Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loren Pechtel · 06-19-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby McGee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

[ Incidentally, this was the express purpose of early minimum wage laws: to prevent black workers from 'taking away the jobs' of white workers.

I'm unfamiliar with this, care to cite some evidence?

I don't recall any links but he's right. It was part of the Jim Crow system.

Gamera · 06-19-2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I think this is the pinnacle of cheap labor conservative logic: you need to pay people less to get them to work.

I love the absurdities conservatives come up with.

Pay attention!

He didn't say you have to pay them less to get them to work, he said you have to pay them less to get employers to hire them.

Pay attention: like you, he's against rules that give workers more negotiating power and hence higher wages. You rig the market against workers and then complain they might get paid too much.

Gamera · 06-19-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

[[
The issue with safety nets is people who choose to leech rather than work. The better the safety net the bigger the issue this becomes. As with so many things in economics it's the unintended consequences that are the big issue.

Do you have any evidence of leeching or is this just more cheap labor conservative nonsense.?

Quote:

I don't want it to be an alternative to work. It should be for those who can't find work, not for those who don't like the jobs offered.

Any evidence that poor people are leeching off the system?

Quote:

I saw no reason to say anything as I agree with it.

Thus rebutting your claim that markets are somehow insulated from rules.

Quote:

Note that I am *NOT* opposed to having a safety net! I don't think it should be all that good but it should be there.

You want to make poor people suffer if they hit bad times, eh? That's conservative values for ya.

Gamera · 06-19-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Kind of funny. Conservatives always say that increasing the minimum wage will chase jobs away - but the minimum wage has been increasing ever since the birth of this nation, and kids, some at 15, can still get jobs. There will always be McDonald's.

Because the harm is caused by the ratio of minimum wage to per capita wages, not by the absolute value of the minimum wage.

So long as the ratio doesn't rise we will see no additional harm due to the minimum wage.

Translated: MW has never even gotten close to causing employers to reduce employee numbers, and in fact it shows that employers, if left to the current rules, will ruthlessly exploit the weakest and poorest members of society to increase profit for themselves.

That's conservative economics in a nutshell.

Gamera · 06-19-2007, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

[What you are forgetting is that "no detectable effect" <> "no effect". The employment data is noisy data--for the effects of minimum wage changes to be visible would take really big effects. Lets say 10% of the minimum wage workers get laid off as a result of a minimum wage hike. What's the effect on the unemployment data? One tick--something that happens most months anyway.

In the rational world, no detectable effect is no effect. In the bizarro world of conservative cheap labor economics, no detectable effect means conservatives get to ignore the facts and make unsupported claims.

Quote:

Protectionism lowers our standard of living, it doesn't raise it.

Funny, it worked for Japan and Korea. Why wouldn't it work here. Go into detail.

Quote:

It's just the lost jobs due to imports or outsourcing are easy to see, the jobs that are lost due to protectionism are far harder to see even though they are more numerous.

Your "analysis" is incoherent. The issue isn't jobs but the kind of jobs. What happens, as every study shows, is that trade with protectionists and low wage countries like China drives down wages for working Americans and enriches the wealthiest citizens. That's a pretty stupid policy.

Quote:

In effect the safety net is a subsidy to everyone that would be eligible for it. Of course worker wages rise when you subsidize them!

Yeah, that's the point. Rules should be constructed to raise wages of workers, not to make the top 1% richer. It's one or the other. Why do you have this fetish to protect Paris Hilton?

Gamera · 06-19-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby McGee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

[ Incidentally, this was the express purpose of early minimum wage laws: to prevent black workers from 'taking away the jobs' of white workers.

I'm unfamiliar with this, care to cite some evidence?

It is a canard of market fundamentalists. Pure nonsense. It's like claiming that Hitler was for enivornmental protection, so environmentalists are Nazis.

That's how desperate the market fundis are.

Gamera · 06-19-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spherical Time

A question. Why wouldn't companies move toward automated checkout lines with less employees anyway? No wages is always preferable to some wages, no matter how low the wages are.

There is a certain cost of upkeep of the equipment, but it's still probably less than the wages for four checkout cashiers.

The higher wages are the faster companies will move to such automated devices.

They are expensive and require skilled upkeep.

Note the overall effect: Fewer jobs but far higher skill jobs. This is the general effect of technology. (Note that it also means the opening up of new areas that create jobs.)

All this requires a system of training and education. Which is exactly what the voodoo economics of market fundis are against.

The companies and classes that benefit from outsourcing should have to pay an "outsourcing" tax to retrain the workers who lose their jobs and get reduced wages.

That's only fair. Since government policy creates outsourcing, government policy should make sure those harmed are reimbursed.

Gamera · 06-19-2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

More conservative mumbo jumbo. Card studied the effect of minimum wage on employment. The effect is de minimis. Minimum wage is history so low it doesn't chase jobs away, it just means a little more money for hard working people.

But I'm not even talking about minimum wage. I'm talking about negotiating power that accrues through unions, rules against outsourcing, social safety nets, tariff's. etc.

The bottom line is make rules that give workers more financial security and hence more negotiating power, and wages go up. Period. It's an iron law. That's why the market fundis are against rules the give workers more negotiating power.

Yes, the Card study, where they called fast food managers to see if they would fire anyone if the minimum wage were raised. It certainly trumps the hundred or more previous studies that found that unemployment among low-skilled workers (especially males 18-24, ESPECIALLY black males 18-24) rises when the minimum wage increases. At least some portion of current high employment is due to the current minimum wage becoming increasingly irrelevant due to inflation. True to form, about the point when employment among young black men begins to rise, we price them out of the labor market...again. Incidentally, this was the express purpose of early minimum wage laws: to prevent black workers from 'taking away the jobs' of white workers.

Ah, the rightwing cliff notes to a peer reviewed study.

I love it how market fundis are reduced to absurdist attacks when the studies go against them.

Brainy Smurf · 06-19-2007, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Then you shouldn't be worried about a more robust social safety net covering more people and giving more security to more Americans.

The issue with safety nets is people who choose to leech rather than work. The better the safety net the bigger the issue this becomes. As with so many things in economics it's the unintended consequences that are the big issue.

I don't want it to be an alternative to work. It should be for those who can't find work, not for those who don't like the jobs offered.

Quote:

I notice you didn't even deal with the investor risk issue. I didn't expect you to.

I saw no reason to say anything as I agree with it.

Note that I am *NOT* opposed to having a safety net! I don't think it should be all that good but it should be there.

I agee.
The safety net should not become a hammock.

99Percent · 06-19-2007, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by They

Quote:

Originally Posted by 99Percent

What you seem to miss is that there is nothing in libertopia from preventing you and your friends to form a comune, even a city if you will and enact all the things you like (welfare, police, public schools, "free" universal craddle to grave health care etc) in that comune or city as long as you don't force anyone into it.

Aren't Libertarians planning that now? Moving to a state with a low voter turnout then voting in a Libertarian majority in the State House.

The difference is that in libertopia you don't have to vote to make your own ministate, just that everyone voluntarily joins in and is free to leave later.

Quote:

By your definition what you will end up with is thousands of mini-states and the beginning of decades of warfare.

Not if initiation of force is not allowed.

Quote:

No, what will happen is you can buy your court and sue whoever you like and your mate the Judge will always decide in your favour. No market forces here.

How successful do you think such a judge would be?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.