[Blaircafe]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Why must the government step in? Why can't charities, families, and the Church handle it? Why, when we have a problem like this, do we run first to the state?

The government must because the others have not.


I do not see the state as the first resort, but as one player that has the ability to do things the others do not. In a perfect world we would not need government to force business to care that the people whose labor creates their profit are able to feed and provide shelter and health care for themselves and their families, but we do not live in a perfect world.

[+Donny]

The government must because the others have not.


I do not see the state as the first resort, but as one player that has the ability to do things the others do not. In a perfect world we would not need government to force business to care that the people whose labor creates their profit are able to feed and provide shelter and health care for themselves and their families, but we do not live in a perfect world.

We are talking about welfare/wealth redistribution, though. You say that the Church, charities, and families have failed. Sure, but what if they pick up the ball?

[Blaircafe]

Originally Posted by +Donny

We are talking about welfare/wealth redistribution, though. You say that the Church, charities, and families have failed. Sure, but what if they pick up the ball?

I would say AMEN. Government intervention would no longer be neccessary. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world. Jesus said "the poor will always be with us." So I do not expect this to ever be solved, it will be a constant struggle and government, I believe, has a part to play in that struggle.They have power and scope that individual churches will never equal. But if we each did our part as individual Christians, the burden on government would certainly decrese.

[+Donny]

Well, then, since we are speaking of the ideal, would you agree that we should strive for familial and ecclesiastical support of the poor?

[Blaircafe]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Well, then, since we are speaking of the ideal, would you agree that we should strive for familial and ecclesiastical support of the poor?

Definately.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by +Donny

That isn't my argument, exactly. I am saying, everything else remaining the same, employment among those who would normally sell their labor at a lower rate than the minimum wage will go up. The basis for this argument lies in economics, not historical example, so appealing to Britain doesn't prove anything, as you can't really prove that all things remaining the same, Britain wouldn't have a lower unemployment if minimum wage laws were removed.

I want you to reread what you just said here. Just because according to some theory that assumes 'everything else' to be invariable arrives at that conclusion doesn't make the theory applicable in real life. Economics is much more complicated than such simple theories that you discuss. In real life, all things are not equal, and theories don't always work as they do in the vacuum of imagination. I don't see how appealing to Britain doesn't prove anything, especially since it is happening in real life as opposed to on paper or in your mind.

Something you didn't assume: That minimum wage laws could possibly decrease unemployment rates. Consider minimum wage laws and their effect on inflation. Because the overall price level of human capital is higher, the value of money is diminished (ie, the same amount of money will afford you less). And don't think price level changes stop there. People are making more money (nominally, at least) so they have more spending power (again, nominally). Prices for everything increase in the area where minimum wages have been increased. Eventually the Fed catches on to this and Greenspan increases the money supply, inflation going up again due to this. However, since there's more money in the hands of the people, they're hiring more employees, thus decreasing unemployment.

[nolidad]

In other threads, you have admitted you know nothing about science, yet you continue arguing it. Please stop using science (and other pseudo-scientists) to "prove" your beliefs. If you want to belief in a young earth and a literal creation, great. Just do so out of blind faith and not "science".

There are some issues here that have not been discussed that should be. First what is a living wage??

To live in a big city--some of the smallest apartments are $1,000 monthly. And that is one expense alone.

A living wage in one area would not cut it in another.

I do beleive that companies should offer a "decent" wage for someones labors but this is amprphous as the term "living wage".

If the minimum wages is hiked to $7.25/ hr. as Ted Kennedy wishes it still would not provide a living wage fro a man with a wife and 2 children. $1,160 a month does not make ends meet for a family. The better thing would be to put this family on assistance-train the man for a positon that pays more than minimum and then put him to work.

Nearly all minimum wage jobs are entry level type jobs (or were before the rush of golden agers staying in the workplace part time) they generally are fast food, retail and low end service jobs. If these companies are forced to raise one of their highest exp[enses by 15-20% (though most companies start people above minimum wage at least inmy section of America), prices go up, cost of living goes up and the buyingf power of the new "living wage" goes down again. If we keep upping these salaries costs eventually go to high and we recess economically-thus sheeding many jobs and spraling down until we find a new niche to end the recession. Govt. has intervened by deficit spending but with debt levels as high as they are-- that is becoming an avenue that can't be used much more.

[goldenchild]

I support minimum wage laws. Have I thought about it Scripturally? Not particularly. I do think that Scripture supports a more even spread of wealth so that all people can live. I do believe the minimum wage should be higher, at least in different places in accordance with the current cost of living in those places.

