Started By
Message
re: Birmingham City Council votes to increase minimum wage to $10.10
Posted on 2/25/16 at 1:10 pm to Robert Goulet
Posted on 2/25/16 at 1:10 pm to Robert Goulet
Guaranteeing a minimum wage is analogous to guaranteeing a company a minimum revenue. This creates an anti-competitive system where people and companies are not competing with each other for profits and revenue because their revenue is guaranteed by the government, as long as they just stay in business.
When you guarantee a minimum wage for individuals, you reward them for being uncompetitive. Being uncompetitive in a market system would be considered unproductive behavior.
Whether or not there should be social programs is a normative question, but if your goal is to maximize the efficiency of the market and for everyone to have clear incentives on how to maximize their utility, then yes, you should probably stop having social programs like welfare.
Corporations compete with each other for customers like individuals compete with each other for jobs. If a corporation ceases to be competitive, then that corporation should go out of business. If an individual ceases to be competitive, then that individual should lose their job. Our country, however, stops this process from happening in many cases by creating price floors (minimum wage) and providing subsidies (bail-outs, etc, and welfare programs).
When you guarantee a minimum wage for individuals, you reward them for being uncompetitive. Being uncompetitive in a market system would be considered unproductive behavior.
Whether or not there should be social programs is a normative question, but if your goal is to maximize the efficiency of the market and for everyone to have clear incentives on how to maximize their utility, then yes, you should probably stop having social programs like welfare.
Corporations compete with each other for customers like individuals compete with each other for jobs. If a corporation ceases to be competitive, then that corporation should go out of business. If an individual ceases to be competitive, then that individual should lose their job. Our country, however, stops this process from happening in many cases by creating price floors (minimum wage) and providing subsidies (bail-outs, etc, and welfare programs).
This post was edited on 2/25/16 at 1:12 pm
2
Posted on 2/25/16 at 1:11 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
And it works out fine if you have collective bargaining. Which this country needs to start having a conversation about again.
Because we need more unions in our life.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 1:17 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
Lol you're advocating that people eat the dollar menu for every meal?
No. It was a joke, dummy.
quote:
How do those with this thought process not see the obvious connections to why poor people remain poor?
People who can afford cars, cable, and cell phones on top of living expenses aren't poor.
quote:
When solutions consist of "work harder", "don't have kids", and "get a better education", it's hard to take you people seriously
If not these things, how on Earth would you expect one to increase their pay and quality of life? Oh that's right, just give it to them out of someone else's pocket.
quote:
The thought that poor people want to remain poor and collect "free money" is laughable
Again, if you own a car, subscribe to cable, have a smartphone, and spend money on entertainment such as booze, you aren't poor and shouldn't be considered as such.
quote:
It is about as absurd as abortion should be illegal but We should also scale back social programs.
Why should these be correlated? Are you saying we should just resign ourselves to the fact that poor people having children they can't afford means we must kill them? That poor people are incapable of preventing pregnancy?
Posted on 2/25/16 at 1:38 pm to JamalSanders
quote:
Because we need more unions in our life.
If the liberals don't corrupt them, they can work well.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 1:38 pm to The Spleen
quote:
Well, unless you've actually lived near the poverty line, or witnessed it firsthand, it's hard to explain.
I have. Albeit not to the point of wondering if we would eat.
I don't vilify. I just believe the current entitlement culture is a losing proposition for everyone but Democrats in office.
My original point was that a minimum wage @ 2080 hours should be able to afford someone the basic necessities of life. I did not say (nor do I necessarily believe) that the arbitrary $7.25/hour would do that. I also don't believe that arbitrarily picking $10/hour is a better idea.
I believe that there should be a minimum wage that when worked at on a full time basis could provide the basic necessities for life on an average cost of living across America scale. Scaled for inflation.
I also believe that a lot of the people demanding increases in the minimum wage are doing it so they can afford a bigger TV or the iphone 6. That is what I'm not ok with.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 1:39 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
Guaranteeing a minimum wage is analogous to guaranteeing a company a minimum revenue. This creates an anti-competitive system where people and companies are not competing with each other for profits and revenue because their revenue is guaranteed by the government, as long as they just stay in business.
First, comparing humans to a faceless company is asinine. It doesn't surprise me that many don't see human beings any more.
Well, you're assuming profit without factoring in expenses. These people aren't really profiting from the system. And many American companies are subsidized and they certainly still compete in the market. Also, the purpose of business is to maximize profit, not maintain the status quo.
quote:
When you guarantee a minimum wage for individuals, you reward them for being uncompetitive. Being uncompetitive in a market system would be considered unproductive behavior.
Paying people a wage is rewarding them for doing a job. It's been proven that people actually work harder in environments where they get paid more (think: chik-fil-a, Costco). And again, giving people enough money to live on in exchange for helping you profit is the right thing to do.
quote:
Whether or not there should be social programs is a normative question, but if your goal is to maximize the efficiency of the market and for everyone to have clear incentives on how to maximize their utility, then yes, you should probably stop having social programs like welfare.
So what happens when people get hurt, sick, whatever and their value is diminished? Kill them?
quote:
Corporations compete with each other for customers like individuals compete with each other for jobs. If a corporation ceases to be competitive, then that corporation should go out of business. If an individual ceases to be competitive, then that individual should lose their job. Our country, however, stops this process from happening in many cases by creating price floors (minimum wage) and providing subsidies (bail-outs, etc, and welfare programs).
You do understand that subsidizing certain business is smart economically, yes? I feel like from your comments that you might be alright with another Great Depression.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 1:47 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
First, comparing humans to a faceless company is asinine
I find this ironic since you're okay with murdering unborn children who do have faces.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 1:50 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
Specifically, what unproductive behaviors are we rewarding?
When people can buy booze and lap dances with EBT I'd say that fits the bill.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 1:53 pm to OMapologist
quote:
People who can afford cars, cable, and cell phones on top of living expenses aren't poor.
Everyone on welfare has these things?
quote:
If not these things, how on Earth would you expect one to increase their pay and quality of life?
I dont know, maybe help people out so that they can learn a better way of living and end the cycle of poverty.
quote:
Again, if you own a car, subscribe to cable, have a smartphone, and spend money on entertainment such as booze, you aren't poor and shouldn't be considered as such.
Again, are all these welfare recipients living the high life? How much money does one get for welfare?
quote:
Why should these be correlated? Are you saying we should just resign ourselves to the fact that poor people having children they can't afford means we must kill them? That poor people are incapable of preventing pregnancy?
They are correlated because poverty is a cycle. Being against abortion and against welfare seems counterproductive to me. There are many who advocate letting people starve or figure it out. That seems worse that straight up killing someone.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 1:54 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
Guaranteeing a minimum wage is analogous to guaranteeing a company a minimum revenue. This creates an anti-competitive system where people and companies are not competing with each other for profits and revenue because their revenue is guaranteed by the government, as long as they just stay in business.
When you guarantee a minimum wage for individuals, you reward them for being uncompetitive. Being uncompetitive in a market system would be considered unproductive behavior.
This is gibberish. It creates a price floor. Which creates a surplus. Which means increased unemployment.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 1:57 pm to OMapologist
quote:
I find this ironic since you're okay with murdering unborn children who do have faces.
I am okay with a woman having a say over what to do with her body and being able to make an informed decision. I also do not believe that children do not have faces and conception, perhaps you have evidence to prove otherwise?
I personally am not in favor of late-term abortions except for extreme circumstances.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 1:59 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
Well, you're assuming profit without factoring in expenses.
No, I'm not, which is why I said revenue.
quote:
It's been proven that people actually work harder in environments where they get paid more
It has not been proven, since statistics can't prove anything, but there is a direct correlation with higher production and higher wages. Which comes first? Wouldn't a company want its employees to be as productive as possible? Even willing to give them a bump in salary to achieve that?
quote:
So what happens when people get hurt, sick, whatever and their value is diminished?
Many companies offer a thing called health and life insurance. If competition was allowed in this industry, supply and demand would meet in equilibrium to the exact price and quantity in which people are willing to pay.
quote:
You do understand that subsidizing certain business is smart economically, yes?
No, I don't, since it isn't.
quote:
I feel like from your comments that you might be alright with another Great Depression
The great depression was caused mainly by restrictions and regulations on banks in the US. States restricted bank branching which stopped them from diversifying their portfolios. It also didn't help that the Fed had devalued the American currency by 57% by 1928. Contractionary monetary policy after the depression slowed the rate of recovery along with Hoover's Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which restricted free trade.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 2:00 pm to Year of the Dragon
quote:
Birmingham City Council votes to increase minimum wage to $10.10
Did you see my edits? I removed my comments from what I copied and pasted. I posted a better link.
Sorry about the previous link. I got a little excited. New to this debate thing.
Your newest link says that there's no immediate correlation between an increased minimum wage and inflation. I don't dispute that fact at all.
It does have an impact, however and they even acknowledge that potential in their story. Any increased cost is an inflationary pressure and a mandatory wage increase most assuredly has that impact and it will ripple across the entire wage scale.
Back to my original post, the employers most hurt by these wage increases are the small ones. Because they lack the economy of scale that a nationwide company has, they're more likely to have to raise prices and be even more noncompetitive with the Wal-Marts of the world.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 2:06 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
I also do not believe that children do not have faces and conception, perhaps you have evidence to prove otherwise?
At conception, no but GIS '6 week intact human embryo' and tell me that's not a baby.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 2:14 pm to JamalSanders
quote:
Because we need more unions in our life.
I'm about as vocally anti-union as one can be, but the model TeLeFaWx is espousing actually works pretty well. They participate in the leadership of the company and generally understand that the company must prosper if the employees are going to prosper. As a result, there's not the "screw the company, we're going to get ours" attitude that you see far too often over here.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 2:17 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
Everyone on welfare has these things?
I don't know if everyone or anyone on welfare has the things I'm talking about, but if they do I think they should pay for it themselves.
quote:
I dont know, maybe help people out so that they can learn a better way of living and end the cycle of poverty.
I'm all for helping people out. I just think continually keeping someone dependent on government assistance isn't helping in the long run.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 2:37 pm to AllbyMyRelf
Once again, comparing people to the actions of a corporation does not make sense.
Fine, i meant gross income which includes profit. Perhaps that was poorly worded.
Sure they would. There is an incentive for people to work harder. My point is that most people dont want to, and cant afford to sit back and collect welfare and live a decent life.
I dont understand what youre trying to say here. Are you measuring utils? Is this getting into Marxian Economics?
Do you posit that subsidizing certain U.S. industries has never been smart?
Ok. I meant that you seem to be fine with no goverment intervention in the event of no jobs and a market crash. Every man for him self, as it were.
Fine, i meant gross income which includes profit. Perhaps that was poorly worded.
quote:
Wouldn't a company want its employees to be as productive as possible? Even willing to give them a bump in salary to achieve that?
Sure they would. There is an incentive for people to work harder. My point is that most people dont want to, and cant afford to sit back and collect welfare and live a decent life.
quote:
Many companies offer a thing called health and life insurance. If competition was allowed in this industry, supply and demand would meet in equilibrium to the exact price and quantity in which people are willing to pay.
I dont understand what youre trying to say here. Are you measuring utils? Is this getting into Marxian Economics?
quote:
No, I don't, since it isn't.
Do you posit that subsidizing certain U.S. industries has never been smart?
quote:
The great depression was caused mainly by restrictions and regulations on banks in the US. States restricted bank branching which stopped them from diversifying their portfolios. It also didn't help that the Fed had devalued the American currency by 57% by 1928. Contractionary monetary policy after the depression slowed the rate of recovery along with Hoover's Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which restricted free trade.
Ok. I meant that you seem to be fine with no goverment intervention in the event of no jobs and a market crash. Every man for him self, as it were.
This post was edited on 2/25/16 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 2/25/16 at 2:40 pm to JustGetItRight
quote:
At conception, no but GIS '6 week intact human embryo' and tell me that's not a baby.
TBH, I dont have a definitive thought of "this is when it is a baby" en utero. I can see value of arguments on both sides depending on how theyre presented.
I think women should have a say within reason.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 3:01 pm to Robert Goulet
quote:
Once again, comparing people to the actions of a corporation does not make sense.
The point I make when comparing companies and individuals is that both act purposefully to maximize their utility. For companies, we call that utility profit. Both react according to incentives, so we can compare how government regulates them.
quote:
My point is that most people dont want to
Don't want to what?
quote:
I dont understand what youre trying to say here.
That a market can provide care for people who get sick or hurt. Does that mean a free market society will be a utopia? No. People should still care about and help those in their community who need it. This is done more efficiently (through a utilitarian perspective) voluntarily without government force.
quote:
Do you posit that subsidizing certain U.S. industries has never been smart?
Not sure how to answer that. It has been smart for some people, mainly those companies who benefitted. I feel like you're going to make an 'infant industry' argument that Hamilton made in the beginning of our country's history. We don't know exactly how industry in the US would have turned out if the US had not had protectionist policies. Consumers benefit most when countries allow for free trade, which generally causes countries to specialize in industries in which they have a comparative advantage.
quote:
no goverment intervention in the event of no jobs and a market crash.
Typically, market crashes and bubbles are a result of government intervention in the market.
This post was edited on 2/25/16 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 2/25/16 at 3:14 pm to BowlJackson
The thread has grown into a discussion bigger than the Birmingham ordinance, but just to keep the information in the OP current, the Alabama legislature just nuked the increase.
The story says the governor hasn't said if he would sign it, but that's irrelevant. In Alabama, it only takes a simple majority to override a veto and it passed by a 2 to 1 margin in both chambers.
The story says the governor hasn't said if he would sign it, but that's irrelevant. In Alabama, it only takes a simple majority to override a veto and it passed by a 2 to 1 margin in both chambers.
This post was edited on 2/25/16 at 3:15 pm
Page 5 of 7
Latest Arkansas News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News