Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will concede that your argument contains real causes and real effects.
And I apologize for putting you on the spot. But will you conceded that min wage increases are sometimes necessary to adjust workers wages with inflation?
Chad.
Good post. But no I don't believe that minimum wage increases are necessary in the face of inflation. The market will force wage increases in response to inflation. It always has. My father made about $20K as a civil engineer when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's. Today the median salary of a civil engineer is $79K, according to the BLS. The minimum wage had nothing to do with it; supply and demand had everything to do with it.
If inflation necessitates a price control for labor, why not for other goods and services? Why not a minimum price for gas, asparagus, or slurpees? Inflation is a phenomenon of money supply and boosts the price of everything, whether low skilled labor or slurpees.
Good post. But no I don't believe that minimum wage increases are necessary in the face of inflation. The market will force wage increases in response to inflation. It always has. My father made about $20K as a civil engineer when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's. Today the median salary of a civil engineer is $79K, according to the BLS. The minimum wage had nothing to do with it; supply and demand had everything to do with it.
If inflation necessitates a price control for labor, why not for other goods and services? Why not a minimum price for gas, asparagus, or slurpees? Inflation is a phenomenon of money supply and boosts the price of everything, whether low skilled labor or slurpees.
Very, very interesting (from an economic/capitalism standpoint.)
But the above economic principles do not take into account unfairly regulated capitalism, or a capitalist society where some businesses have tax/federal subsidy advantages over others.
When large corporations have lower tax rates than regular businesses, and when large corporations get federal subsidies and regular businesses don't, will the rules of economics and capitalism play out in a normal way?
The following is my personal opinion. Min wage increases will hurt many small businesses, and drastically hurt very small businesses. And these small businesses are needed for jobs, and also needed to grow into larger businesses.
But min wage increases will not hurt large corporations, because of their lower tax rates, and federal subsidies they receive.
I personally believe 'high' min wage laws should not be put on small businesses. And for the rest of businesses there should be a sliding min wage scale, where medium sized businesses pay a higher wage than small businesses, and profitable large corporations pay even higher min wages.
Good post. But no I don't believe that minimum wage increases are necessary in the face of inflation. The market will force wage increases in response to inflation. It always has. My father made about $20K as a civil engineer when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's. Today the median salary of a civil engineer is $79K, according to the BLS. The minimum wage had nothing to do with it; supply and demand had everything to do with it.
Civil engineer is not a minimum wage job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
If inflation necessitates a price control for labor, why not for other goods and services? Why not a minimum price for gas, asparagus, or slurpees? Inflation is a phenomenon of money supply and boosts the price of everything, whether low skilled labor or slurpees.
Because nobody cares if slurpees can feed their families.
It actually was. Again, the topic was the downward sloping demand curve.
In other words, you wanted an unrebutted soapbox for your own bias, in this case, fixation on one aspect of the political equation to the exclusion of those aspects that make society humane.
In other words, you wanted an unrebutted soapbox for your own bias, in this case, fixation on one aspect of the political equation to the exclusion of those aspects that make society humane.
Note that those are all your words, not mine. If you wish to say that, fine, but don't try to shove them into my mouth.
What I wanted was a discussion of why the down sloping demand curve is embraced in one case--namely the tobacco tax discussion. Again note that the WaPo writer seemed almost giddy at the prospect of raising taxes based on the 'new research' that found the law of demand works. Whereas in the case of the minimum wage, the down-sloping demand curve is suddenly declared inoperative, inhumane, or inapplicable.
Many conservative economists have always argued that minimum wage laws hurt those they are supposed to help. If the demand for labor slopes downward, it is true.
This is why farmers have asked for, and received, not mere price floors, but subsidies to compensate them when the market price drops under a certain level.
bUU's post was perfectly understandable if you made any attempt to do so.
The problem though is that one of the goals of persuasion is to be effective.
Eschew obfuscation. bUU doesn't understand that. He (?) is so enamored of the words he uses that he loses sight of his goals. So most people that aren't obsessed with their righteousness finish his paragraphs without remembering the beginning.
Note that those are all your words, not mine. If you wish to say that, fine, but don't try to shove them into my mouth.
What I wanted was a discussion of why the down sloping demand curve is embraced in one case--namely the tobacco tax discussion. Again note that the WaPo writer seemed almost giddy at the prospect of raising taxes based on the 'new research' that found the law of demand works. Whereas in the case of the minimum wage, the down-sloping demand curve is suddenly declared inoperative, inhumane, or inapplicable.
Many conservative economists have always argued that minimum wage laws hurt those they are supposed to help. If the demand for labor slopes downward, it is true.
This is why farmers have asked for, and received, not mere price floors, but subsidies to compensate them when the market price drops under a certain level.
The demand curves are different because people are not cigarettes.
Lefties accept the law of supply and demand, but only when it does not contradict their liberal doctrine of a world where entry level retail workers are making as much money as a person with an engineering degree, 20 years on the job experience, and a 50 hour salaried work week.
So if you ask them if they "accept" it, of course they will say yes. But once you talk with them for a few minutes, it's clear that they don't really understand what it means.
It's much like fundamentalist Christians/Muslims/etc who accept the pursuit of scientific discovery, except of course, when it contradicts anything in their centuries old dogma.
Supply and demand is a model. Models are not reality. If you get confused on that point, you turn into one of those infamous Wall Street bankers who lost all our shirts in the financial crisis. So let's get that straight before we get into the details of where the model works well, and where it works poorly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
