Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 142

Thread: What does a minimum wage hike have to do with COVID relief?

  1. Top | #101
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    30,510
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    72,983
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    All businesses would be impacted, prices can increase to manage this. The price increases will hardly be 1 to 1. So the ultimate people paying the cost will be the consumers.

    This has nothing to do with harming anyone, but requiring a minimal wage that makes it less a slave wage. $15 an hour is not wealth!
    Unwarranted assumption! In the long run the price increases will be 1 for 1 as you haven't actually changed the economy. It will just take time for the changes to trickle through the whole system.
    The price of producing a widget will increase based on the increase on the cost of production increase per widget. In all cases many more widgets are made than a couple per hour, meaning the increase in production cost per widget will be a fraction of the wage increase.

    The world won’t stop spinning.

  2. Top | #102
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    24,000
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    34,477
    Rep Power
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TV and credit cards View Post
    Very interesting. More at Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mc...rkers-denmark/
    Must be coming from those razor thin profits.
    Profitability varies from one franchise to another. Some outlets have razor thin profits; some have axe-thick profits; some have no profits. Expenses vary; number of customers varies; management skill varies; amount of local competition varies. If costs rise, some franchises will be able to absorb it and some won't.

    Denmark has three times fewer McDonald's outlets per capita than the U.S.
    To be fair, that's mostly because Danes prefer to eat actual food.

  3. Top | #103
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,673
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    9,470
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by KeepTalking View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    ... since the world seems to be overflowing with magical thinkers who make believe they can have the being without the competing, I guess it really is two different kinds of intent -- sort of like the semantic hairsplitting Dr. Kevorkian went in for when he said he intended to end his patients' pain, not their lives.
    You are still talking about something that might be an effect, when the intent is clearly not that.
    Yes, that's what I said. The Catholic Church has been polishing that argument for eight hundred years. Of course, their version has a means-end condition. To be justifiable, "The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect." In the case at hand, making a subset of the workers unemployed is the means by which enough scarcity is induced to achieve the desired effect: to drive the marginal revenue of labor up to the level of the price-control.

  4. Top | #104
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,673
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    9,470
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Denmark has three times fewer McDonald's outlets per capita than the U.S.
    To be fair, that's mostly because Danes prefer to eat actual food.
    You're biased -- you live in the only country in the world that knows how to make decent french fries.

  5. Top | #105
    Veteran Member KeepTalking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    St. Louis Metro East
    Posts
    4,169
    Archived
    3,057
    Total Posts
    7,226
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KeepTalking View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    ... since the world seems to be overflowing with magical thinkers who make believe they can have the being without the competing, I guess it really is two different kinds of intent -- sort of like the semantic hairsplitting Dr. Kevorkian went in for when he said he intended to end his patients' pain, not their lives.
    You are still talking about something that might be an effect, when the intent is clearly not that.
    Yes, that's what I said.
    Then you agree with me that the intent is clearly not to keep minorities out of the workforce, even if that may end up being an effect. I am glad we are on the same page.

  6. Top | #106
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,673
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    9,470
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by KeepTalking View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Yes, that's what I said.
    Then you agree with me that the intent is clearly not to keep minorities out of the workforce,
    Yes, that's what I said. What LP wrote was technically incorrect. You scored a point.

    even if that maywill end up being an effect.
    Fify.

    I am glad we are on the same page.
    Are we on the same page? The reason you and LP got into an argument over intent vs. effect in the first place is because of the widespread presumption that "I didn't mean to" is a valid defense when you do something that hurts somebody. But as Clifford famously pointed out in "The Ethics of Belief", that ain't necessarily so. The shipowner in his fable didn't mean to drown all the people he sent out in an unseaworthy ship, but...

    "What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him."

    The people trying to raise the minimum wage will be keeping a minority out of the workforce. They don't mean to, but the sincerity of their intent can in no wise help them, because they have no right to believe they aren't throwing that minority under the bus in order to advantage the majority, on such evidence as is before them. So when you go back to the underlying dispute over whether those trying to raise the minimum wage are ethical, LP scored a point.