[JerryLove]

What do you mean "needing to be done"? Businesses hire and fire people for a lot of reasons, one of which is the cost of labor. They don't just have a set amount of people to hire and then go out and check the costs

More-or-less they do. If something needs to be done, someone needs to do it. A business would not typically hire someone for something that served no need.

There are no jobs that "need to be done" in the sense that there is no limit to how much the company will spend.

So, for example, a resturaunt does not need any waiters, any cooks, any diswashers, any managers? If wages were too high, they would simply run the resturaunt with no employees? How do you figure that?

Again, for that to apply to my argument (which is abstract/logical and not historical), you would have to show that all things remained the same. There could have been something else that caused unemployment to not rise.

I show you what *actually* happened and you want me to disprove that invisible gnomes were involved? Get real Donny!

Furthermore, I am not arguing that min. wage laws will cause a "sharp rise in unemployment". I am claiming they will cause a "sharp rise in unemployment" among a specific class of citizens, some of whom may not even be factored into the unemployment number when min. wage laws are enacted (for example, younger workers that would normally just be entering the workforce).

Because McDonald's burgers will simply start making themselves?

There are too many factors to argue from a few examples in history to a universal rule like that. In science, for experiments to prove anything, they have to be in a controlled environment. History is clearly not a controlled environment.

Option 1: Argue that what has actually happened in the past is an example of the effects of the act.
2: Argue, despite evidence of the contrary, that somthingh which has never happened will be the inevitable result because "Donny says so".

Of the two, I know which one I will take... and it seems I know which one you will take as well.

There's nothing to discuss here, as you aren't basing your position on any sort of reality.

Minimum wage laws have not resulted in high unemployment. Raises to minimum wages have not corresponded with increases in unemployment. The most fiscally successful countried in the world have maintained a miniumum wage. And finally: a lot more than teenagers have benifited from minimum wages (whether through government mandat or government support of unions). Every factory worker, for example.

Your position has no basis in reality... and I'm tired of "the sky is really green" as your argument

[JerryLove]

We are talking about welfare/wealth redistribution, though. You say that the Church, charities, and families have failed. Sure, but what if they pick up the ball?

What if invisible gnomes started simply providing for everyone's needs? What about that?

[+Donny]

I want you to reread what you just said here. Just because according to some theory that assumes 'everything else' to be invariable arrives at that conclusion doesn't make the theory applicable in real life. Economics is much more complicated than such simple theories that you discuss. In real life, all things are not equal, and theories don't always work as they do in the vacuum of imagination. I don't see how appealing to Britain doesn't prove anything, especially since it is happening in real life as opposed to on paper or in your mind.

No, the reason we are speaking theoretically in the "all things being equal" vacuum is because we simply have no idea what causes Britain's unemployment. It could very well be that having no minimum wage would decrease unemployment. Because economics seems so closely tied to the human psyche (buying and selling on the market), it is incredibly complicated. I fully admit that there is no way an economist can, with great accuracy, predict the effect of a certain policy on a certain nation at a certain time with a graph. However, since we are dealing with the ideal and not with what we should do giving a specific situation, we can appeal to more economics logic, like the simple surplus argument I put forth.

Something you didn't assume: That minimum wage laws could possibly decrease unemployment rates. Consider minimum wage laws and their effect on inflation. Because the overall price level of human capital is higher, the value of money is diminished (ie, the same amount of money will afford you less). And don't think price level changes stop there. People are making more money (nominally, at least) so they have more spending power (again, nominally). Prices for everything increase in the area where minimum wages have been increased. Eventually the Fed catches on to this and Greenspan increases the money supply, inflation going up again due to this. However, since there's more money in the hands of the people, they're hiring more employees, thus decreasing unemployment.

Eh, too many factors here, not in the sense of your first paragraph, but in the fact that minimum wage is not necessarily increase the amount of money in people's hands. If there is more unemployment, then it could very well decrease the amount of money in people's hands. Furthermore, because it is on a small portion of the workforce, all of whom do not have very much disposable income, the price levels probably wouldn't raise very much, if at all. Finally, the higher income citizens (those higher the min. wage workers) will not have less money because of higher price of labor, which could reverse the trend you appealed to.

[+Donny]

More-or-less they do. If something needs to be done, someone needs to do it. A business would not typically hire someone for something that served no need.

Once again, what do you mean by "need"? Everything has a cost, and a limit on how much someone is willing to pay for it to be done.

So, for example, a resturaunt does not need any waiters, any cooks, any diswashers, any managers? If wages were too high, they would simply run the resturaunt with no employees? How do you figure that?

If wages are too high, the restaurant will go out of business. That is what I mean by there being a limit. The job doesn't "need" to be done, because if it's too expensive, the restaurant owner will become a tire-salesman.

