simple question for liberals. Do you accept the laws of supply/demand? (unemployment, minimum wage)

[wutitiz]

Here's an article from a couple days ago that in essence says, the law of demand works. An army of guys in white coats, with billions in federal grants, have determined that as the price of cigs goes up, the quantity of cigs smoked goes down.
Want people to drink less? Make their cigarettes more expensive - The Washington Post

Almost giddy with this new-found knowledge, the WaPo suggests that tobacco tax hikes are in order:

Originally Posted by WaPo

And at the state level, there's still a lot of room for increases. State taxes on a pack of cigarettes range from $0.15 in Missouri to $4.35 in New York. Kentucky could tack on an additional nine dollars in taxes, and cigarettes there would still be cheaper than in Manhattan, where a pack will set you back $14.50 these days.

If you remember your econ 101, you know that the same applies to labor and the minimum wage. As the price of labor goes up, the quantity of labor demanded by employers goes down. Here's a 2 minute video showing how this plays out in terms of supply/demand:


How to draw minimum wage on a supply and demand graph - YouTube

Yet in discussions of the minimum wage, liberals always assure us that, no, minimum wage laws do not cause job loss or unemployment. Well clearly they do if you believe that the law of demand works. Unless, as the above video points out, the law sets the minimum wage at or below the market wage. In which case the minimum wage law is unnecessary, and a waste ink and paper.

Please explain, liberals. How is it that the law of demand works when it comes to a discussion of raising sin taxes, but not when it comes to a discussion of the minimum wage?

[bUU]

One of the hallmark characteristics of right-wing perspective is the dumbing down of all issues to insulate themselves from having to deal with the truth that reality is not as clear-cut and as simplistic as their avaricious and self-centered attitudes would wish them to be. For that reason, right-wingers are seemingly incapable of understanding how something they look at with their tunnel-vision fully engaged, i.e., the reality of supply and demand, must be viewed as one of many facets of the situation for which they're attempting to pretend to be intelligent and proactive. They work hard to dodge the fact that these different aspects, especially aspects that are higher in priority than petty concerns such as money, such as human decency and the responsibility of a society to its most vulnerable members, that ruin their egoistic narrative. This is why, incidentally, right-wing perspective favors regressive policy so much. It is a reflection of how that perspective favors the more puerile nature, barbarism, callous disregard for others, self-centeredness, and why it cannot abide the trappings of civilization, such as society, government, the general welfare, etc.

[wutitiz]

I may be a dumb right winger (who got all A's in econ 101, btw), but I know enough to press the 'return' key for a new paragraph from time to time. Especially when I'm writing long, run-on sentences with multiple commas, with an 'i.e.' here and an 'etc.' there.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by bUU

One of the hallmark characteristics of right-wing perspective is the dumbing down of all issues to insulate themselves from having to deal with the truth that reality is not as clear-cut and as simplistic as their avaricious and self-centered attitudes would wish them to be. For that reason, right-wingers are seemingly incapable of understanding how something they look at with their tunnel-vision fully engaged, i.e., the reality of supply and demand, must be viewed as one of many facets of the situation for which they're attempting to pretend to be intelligent and proactive. They work hard to dodge the fact that these different aspects, especially aspects that are higher in priority than petty concerns such as money, such as human decency and the responsibility of a society to its most vulnerable members, that ruin their egoistic narrative. This is why, incidentally, right-wing perspective favors regressive policy so much. It is a reflection of how that perspective favors the more puerile nature, barbarism, callous disregard for others, self-centeredness, and why it cannot abide the trappings of civilization, such as society, government, the general welfare, etc.

So, would that be a "No" from you ?

[bUU]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

I may be a dumb right winger (who got all A's in econ 101, btw)

It would be interesting to know what grade I would have given you if you were a student in ECO 101 when I taught it. However, that's irrelevant: Your comment shows that, even if you read what I wrote, you clearly didn't understand it. Try again:

One of the hallmark characteristics of right-wing perspective is the dumbing down of all issues to insulate themselves from having to deal with the truth that reality is not as clear-cut and as simplistic as their avaricious and self-centered attitudes would wish them to be. For that reason, right-wingers are seemingly incapable of understanding how something they look at with their tunnel-vision fully engaged, i.e., the reality of supply and demand, must be viewed as one of many facets of the situation for which they're attempting to pretend to be intelligent and proactive. They work hard to dodge the fact that these different aspects, especially aspects that are higher in priority than petty concerns such as money, such as human decency and the responsibility of a society to its most vulnerable members, that ruin their egoistic narrative...

I'll ignore your childish effort to distract attention from words you don't like especially until you actually bring yourself to read, understand and acknowledge what was actually said to you.

[JimRom]

Originally Posted by bUU

It would be interesting to know what grade I would have given you if you were a student in ECO 101 when I taught it. However, that's irrelevant: Your comment shows that, even if you read what I wrote, you clearly didn't understand it. Try again:I'll ignore your childish effort to distract attention from words you don't like especially until you actually bring yourself to read, understand and acknowledge what was actually said to you.

Write your posts in a way that is clear and concise, and you won't have to worry about asking people to read a wall of text. You normally have much better punctuation than the above post shows.

[Camlon]

Generally moderate liberals accept it and radical liberals don't accept it. Not all liberals are the same, and it is wrong of us to characterize all liberals into one group.

The reason radical liberals don't believe in supply and demand is because they believe in progressive ideology over anything else. If supply and demand prove that conservatives are right, then according to radical liberals supply and demand must be wrong, because their ideology is never wrong.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

Please explain, liberals. How is it that the law of demand works when it comes to a discussion of raising sin taxes, but not when it comes to a discussion of the minimum wage?

How about you first explaining how necessities (labor working for businesses) are even remotely comparable to luxuries (cigarettes) in the way they affect supply and demand?

Or did that come after Econ 101?

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

I may be a dumb right winger (who got all A's in econ 101, btw), but I know enough to press the 'return' key for a new paragraph from time to time. Especially when I'm writing long, run-on sentences with multiple commas, with an 'i.e.' here and an 'etc.' there.

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

So, would that be a "No" from you ?

Originally Posted by JimRom

Write your posts in a way that is clear and concise, and you won't have to worry about asking people to read a wall of text. You normally have much better punctuation than the above post shows.

Hahahahhahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!

[FrankMiller]

Liberals know that if you take an econ class after 101, you learn that labor supply is not a straight line.

Backward bending supply curve of labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia