Honestly: the minimum wage does need to go up

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

This post got me thinking.

I am firmly in favor of:

A) A higher minimum wage in the whole US, and my home state of NY
B) Honesty in politics

While the OP I linked to is not exactly dishonest, it's not exactly honest either.
And this is not to put flak upon the poster there, but it's an example of political rhetoric that is used to leverage one side of a conversation, ignoring nuance.

the graphic in the linked to OP:

1) Doesn't seem to take into account state laws that raise min wage over fed laws
2) Doesn't take into account the vast difference in housing throughout a state

My objection is more with 2 than 1. 1 is easy to take care of, but 2 is not easy.

New York City is WAYYYY more expensive than Rochester or Buffalo, NY; or a large number of other places within the state I could name. Yet, this graphic gives us a number, presumably an average. But that average is way skewed. But how else should they do it? Give us on graphic for NYC and another for the rest of NY State? That wouldn't work either, because then you'd need to break it down for other cities and so on. So what do we do?

We must talk about things in the big picture without getting bogged down in details, otherwise we will have to talk for eons before we can understand what needs to be done. So while I agree that the min wage needs to go up, across the US, I have a problem with the info-graphics created to support that argument. They lack nuance, and as such, are deceiving. Even if they don't mean to be, and are honestly doing the best they can to compile and sort the data, the inevitability of misleading data is going to doom us all.

That said.
Happy saint patty's day.
Was I drunk when I wrote this? You decide.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Went over this a while ago. Very few made out of the lower quintile loop. The allaged economic mobility? 90% of it consisted of it going up and down in the first 3 quintiles.

So it's more of a cover your eyes thing?

Give me a shred of evidence for this.

You mean other than math? You budget for X, and Y increases for arbitrary political reasons. You cannot surpass X.

Because I don't believe in a system that only pays people according to how much someone else thinks it's worth. I don't agree that pay should be matched by what someone brings in. I'm not a free market fundamentalist.

Fairy dust is not a way to figure out the value of labor.

You're just SAYING it will. No serious economist even adheres to ANYTHING you mises.org people say. Not a single time in history have your insane theories been implemented, and yet you're drawing conclusions on all these scenarios and hypotheticals.

I challenge you one time to find me referencing mises.org on anything. You seem to have this bizarre block on considering anything that even sounds libertarian, whether it is or not. You're not even arguing a point, you're just blindly, angrily arguing against an idea you barely understand.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

So it's more of a cover your eyes thing?

Non-sequiter.

You mean other than math? You budget for X, and Y increases for arbitrary political reasons. You cannot surpass X.

Minimum wage isn't just increased on a whim. People know well ahead of time when a minimum change occurs. The last one took a year before it went into effect, and even then it increases gradually. If minimum wage is a big factor in your budgeting then you're obviously not doing any high-value projects. If they fire people they can no longer provide the same level of goods and service, so they'll make less money. Once again, you're parroting the myth of a link between minimum wage and unemployment. If minimum wage puts them over the edge then they weren't making any money out of the business anyway. I thought the market wasn't a big fan of propping up inefficient business models?

Fairy dust is not a way to figure out the value of labor.

People are already making above minimum wage, so obviously the 'fairy dust' has figured out that 94% of the labor force should make more than minimum wage anyway.

I challenge you one time to find me referencing mises.org on anything. You seem to have this bizarre block on considering anything that even sounds libertarian, whether it is or not. You're not even arguing a point, you're just blindly, angrily arguing against an idea you barely understand.

What else do I assume when you beat the same drum that they do? They replace fact with myth, ignore evidence and history. Neither you nor they have shown any evidence that gives your argument any merit. "Hey, it's only 6% so let's get rid of it!" That's not an argument. In fact, it's an argument against getting rid of it, because so few people make it that we might as well let those people make SOMETHING. Not all of them are spoiled teens who were forced by their parents to work or looking to get some pot money, some of them need the money, in fact a lot of them do. Hell not all of them are teenagers.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Minimum wage isn't just increased on a whim

It's not raised based on anything concrete, that's for sure.

People know well ahead of time when a minimum change occurs.

That, uh, doesn't mean it's not increased on a whim.

People are already making above minimum wage, so obviously the 'fairy dust' has figured out that 94% of the labor force should make more than minimum wage anyway.

But somehow the other 6% of workers don't need to be concerned with the market for their labor, right?

What else do I assume when you beat the same drum that they do? They replace fact with myth, ignore evidence and history.

So you say.

Neither you nor they have shown any evidence that gives your argument any merit. "Hey, it's only 6% so let's get rid of it!" That's not an argument

I agree, that's why I didn't make that argument.

The basic reason for not having a minimum wage is that it's not necessary. It does not solve any perceived problems, nor does it create any real positive outcomes. The negative impacts are many and far-reaching. Then there's the aspect that it's the government getting in the middle of private contracts, which is a problem all on its own.

There's no good objective argument for the minimum wage. It's all emotional and arbitrary.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's not raised based on anything concrete, that's for sure.

Yes, they're just rubbing their hands together and cackling, "We'll get those small business owners! Mwa hah hah!"

It's just like anything you said has been based in anything concrete.

I guess lifting families out of poverty doesn't count as anything 'concrete'. Then again the minimum wage doesn't actually bring people above the poverty level, and they traditionally get denied the full 40-hour work week so they can be denied paying benefits as well... you're right, actually. We shouldn't bother because it's likely those people will just die anyway.

That, uh, doesn't mean it's not increased on a whim.

I was SPECIFICALLY replying to your stupid X and Y example, and how people fucking plan for minimum wage hikes just like they do for any OTHER increase in labor costs. I specifically followed it up with how these laws are traditionally passed, and you completely fucking ignored it! Are you even trying?

There's no good objective argument for the minimum wage. It's all emotional and arbitrary.


By definition, for you it IS arbitrary, because you don't care for the well-being of the people being affected by this. You don't care about the suffering of people who can't make ends meet. You don't think it's the economy's job to provide for people to live a happy life. You think the economy exists purely to make a profit, that it exists independent from society therefore and to make a profit in it, it trickles down to society.

I believe the economy should provide for a society, that our well-being is intimately connected with what we expect out of an economy. The economy should exist to serve the well-being of the people. It governs how people get goods and services, which make us happy and drives our quality of life.

Look at China. They primarily export from all their manufacturing, but very little of it filters back into society. Most of it just goes to the people at the top. In the US the money stays local, generates more business, people earn money from the goods they produce which causes people to earn more money. Our goods mostly stay in our economy and enrich our society. More and more we're globalizing and exporting our goods to China, and the effect? Higher rates of poverty, lower wages, we've gone through a credit crisis and we're heading toward the death of the middle class in this country.

We'll never agree because we have different fundamental goals for the economy. Luckily for me, both history and nearly every economist agree with my interpretation for what an economy means to a society. Fortunately, nobody with any sense advocates what you advocate.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I guess lifting families out of poverty doesn't count as anything 'concrete'.

The minimum wage doesn't impact enough breadwinners for it to be about that. Unless you're conceding that those who favor a minimum wage increase are misinformed.

By definition, for you it IS arbitrary, because you don't care for the well-being of the people being affected by this.

There is no well-being benefit for this. It's a net negative because of the impacts.

Luckily for me, both history and nearly every economist agree with my interpretation for what an economy means to a society. Fortunately, nobody with any sense advocates what you advocate.

And your evidence?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

How many breadwinners does it take for it to matter?

you are willing to let ANYBODY fall through the cracks. thats disgusting and sad.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How many breadwinners does it take for it to matter?

Many, many, MANY more than what we currently have.

you are willing to let ANYBODY fall through the cracks. thats disgusting and sad.

No, I'm not - I want to get rid of the minimum wage, which causes so many to fall through the cracks.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

How many more? I want you to think about this.
Give me a number so you can reveal just how many people you think need to suffer before you feel like it's worth trying to help them.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The minimum wage doesn't impact enough breadwinners for it to be about that. Unless you're conceding that those who favor a minimum wage increase are misinformed.

How is 'it doesn't affect enough people' an argument? Oh well it's only 6% of people who are suffering, so who cares? This isn't an argument. Oh hey only 2% get prostrate cancer, why should insurance cover it? Oh hey well fires only happen 2% of the time a year, why should we have a fire department?

There is no well-being benefit for this. It's a net negative because of the impacts.

Yes, I'm aware of our fundamental disagreements over the purpose of an economy and its intimate relationship with society. You don't believe it benefits anyone because you disjoint an economy from a society. People who make very little are just factors in an economy to you that don't deserve mention because their economic value is low. I don't believe that society benefits from people in poverty. We'll never agree. That's okay.

And your evidence?

We've had a minimum wage since 1938 and these predictions of doom have yet to come true. Then again you don't believe The New Deal happened so maybe it was never put into place, and is a recent concept! Maybe the first minimum wage was put in place in 2009 for history-denial libertarians.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How is 'it doesn't affect enough people' an argument?

You don't make wide-ranging changes in policies that have such large implications across the board for such a small number. It tells us that there are very few people impacted by it, so we can look at other ways to handle the situation.

Then again you don't believe The New Deal happened so maybe it was never put into place, and is a recent concept!

This is tiring when lankers does it, and it's tiring when you do it.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

What you're engaging in is a classic logical fallacy.

This quote here:

Reduced employment, increased prices, distorted wages and prices along the way.

This is post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which means "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one."

A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.

Your insistence that minimum wage caused these things is a perfect example of this fallacy. You assume it happened because it occurred afterwards.

You have to prove causation before you make these kinds of claims. The best part is, you really can't. This sort of claim is just shooting from the hip, hoping it fits into your narrative you've carefully crafted. It's like saying, "The automotive recession started in October 1989, which was the start of the requirement that some cars of each manufacturer be fitted with air bags... Perhaps the reason that car sales have gone down is that many consumers are not willing to pay for a car with air bags."

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

Do you want to solve this argument between yourself and Jeff. Its a rather simple challenge, for him since I am on your side of the argument.

Jeff, all you have to do is survive on a 40 hour work week making $7.25 an hour, for a month, while keeping your vehicle maintained (if you reside in an area where you need or have one), keeping your bills paid, supporting your family, and holding down a job. After that month come back and say that minimal wage arguments are arbitrary, or emotional. Keep in mind that is only about $290 dollars a week, before the government and state takes its cut. I really do not feel like figuring for all the taxes. Back in the day I was bringing in around $230 to $250 a week. More than enough for an industrial person to live off of, right?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

What are the stats on who is actually working those jobs?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The problem is that those making minimum wage, statistically, are not the primary breadwinners in their household and are not the ones trying to survive off it. If you want to raise the minimum wage for this small subset of people who are using it as their primary source of income, the end result will be that those who use it for supplemental income, or kids in high school and college get the shaft.

That's no good.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

what?

it is MUCH better for the breadwinners to be doing OK while the teen living at home is unemployed, than for the teen to be employed, but breadwinners arent makign enough to pay rent.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The point of a minimum wage is to provide a stepping stone for people to get better jobs. Better that they spend 40 hours making a living wage so they can spend the rest of their time training or otherwise looking for a better job.

It's the same fucking concept as unemployment. It's a way for people to keep their sanity and allows them to bounce back into the economy.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

How exactly does that experiment prove anything. The experiment isn't about whether a person could survive on it. It's whether or not that Jeff could survive on it. His costs for housing, food, transport, etc are already based upon his current income.

If he had to suddenly live off a lower amount of course he couldn't.

Could the average person who works for minimum wage survive on it is the question. And yes, they could because literally hundreds of thousands of people do.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You call that living?

Also, you would need to consider all the govt assistance that people on min wage get.
Food stamps, medicaid, section 8....

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

As noted elsewhere in the thread, the causation is fairly clear. It's a key point minimum and living wage advocates need to either ignore ot diminish, because it defeats the point.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

you cant just say the causation is clear and have that be your argument.

spell it out, specifically and with detail.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's spelled out - wages artificially rise, fewer employment hours, higher costs, etc. It's called basic math.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Okay, let me try debating like you:

Minimum wage has improved society. Need a citation? Look around, it's fairly clear.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Let me try debating like you:

Hey, you just said that minimum wage didn't improve society!


This isn't a game you want to play.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Haha, or as they say on Spartacus "Put coin in hand, or tongue be silenced!"

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'This is post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which means "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one."'

The sun set, it got cold. Post hoc ergo propter hoc!!

People can actually chart costs associated with a product. In this case, costs of good are affected by wages.

So it's not a fallacy. Your rejecting of an argument because it undercuts your argument doesn't make it a fallacy.