I show you what *actually* happened and you want me to disprove that invisible gnomes were involved? Get real Donny!

You didn't show anything. You said that in Britain, there is low unemployment, and, hey, they have minimum wages laws. Yeah, and they are on an island, too. Islands must cause higher employment rates.
What you need to prove is that min. wage laws do not cause their unemployment to be higher than it would be without said laws. You need to show causal relation if you are going to appeal to history as if it is some sort of scientific experiment. Such would be nearly impossible due to the enormous complexity of economic workings in real life.

Because McDonald's burgers will simply start making themselves?

That is a terrible argument. So price of labor really is entirely irrelevant as to whether someone gets hired? Why is the market for labor completely different from every other market?

Option 1: Argue that what has actually happened in the past is an example of the effects of the act.
2: Argue, despite evidence of the contrary, that somthingh which has never happened will be the inevitable result because "Donny says so".

Of the two, I know which one I will take... and it seems I know which one you will take as well.

"Argue that what has actually happened in the past is an example of the effects of the act."

What act? Which act caused said results? You are being incredibly inconsistent and irrational to act as though appealing to Britain proves your point.

There's nothing to discuss here, as you aren't basing your position on any sort of reality.

...

Your position has no basis in reality... and I'm tired of "the sky is really green" as your argument

Apparently basic economic logic is just a bunch of hocus-pocus. Screw supply and demand.

Minimum wage laws have not resulted in high unemployment.....

I never said they did. I said min. wage laws would result in higher unemployment in a certain class of citizens than if said laws did not exist, provided that the definition of unemployment remained the same. Stop strawmanning my position and actually interact with my argument.

[JerryLove]

No, the reason we are speaking theoretically in the "all things being equal" vacuum is because we simply have no idea what causes Britain's unemployment. It could very well be that having no minimum wage would decrease unemployment.

And the opposite can be true.

How do we find out which? The best way would be to look at times it acutally occured. Can you cite an instance where the creation of a minimum wage coinsided with a marked increase in unemployment?

Can you even manage a cite that shows countries wihtout minimum wage laws maintaining higher employment than countries with them? Can you offer *any* support for your claim at all?

However, since we are dealing with the ideal and not with what we should do giving a specific situation, we can appeal to more economics logic, like the simple surplus argument I put forth.

Only when such logic has a basis in reality. Yours does not.

Eh, too many factors here, not in the sense of your first paragraph, but in the fact that minimum wage is not necessarily increase the amount of money in people's hands. If there is more unemployment, then it could very well decrease the amount of money in people's hands.

It could do most anything... the question is "what does it actually tend to do".

Furthermore, because it is on a small portion of the workforce, all of whom do not have very much disposable income, the price levels probably wouldn't raise very much, if at all.

You are appealing absed on a country which already has a minimum wage. In countries with no minimum wage, the nubers of people working below what one might be set at are vast.

You keep touting this "not many people get a raise" claim.

1. If this is the case, then the impact to eveyone else is also negligible... defeating your argument against it.
2. Whether this is the case depends on a *great* deal that is not being discussed (such as what that minimum wage is).

If the minimum wage were raised (for example) to $12 per hour... this would effect millions in the US directly (as many millions work for less than $12 per hour).

But, of course, the question is whether one should exist at all.. For this, we have to compare areas where one exists to areas where one doesn't. The best look would be at areas where it was implamented around the time that it was implamented (say, the US around 1938).

The minimum wage was raised twice in the 90s, from just over $3 to just over $5. Unemployment was very low. On the other hand, there were increases in the late 70s and unemployment was high.

In short, I see no direct correlation between the two.

Finally, the higher income citizens (those higher the min. wage workers) will not have less money because of higher price of labor, which could reverse the trend you appealed to.

You flip-flop on the proportion as it suits you.

If minimum wage effects many people's wages.. then it effect many people's buying power. More consumers equals more demand equals more jobs equals more consumers.

If minium wage effects only a fringe few, than it's effect on prices / jobs is equally neglidgeable.

Would you like to have your cake or eat it... can't do both.

[JerryLove]

Once again, what do you mean by "need"? Everything has a cost, and a limit on how much someone is willing to pay for it to be done.

If wages are too high, the restaurant will go out of business. That is what I mean by there being a limit. The job doesn't "need" to be done, because if it's too expensive, the restaurant owner will become a tire-salesman.

And then where will people eat? At home? OK, then resturanteers become grocers.

You didn't show anything. You said that in Britain, there is low unemployment, and, hey, they have minimum wages laws.

Wasn't me. I've discussed the US.

What you need to prove is that min. wage laws do not cause their unemployment to be higher than it would be without said laws. You need to show causal relation if you are going to appeal to history as if it is some sort of scientific experiment. Such would be nearly impossible due to the enormous complexity of economic workings in real life.

I appeal directly to the real experience. You make some nebulous claim that some other actions have occured simultanious with the implamentation of minimum wage every time ones been implamented that miraculiously saved the country.

OK. Check unemployment from 1776 to 1938 then from 1938 to 2005 and compare.

That is a terrible argument. So price of labor really is entirely irrelevant as to whether someone gets hired? Why is the market for labor completely different from every other market?

It's not different than every other market. Water gets baught regardless of price. The price of gas has skyrocketed and consumption has remained unchanged (it's acutally up). I still cook just as much on my gas stove even with higher gas prices.

Your assertion that higher prices invariably result in less consumption is fallacious.

What act? Which act caused said results? You are being incredibly inconsistent and irrational to act as though appealing to Britain proves your point.

The act of the US implamenting a minimum wage did not, in fact, correspond to an increase in unemployment.

Apparently basic economic logic is just a bunch of hocus-pocus. Screw supply and demand.

When logic conflict with real observation, the error is not with the observation.

I never said they did. I said min. wage laws would result in higher unemployment in a certain class of citizens than if said laws did not exist, provided that the definition of unemployment remained the same. Stop strawmanning my position and actually interact with my argument.

Now who is ignoring supply and demand? If there is no minimum wage, those same more skilled people will still need jobs and will work for less.

Person A is less skilled
Person B is more skilled.

Why would McDonalds hire person A over person B?

If person B is working, McDonalds will not be able to hire them. If they are not, they will work for what they can get. Minimum wage doesn't change this.

Even if I granted you your faulty logic (who is employed would change), why do I care? More qualified people will be hired if there is a minimum wage law? Good! This is a positive thing!

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by +Donny

No, the reason we are speaking theoretically in the "all things being equal" vacuum is because we simply have no idea what causes Britain's unemployment. It could very well be that having no minimum wage would decrease unemployment. Because economics seems so closely tied to the human psyche (buying and selling on the market), it is incredibly complicated. I fully admit that there is no way an economist can, with great accuracy, predict the effect of a certain policy on a certain nation at a certain time with a graph. However, since we are dealing with the ideal and not with what we should do giving a specific situation, we can appeal to more economics logic, like the simple surplus argument I put forth.

There is practically no reason to speak theoretically if we are to be so simple about it. No economist would consider the effects of minimum wage laws separate from anything else, much less considering all else to be equal. The only circumstance this would be even discussed would be in an introductory economics course. My question, then, is what does it matter to prove this theory by itself if there is no practical application of it by itself? The reasonable answer would be "it does not matter" because, even though we're not discussing any particular incidence, a theory is only as good as its practical application. In this case, there are many other factors (many other basic economic theories, even) that should be considered. I gave you an example using several other economic theories that are tied to historical events, yet you still have this appeal to a surplus with your single economic theory that goes unaffected by the other hundreds of economic theories that could be involved here. Beyond that, simple economic theories like this one are subject to the nuance of human behavior. For your surplus to really work out, you would have to assume that people react mechanically to market conditions with purely rational actions. I hate to assume you think this way, but most people do not act purely rationally and instead make decisions based on factors other than logic and reason and rationality.

Eh, too many factors here, not in the sense of your first paragraph, but in the fact that minimum wage is not necessarily increase the amount of money in people's hands.

Incorrect: minimum wage laws that are binding do in fact increase the amount of money in people's hands. Simple logic- you pay them more, they receive more, they have more.

If there is more unemployment, then it could very well decrease the amount of money in people's hands. Furthermore, because it is on a small portion of the workforce, all of whom do not have very much disposable income, the price levels probably wouldn't raise very much, if at all.

Actually, it happened in Dearborne, MI, in the early part of last century when Mr. Ford started his $5 workday. Everyone there was getting paid more, but the local vendors and merchants knew this and raised their prices, so the factory workers' spending power was not much larger, though they did have more money. In this way, the increased wealth due to the Ford plant's higher wages was spread among all those that participated in Dearborne's economy.

Also, how could it deacrease the amount of money in people's hands? Your theory is based on the idea that if wages rise above equilibrium then employers will want to hire less workers and more people will want to work for the higher wage. Nothing in that implies that the overall amount of money spent on human capital has been reduced. Nor does it imply that the amount of money spent on labor stays the same, or even increases.

Finally, the higher income citizens (those higher the min. wage workers) will not have less money because of higher price of labor, which could reverse the trend you appealed to.

How would that "reverse" that trend? They would still be able to afford the higher prices.