  7. Top | #107
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    18,698
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    60,641
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Yes, that's what I said. What LP wrote was technically incorrect. You scored a point.

    even if that maywill end up being an effect.
    Fify.

    I am glad we are on the same page.
    Are we on the same page? The reason you and LP got into an argument over intent vs. effect in the first place is because of the widespread presumption that "I didn't mean to" is a valid defense when you do something that hurts somebody. But as Clifford famously pointed out in "The Ethics of Belief", that ain't necessarily so. The shipowner in his fable didn't mean to drown all the people he sent out in an unseaworthy ship, but...

    "What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him."

    The people trying to raise the minimum wage will be keeping a minority out of the workforce. They don't mean to, but the sincerity of their intent can in no wise help them, because they have no right to believe they aren't throwing that minority under the bus in order to advantage the majority, on such evidence as is before them. So when you go back to the underlying dispute over whether those trying to raise the minimum wage are ethical, LP scored a point.
    The dispute arose out of the clear implication of intent of discrimination. Intent does matter in ethical discussions as do outcomes (intended or not).
    The actual effect of an increase in the minimum wage on employment is an empirical question. if there is a disparate effect by ______ (you name the characteristic), then policy implication is to identify why that is so and see if it is feasibly addressable.

  8. Top | #108
    Veteran Member KeepTalking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    St. Louis Metro East
    Posts
    4,169
    Archived
    3,057
    Total Posts
    7,226
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Yes, that's what I said. What LP wrote was technically incorrect. You scored a point.
    Oh, cool, I wasn't aware there were points to be had.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    even if that maywill end up being an effect.
    Fify.
    No, I'm not a fortune teller, so I don't think "will" fixes it. How about we settle on "may very well end up being an effect"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    I am glad we are on the same page.
    Are we on the same page? The reason you and LP got into an argument over intent vs. effect in the first place is because of the widespread presumption that "I didn't mean to" is a valid defense when you do something that hurts somebody.
    I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there, because we seem to not be on the same page, and I think that is because you are confusing me with someone else.

    I'm not exactly sue LP and I got into an argument. I merely pointed out that he was contradicting himself by first saying that the intent behind current minimum wage legislation was to keep blacks out of the labor force, then he switched to saying that it wasn't about intent, but about the effect. I have had no other argument with LP in this thread.

  9. Top | #109
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    31,016
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    127,768
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Unwarranted assumption! In the long run the price increases will be 1 for 1 as you haven't actually changed the economy. It will just take time for the changes to trickle through the whole system.
    Your one for one is an unwarranted assumption. As you admit, the minimum wage affects a very small portion of the workforce. And in the long-run, rising wages give firms incentives to substitute capital for labor to reduce their costs. So in the long-run, there is absolutely no reason to think there would be a one for one increase in the price.
    Yeah, it will end up killing some jobs in the process. That won't be enough to make it noticeably less than 1 for 1. You get a temporary boost in exchange for a permanent loss. Short-sighted thinking.

  10. Top | #110
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    31,016
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    127,768
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Are we on the same page? The reason you and LP got into an argument over intent vs. effect in the first place is because of the widespread presumption that "I didn't mean to" is a valid defense when you do something that hurts somebody. But as Clifford famously pointed out in "The Ethics of Belief", that ain't necessarily so. The shipowner in his fable didn't mean to drown all the people he sent out in an unseaworthy ship, but...

    "What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him."

    The people trying to raise the minimum wage will be keeping a minority out of the workforce. They don't mean to, but the sincerity of their intent can in no wise help them, because they have no right to believe they aren't throwing that minority under the bus in order to advantage the majority, on such evidence as is before them. So when you go back to the underlying dispute over whether those trying to raise the minimum wage are ethical, LP scored a point.
    Exactly. In the long run effect means a lot more than intent. I'm sure you know where the road paved with good intentions leads. I'd like every worker to have a good job--it's just I know that the proposals meant to accomplish this will have major negative consequences that are always being handwaved away.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •