$15 Minimum Wage Sparks A Jobs Recession In New York

Micawber said:
He thinks a wage floor is a "price" control because he doesn't distinguish between humans and widgets.
Sort of conflating a "support" and a "control" also. I think many price controls have or do involve a cap on the cost of some item.
Click to expand...

That's the definition of a price control, isn't it? Capping what can be charged for rent, for a loaf of bread, for a lb. of cheese, for a kW of electricity, etc.

Setting a minimum wage to protect entry-level workers and/or unskilled workers from exploitation just helps the economy. If they have more, they can spend more. Lower-income ppl are far more likely to spend what they have than are highly-paid workers who tend to stash it away for the future. That helps them, but not the economy in general.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
That's the definition of a price control, isn't it? Capping what can be charged for rent, for a loaf of bread, for a lb. of cheese, for a kW of electricity, etc.

Setting a minimum wage to protect entry-level workers and/or unskilled workers from exploitation just helps the economy. If they have more, they can spend more. Lower-income ppl are far more likely to spend what they have than are highly-paid workers who tend to stash it away for the future. That helps them, but not the economy in general.
Click to expand...

To be honest I don't know but that's what I always thought it meant. Yes I agree in some bubble up econ at the safety net level. If you want consumer spending
that's the most efficient way. The ox he is goring is that any government interference whatsoever is a perturbation in the efficiency of the economy and deleterious
to output, not just minimum wage. While that makes sense theoretically on an econ 101 examination, it is fraught with so many unrealistic assumptions as to be ridiculous.

We live in a real world, but if into the night wants to talk about some fantasy world without graft corruption price fixing lack of equal information
equal ability to make instantaneous trades on wall street and hell, gold shitting unicorns, that's fine. His position is entirely academic and simplistic and fantasy.
 
Micawber said:
He thinks a wage floor is a "price" control because he doesn't distinguish between humans and widgets.
Click to expand...
Wages are the price of one's labor. It is subject to price discovery like any other price. Price controls don't work.
Micawber said:
Sort of conflating a "support" and a "control" also.
Click to expand...
Non-sequitur fallacy.
Micawber said:
I think many price controls have or do involve a cap on the cost of some item.
Click to expand...
Nope. Price controls are controls installed to control the price of item, overruling market value for that item. Wages are no different.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
That's the definition of a price control, isn't it? Capping what can be charged for rent, for a loaf of bread, for a lb. of cheese, for a kW of electricity, etc.
Click to expand...
Also requiring a certain price minimum.
ThatOwlWoman said:
Setting a minimum wage to protect entry-level workers and/or unskilled workers from exploitation just helps the economy.
Click to expand...
No. Price controls do not work. They always cause shortages. The shortage caused by wage controls are available jobs. That very definitely hurts the economy of the very people you are trying to help.
ThatOwlWoman said:
If they have more, they can spend more.
Click to expand...
They have less. They lost their job.
ThatOwlWoman said:
Lower-income ppl are far more likely to spend what they have than are highly-paid workers who tend to stash it away for the future. That helps them, but not the economy in general.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Wage controls causes a shortage in available jobs.
 
Micawber said:
To be honest I don't know but that's what I always thought it meant.
Click to expand...
Price controls are rules fixing price (either minimum or maximum prices) independent of market forces. Minimum wage laws are price controls. All price controls do the same thing: cause shortages. In the case of minimum wage laws, those shortages are available jobs.
Micawber said:
Yes I agree in some bubble up econ at the safety net level. If you want consumer spending
that's the most efficient way.
Click to expand...
Not when they're thrown out of work or hours because of it.
Micawber said:
The ox he is goring is that any government interference whatsoever is a perturbation in the efficiency of the economy
and deleterious to output, not just minimum wage.
Click to expand...
No. Price controls simply don't work. They always cause shortages.
Micawber said:
While that makes sense theoretically on an econ 101 examination,
Click to expand...
This is not an academic question.
Micawber said:
it is fraught with so many unrealistic assumptions as to be ridiculous.
Click to expand...
No. The effect of price controls has been shown time and time again.
Micawber said:
We live in a real world,
Click to expand...
No, you don't. You think you can just force wages higher and everybody gets paid more and no one loses their jobs or their hours and businesses have infinite money to pay the higher wages.
Micawber said:
but if into the night wants to talk about some fantasy world
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR problem.
Micawber said:
without graft corruption price fixing lack of equal information
equal ability to make instantaneous trades on wall street and hell, gold shitting unicorns, that's fine.
Click to expand...
Try English. it works better.
Micawber said:
His position is entirely academic and simplistic and fantasy.
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR position.
 
Micawber said:
To be honest I don't know but that's what I always thought it meant. Yes I agree in some bubble up econ at the safety net level. If you want consumer spending
that's the most efficient way. The ox he is goring is that any government interference whatsoever is a perturbation in the efficiency of the economy and deleterious
to output, not just minimum wage. While that makes sense theoretically on an econ 101 examination, it is fraught with so many unrealistic assumptions as to be ridiculous.

We live in a real world, but if into the night wants to talk about some fantasy world without graft corruption price fixing lack of equal information
equal ability to make instantaneous trades on wall street and hell, gold shitting unicorns, that's fine. His position is entirely academic and simplistic and fantasy.
Click to expand...

You're a fucking imbecile
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Setting a minimum wage to protect entry-level workers and/or unskilled workers from exploitation just helps the economy.
Click to expand...
You are not protecting them by doing that; you are actually directly harming them. You are taking away their "ladder" which they need to "climb into the workforce and gain experience/knowledge/skills", which leads to an increase in the value of their labor.

Price controls (such as the minimum wage) always lead to shortages of some sort. One of those shortages is that less jobs will be available. With less jobs available, there is less of a chance for "beginners" to "enter the workforce" and gain experience. Instead, the experienced, higher skilled, more knowledgeable workers are going to be prioritized regarding the jobs which ARE still available, and the non-experienced, lesser skilled, lesser knowledgeable workers are going to be completely SOL.

ThatOwlWoman said:
If they have more, they can spend more.
Click to expand...
Yup. So why are you advocating for a price control policy which will only cause shortages rather than actually help who you are trying to help?

ThatOwlWoman said:
Lower-income ppl are far more likely to spend what they have than are highly-paid workers who tend to stash it away for the future.
Click to expand...
Not really. Yes, lower-income people have less money to work with, but they still might be better savers than high-earners. My uncle, at one point, made over twice as much money each year as my dad made [close, or barely into, to triple figures, if I recall correctly]. Yet, my uncle currently doesn't have much of any pot to piss in (and has been buying "toys" which he can't really afford), while my dad currently has a pot to piss in because he has been very frugal over the years. Plenty of poor people build up wealth over time, and plenty of rich people squander it all away...
 
Micawber said:
Another Republican thread attacking the lowest paid workers in America. Is there any question where the parties stand?
Click to expand...

It's not an attack to expect people to get paid what their skills are worth.

It's clear where the parties stand. The Republicans support paying skills what they're worth and Democrats support forcing owners to pay someone based on something unrelated to what they provide in return.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
That's the definition of a price control, isn't it? Capping what can be charged for rent, for a loaf of bread, for a lb. of cheese, for a kW of electricity, etc.

Setting a minimum wage to protect entry-level workers and/or unskilled workers from exploitation just helps the economy. If they have more, they can spend more. Lower-income ppl are far more likely to spend what they have than are highly-paid workers who tend to stash it away for the future. That helps them, but not the economy in general.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are a basketball fan or not but your comment in the bold reminded me of the great Patrick Ewing quote when he was President of the Player's Association, "Sure NBA Players make a lot of money, but we spend a lot too." And that's not unique to basketball players. Being educated or making a lot of money doesn't necessarily mean one is wise or frugal with their money.

As far as people who save money not helping the economy they do provide capital that is used to make loans and fund new investments/companies.
 
let's cut to the chase, make it easier for Liberals to follow along

raising the minimum wage = job losses

don't confuse them any further than that
 
Micawber said:
To be honest I don't know but that's what I always thought it meant. Yes I agree in some bubble up econ at the safety net level. If you want consumer spending
that's the most efficient way. The ox he is goring is that any government interference whatsoever is a perturbation in the efficiency of the economy and deleterious
to output, not just minimum wage. While that makes sense theoretically on an econ 101 examination, it is fraught with so many unrealistic assumptions as to be ridiculous.

We live in a real world, but if into the night wants to talk about some fantasy world without graft corruption price fixing lack of equal information
equal ability to make instantaneous trades on wall street and hell, gold shitting unicorns, that's fine. His position is entirely academic and simplistic and fantasy.
Click to expand...

Which is how you should start every one of your posts. Because you do not know. About anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top