrating as well.  Or, rather, I find your stream of statements that you apparently know to be inaccurate frustrating.

 

Now, since your statements on this topic have been both deceptive and vague it's difficult to know for sure which trillions of dollars you are referring to.  However if you are referring to the bank bail outs and stimulus program then it must be pointed out, for people concerned more with accuracy than 'hyperbole,' that such spending occurred by Republican and Democratic Administrations.  

 

But again, it would help if there were any sort of specificity in your wild and, by your own admission, exaggerated claims.  

 

Every post I make on economics is deeply flawed?  Is that intended to be an actual claim or is that some more 'hyperbole?'  If it's hyperbole then it would help do know which posts I've made about economics are deeply flawed.  

[Pliny]

What I'm trying to get at is, should human society be based solely around consumption and production? When I read Pliny's post, I have to wonder if that's what he is trying to say. But human worth is not based on what we can produce for ourselves or others to consume.

 

Not "human" worth, but what is the worth of our labor in the marketplace.

 

If I weave place-mats out of corn husks all day, I'm not going to produce enough value worthy of a "living wage" and it would be wasteful and unjust to force that to happen by government decree.

[arfink]

You are absolutely right, Human worth isn't based on what we can produce or consume.   What part of Pliny's post makes you think that is what he is trying to say?
 

 

That would be when he says:

 

So we have uneducated and unskilled people living being an unnecessary burden on their families and/or society, when instead they could be producing, contributing, and learning skills that would lead them to better paying jobs.  Minimum wage is an impediment to the economy and to a "living wage."

[NotreDame]

Right.  Well I find your posts highly frustrating as well.  Or, rather, I find your stream of statements that you apparently know to be inaccurate frustrating.

 

Now, since your statements on this topic have been both deceptive and vague it's difficult to know for sure which trillions of dollars you are referring to.  However if you are referring to the bank bail outs and stimulus program then it must be pointed out, for people concerned more with accuracy than 'hyperbole,' that such spending occurred by Republican and Democratic Administrations.  

 

But again, it would help if there were any sort of specificity in your wild and, by your own admission, exaggerated claims.  

 

Every post I make on economics is deeply flawed?  Is that intended to be an actual claim or is that some more 'hyperbole?'  If it's hyperbole then it would help do know which posts I've made about economics are deeply flawed.  

 

Dude, this has nothing to do with bills that were passed 6 or 7 years ago and now it's you who are being melodramatic.

 

And no, every post you make on economics is deeply flawed.  Not hyperbole in the least.
 

[4588686]

Dude, this has nothing to do with bills that were passed 6 or 7 years ago and now it's you who are being melodramatic.

 

And no, every post you make on economics is deeply flawed.  Not hyperbole in the least.
 

 

 

Do you have any specifics?  Any particular bills you would like to point to?  Any particular economic claims I've made that you would like to cite?  

[arfink]

Not "human" worth, but what is the worth of our labor in the marketplace.

 

If I weave place-mats out of corn husks all day, I'm not going to produce enough value worthy of a "living wage" and it would be wasteful and unjust to force that to happen by government decree.

 

OK, so I obviously misunderstood that one then. My bad.

 

I do find it very interesting that you assert a minimum wage would make it so that people who only know how to weave mats can't have jobs. That's not precisely true. It just means that an employer can't hire someone to weave mats and have it be profitable for him.

 

I know a little bit about this because I've spent many years as a contractor or freelancer or self-employed, depending on the situation, and it's allowed me to make money at jobs where someone won't hire an employee. But generally speaking I did not ever work minimum wage at these jobs, I earned far more. And the employer got to have far less say in what I did and how I spent my time, and ultimately I think, got less value from me than he would have got had he hired someone as an actual employee and followed all the supposedly onerous rules about benefits and wages and such. :P

[Pliny]

There are some people who have the ability to work but are idle. They are then a burden to someone else but unnecessarily so, since without a minimum wage, they could work for $4 per hour and be adding more goods and services to the economy, while reducing or eliminating their cost to society. But an alleged well-meaning concept locks them out and we are all poorer for it, especially the unskilled and marginally productive who are forbidden to trade ther labor for what it is worth.

[Slappo]

OK, so I obviously misunderstood that one then. My bad.

 

I do find it very interesting that you assert a minimum wage would make it so that people who only know how to weave mats can't have jobs. That's not precisely true. It just means that an employer can't hire someone to weave mats and have it be profitable for him.

 Seeing as employers are in the business of making a profit, it means there will be no jobs for weaving mats because those positions are unprofitable due to the minimum wage, therefore those who are only qualified to weave mats can't get a job.

 

Employers drop products that aren't profitable (at least... once they realize the product is not profitable). The only instances where they may not do this is if the product itself doesn't inherently make a profit, but by getting customers to come buy it, the business as a whole is more likely to make a profit. Example: you go to the store to pick up a loaf of bread on coupon being sold at a loss for $.10 and leave with a 12 pack of soda as well. The business makes no profit on the bread but the profit on the soda more than makes up for the loss on the bread.

[Pliny]

That's the point. The higher the minimum wage the more the under productive are locked out as well as those good and services which cannot support paying a minimum wage. But if you believe that price controls work to our benefit, why not set minimum wage at $100 per hour so everyone can be affluent?

[arfink]

You are both making the assumption that the only way to trade your goods or services for money is to do it through an employer who also gets to take a cut. That's what I'm trying to talk about here: the mat-weaver can do an end-run around employers who can't make a good enough margin post-minimum-wage and just sell their own mats.

 

I'm suggesting that perhaps the way to think about this is that by paying minimum wage, an employer receives a benefit, mainly, the ability to have someone else do the work for him under conditions which he dictates to the employee.