Gov Brown Signs $15 CA min wage law RIP California Businesses (Los Angeles: home, property tax)

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

^^^^^ Sounds like a reply to a post that you don't like because you can't refute what he wrote.

He has no retort to post #65. What could he possibly disagree with? It's all very logical when you put it in terms of a transaction between two consenting parties.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

He has no retort to post #65. What could he possibly disagree with? It's all very logical when you put it in terms of a transaction between two consenting parties.

"Word salad" was my retort. If I had no retort I wouldn't have posted.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by TCROX

^^^^^ Sounds like a reply to a post that you don't like because you can't refute what he wrote.

Can't refute what post who wrote?

[Zelva]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

A below minimum wage word salad if I ever saw one.

Yeah man - I rep'd it!! gooooo greens and snaps!

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by TCROX

^^^^^ Sounds like a reply to a post that you don't like because you can't refute what he wrote.

"She," thanks.

[Elliott_CA]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

He has no retort to post #65. What could he possibly disagree with? It's all very logical when you put it in terms of a transaction between two consenting parties.

It's easy to refute Post 65. It has long been established in US law that the government has the power to override any and all private contracts if there is a strong public interest in doing so. A minimum wage accomplishes important public interests like helping reduce poverty and reducing the working poor's dependence on government assistance.

Also, if there is no minimum wage, it is too easy for the employer to coerce employees into accepting terms against their will. If the labor market is tight, an employee making $10/hr is told to accept $5/hr or get fired. The employee, fearing loss of food and shelter, reluctantly accepts. That's not a transaction between consenting parties, that's a contract under duress.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

It's easy to refute Post 65. It has long been established in US law that the government has the power to override any and all private contracts if there is a strong public interest in doing so. A minimum wage accomplishes important public interests like helping reduce poverty and reducing the working poor's dependence on government assistance.

Also, if there is no minimum wage, it is too easy for the employer to coerce employees into accepting terms against their will. If the labor market is tight, an employee making $10/hr is told to accept $5/hr or get fired. The employee, fearing loss of food and shelter, reluctantly accepts. That's not a transaction between consenting parties, that's a contract under duress.

Excellent post. You managed to eat your way through the word salad apparently.

I would also point out that the post referred to "empirical evidence" and proof that higher minimum wages lead to unemployment, especially of the most vulnerable class, and other negative consequences. Two things are interesting about that position, especially in that body has declared the post eminently "logical":

1. "empirical" and "logical" are diametrically opposed functions of debate

adjective
adjective: empirical
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Empirical relying on experience, which is, always in the end, anecdotal, rather than "proven".

2. "empirical observation" has NOT proved what body claims. While the negative effects he observes associated with higher minimum wages are coincidental in some markets, they are not experienced in many other markets, as repeatedly demonstrated and cited.

There is a "logical" conclusion to that alright. And not the one body claims in this instance.

[BuickGS]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Texas has been very smart businesswise, CA not so much.

I predict that you will have many more dining options in TX soon.

I live in CA ...but now I can't imagine opening a business here.

There is only so much more people are going to be willing to pay for a Burger in L.A versus Houston or Austin.

This is going to hurt middle class people (any that are left..) that make more than $15hr..but won't be able to afford to go out to eat at these higher prices too.

Sure a lot of the Pro $15 crowd will say "Who cares they can go to the market and make their own food"

Yes they can...but that will seriously alter the restaurant industry , which is a huge employer and segment of the economy

There are plenty of dining spots in the Dallas metro areas......

Texas has advantages, but like anywhere it has it's problems too
Mainly traffic and home prices climbing. Homes are cheaper here, but taxes and insurance are not.

So there, a good n bad scenario. You will tolerate it here, but you probably will never love it...
I surely do not....

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

It's easy to refute Post 65. It has long been established in US law that the government has the power to override any and all private contracts if there is a strong public interest in doing so. A minimum wage accomplishes important public interests like helping reduce poverty and reducing the working poor's dependence on government assistance.

Also, if there is no minimum wage, it is too easy for the employer to coerce employees into accepting terms against their will. If the labor market is tight, an employee making $10/hr is told to accept $5/hr or get fired. The employee, fearing loss of food and shelter, reluctantly accepts. That's not a transaction between consenting parties, that's a contract under duress.

Nonsense. However, do let me know when an employer puts a gun to a prospective employee's head. If that's the best retort you guys have, I don't have to worry about a thing.

Third parties may be morally uplifted by saying for example, that they would rather see people unemployed than working at exploitation wages. But the mere fact that people are voluntarily transacting as workers, tenants, or businessmen reveals their own very different preferences.

If hiring low-paid workers presented such an opportunity, that is, if exploitation had some substantive economic meaning, the competition attracted would bid their wages up and keep them more fully employed than others.

[Elliott_CA]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

Nonsense. However, do let me know when an employer puts a gun to a prospective employee's head. ... But the mere fact that people are voluntarily transacting as workers, tenants, or businessmen reveals their own very different preferences. ...If hiring low-paid workers presented such an opportunity, that is, if exploitation had some substantive economic meaning...

Exploitation is a recognized economic concept and is divided into non-consensual exploitation (human trafficking, slavery) and consensual exploitation, where the vulnerable are taken advantage of for profit.

Whether on purpose or by a coincidental convergence of factors, corporate owners have been taking advantage of their workers:



Profits and wealth of the upper elite have grown tremendously. Workers have become increasingly productive but they not getting paid for it, as the chart shows. If there was a fair market, where workers and owners shared a level playing field, the two lines should be going up together the entire time. A higher minimum wage won't correct the problem entirely, but it is a step in the right direction.