[+Donny]

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?

To your first few questions, no, because I am not studied in history, especially economic history.
To your last question, yes, unless you think appeals to economic logic are not support. Just because I can't pick an event in history showing how such logic has actually worked out doesn't mean it isn't true.

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

If "reality" excludes the law of supply and demand and is limited exclusively to historical examples, then sure.

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

No, because economies are too complex for causal claims like that.

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.

Good point. In such countries, though, the adverse effect on businesses would be much greater.

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).

You are still misunderstanding my argument. I am saying that not many people would get a raise in the sense that min. wage laws won't help the people they are trying to help very much because of the forced surplus. I am not saying in regards to the entire economy that there will be drastic increases in unemployment, or anything of the sort. I am saying that the people that are affected by the min. wage laws will be hurt by said laws. Some of such people will gain, yes, but overall, most of them will not. Your above comments don't interact very well with my argument.

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.

I never claimed there was.

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.

You are clearly not interacting with my argument, hopefully from misunderstanding. I have repeatedly said that my arguments regarding unemployment and adverse effects on the businesses paying people min. wage are in the context of those who are actually affected by the min wage laws. I never denied the effect may be unnoticeable on the country as a whole (this obviously depends on the content of the min. wage laws). I am claiming that min. wage laws, if anything, hurt the people they are intended to help (those affected by them, not the entire economy).

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

Yes, and if the min. wage is too high for baggers (which it would probably be, given that it was too high for waiters/waitresses)? I hope you can garden...

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

Oh, sorry.

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.

I never made claims about overall unemployment.

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.

That would depend on whether you need to eat or not and to what length you are willing to go to avoid higher prices. As I said, the situation is not as simple as "higher prices, higher unemployment" in every situation. There are costs of switching businesses, so it may very well be that in the short run, a business owner coughs up the higher wage, even if it's not worth it. In the long run and in general, however, higher prices do result in lower consumption, unless you would like to deny the law of supply and demand.

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

Okay, so Jerry has just denied supply and demand? Alright.

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!

I really have no idea what you just said or how this even addresses my argument from labor surplus.

[GORP006]

I thought I would bring this thread to the top briefly.

I watched a pertinent show on FX last week. It's called 30 days, and it's a reality show with Morgan Spurlock (Super Size Me). The premise of the show is that a person spends 30 days living someone else's life, and it's like a 44 minute documentary on that person's experience.

So anyway, the first episode was about the Minimum wage. Morgan and his fiance spent 30 days living on unskilled wages. They had planned to work minimum wage, but both ended up finding jobs that paid just a bit more. They went to Columbus, Ohio to do this, so they weren't in New York, where they live. They found the cheapest apartment they could get, which was recently the home of a squatter, and the apartment below them was also vacant due to a drug bust. They were able to afford one bus pass for the two of them, and Alex (Morgan's fiance) walked to work. Alex got a job washing dishes and bussing tables at a coffee house. Morgan got a job with a temp agency doing construction. Morgan made $7 an hour, while Alex made around 6 I believe.

Without getting too much into the details, they ate rice and beans pretty much the whole month. Their apartment was infested with ants, and they had no furniture until they got some from a church. They had no health insurance. They barely had enough to get by if everything went smoothly. Morgan brought home about $44 a day, working 11 hours. He ended up taking a second job as well, and worked about 16 hours a day. After taxes, he figured he was making less than $5 an hour. Both of them had to go to the emergency room, Alex had a bladder infection, and Morgan hurt his wrist. By the end of the month, they were in debt more than $1500.

I think that minimum wage raise opponents should watch this, or spend a month living on minimum wage before they support low wages. I think the story that was hardest to hear was a guy who used to work for a car manufacturer, and he made 7.50 or so an hour in the 50's. Now he is working for a temp agency making $7 an hour. He can't even make as much as he used to, and cost of living has gone up massively since then.

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by GORP006

I thought I would bring this thread to the top briefly.

I watched a pertinent show on FX last week. It's called 30 days, and it's a reality show with Morgan Spurlock (Super Size Me). The premise of the show is that a person spends 30 days living someone else's life, and it's like a 44 minute documentary on that person's experience.

So anyway, the first episode was about the Minimum wage. Morgan and his fiance spent 30 days living on unskilled wages. They had planned to work minimum wage, but both ended up finding jobs that paid just a bit more. They went to Columbus, Ohio to do this, so they weren't in New York, where they live. They found the cheapest apartment they could get, which was recently the home of a squatter, and the apartment below them was also vacant due to a drug bust. They were able to afford one bus pass for the two of them, and Alex (Morgan's fiance) walked to work. Alex got a job washing dishes and bussing tables at a coffee house. Morgan got a job with a temp agency doing construction. Morgan made $7 an hour, while Alex made around 6 I believe.

Without getting too much into the details, they ate rice and beans pretty much the whole month. Their apartment was infested with ants, and they had no furniture until they got some from a church. They had no health insurance. They barely had enough to get by if everything went smoothly. Morgan brought home about $44 a day, working 11 hours. He ended up taking a second job as well, and worked about 16 hours a day. After taxes, he figured he was making less than $5 an hour. Both of them had to go to the emergency room, Alex had a bladder infection, and Morgan hurt his wrist. By the end of the month, they were in debt more than $1500.

I think that minimum wage raise opponents should watch this, or spend a month living on minimum wage before they support low wages. I think the story that was hardest to hear was a guy who used to work for a car manufacturer, and he made 7.50 or so an hour in the 50's. Now he is working for a temp agency making $7 an hour. He can't even make as much as he used to, and cost of living has gone up massively since then.

That doesn't actually address the economics behind it. Yes, if people are in those positions, people should help them. I just don't see minimum wage laws being a very economically defensible way of doing it.

[Travis]

Yeah, I don't think that the question is whether people should be helped but rather (A) whether the government has the right to force people to help (whether legally or, primarily, morally), and, if so, (B) whether imposing minimal wage laws is the best method by which to do so.

[JerryLove]

whether the government has the right to force people to help

You mean like "having a millitary" or "creating trade agreements" or the like?

[GORP006]

Originally Posted by Travis

Yeah, I don't think that the question is whether people should be helped but rather (A) whether the government has the right to force people to help (whether legally or, primarily, morally), and, if so, (B) whether imposing minimal wage laws is the best method by which to do so.

But Minimum wages aren't forcing companies to help the poor. Minimum wage laws are forcing companies to pay a fair amount for the work that is being done. You can argue all day that supply and demand will force the companies to pay fair wages, but that's not the case at all. The fact that there are people who work full time or more than full time, and still do not make enough to get by day to day is a testament to that fact. If minimum wage laws make no difference, then you would think that there wouldn't be any "working poor" who work a full time job and still are below the poverty line. The free market will operate the same when the minimum wage is below market wage as it will when it's at or above market wage. The fact of the matter is, the job market (especially right now, with unemployment at high levels) does not balance wages at a level that allows for sustainable living.

So the question is, what is the better policy:
A) Government does not involve itself in minimum wages, companies pay sub-poverty wages, workers are forced to use government assistance, welfare, food stamps, medicare. Tax revenues fall due to low working class income, deficits increase due to high spending on assistance programs.

or

B) Government raises Minimum wage to an amount that is a "living wage." Companies are forced to bear the burden of paying their workers for the work they do, government expenditures decline due to fewer people on government assistance, tax revenue increases due to increased income level among the working class. Combination of larger tax revenue, lower expenditures allows a decrease of the deficit.

Which do you think is more solid policy?

[+Donny]

But Minimum wages aren't forcing companies to help the poor. Minimum wage laws are forcing companies to pay a fair amount for the work that is being done. You can argue all day that supply and demand will force the companies to pay fair wages, but that's not the case at all. The fact that there are people who work full time or more than full time, and still do not make enough to get by day to day is a testament to that fact. If minimum wage laws make no difference, then you would think that there wouldn't be any "working poor" who work a full time job and still are below the poverty line. The free market will operate the same when the minimum wage is below market wage as it will when it's at or above market wage. The fact of the matter is, the job market (especially right now, with unemployment at high levels) does not balance wages at a level that allows for sustainable living.

What is "fair"? This assumes that working full time automatically should earn one enough to live above the "poverty line", which is a moral argument, not an economic one, and if it is indeed a moral argument, you are going to have to prove it with more than just an appeal to how miserable life is below the poverty line.

So the question is, what is the better policy:
A) Government does not involve itself in minimum wages, companies pay sub-poverty wages, workers are forced to use government assistance, welfare, food stamps, medicare. Tax revenues fall due to low working class income, deficits increase due to high spending on assistance programs.

or

B) Government raises Minimum wage to an amount that is a "living wage." Companies are forced to bear the burden of paying their workers for the work they do, government expenditures decline due to fewer people on government assistance, tax revenue increases due to increased income level among the working class. Combination of larger tax revenue, lower expenditures allows a decrease of the deficit.

Can you address the arguments I made earlier on the basis of supply and demand? I'm too lazy to type them out again. To put it simply, minimum wage laws cause shortages. Now, I'm not expecting a quick little supply and demand graph to work out perfectly in time, but it definitely establishes trends, and you would have to deny basic supply and demand to deny the shortage that would flow from minimum wage laws.

[GORP006]

Originally Posted by +Donny

What is "fair"? This assumes that working full time automatically should earn one enough to live above the "poverty line", which is a moral argument, not an economic one, and if it is indeed a moral argument, you are going to have to prove it with more than just an appeal to how miserable life is below the poverty line.

Absolutely, this is a moral argument. The argument stems from the idea that a person should not have to work 16 hours a day in order to earn enough to live under a roof and eat, while still having money for medical bills and other expenses. There is a certain standard of living that nobody should be forced to live below, as a principle. This is an argument that can only, and will only, appeal to the compassionate side that everybody is supposed to have. But if you want an argument based on other than moral arguments, consider the following:

If you are an employer, and you have an employee who works 8 hours, makes 5.45 an hour. That person makes about $900 a month before taxes. Take out about $100 for taxes (an estimate, not calculated) but figuring that they won't have to pay much in income taxes, just mostly payroll taxes. So the person takes home $800 a month. They have rent of $400. Food for the month costs them $150, Utilities $100, transportation $50...So they are now down to $100 a month to spend on medicine, clothes, entertainment, maybe a car, etc... Well, hopefully that person doesn't have any extra expenses...not to mention that even my estimates on food expenses would be the bare minimum amount and type of food. And that doesn't even figure that they have kids, a spouse, etc... Well, that person is forced to work a second job in order to have enough money to pay for everything. So they work two jobs, they leave your company, and go directly to their second job, go home after that job, and go to sleep, but with travel time, their work day lasts about 18 hours, and they get very little sleep. Their productivity at work will suffer greatly due to lack of sleep, increased stress, not to mention the emotional problems that would come from having to work their entire day just to get by. So the productivity of that employee is going to decrease, and it may take two employees to do the work of one fully productive employee. So you hire a second employee at 5.45 an hour just to make up for the lost productivity. Now wouldn't it make sense to pay the first guy $10 an hour, so he can survive on what you pay him, and increase his productivity, as well as saving the company $.90 an hour?

Can you address the arguments I made earlier on the basis of supply and demand? I'm too lazy to type them out again. To put it simply, minimum wage laws cause shortages. Now, I'm not expecting a quick little supply and demand graph to work out perfectly in time, but it definitely establishes trends, and you would have to deny basic supply and demand to deny the shortage that would flow from minimum wage laws.

Well, it would create a surplus of labor, and a shortage of jobs. That is what the economic theory says. But that would be in a complete vacuum. I think you have to figure that there are a lot of factors that go into this type of a calculation. Employee satisfaction is a huge one. Level of government subsidy required for the person who is working at sub-standard rates. Decreases in quality are sure to follow once worker morale goes down.

Take this example, I work for an Electronics manufacturer. We have manufacturing facilities in Wisconsin, and Mexico. In Wisconsin, wages are much higher than mexico, but we don't have customers breathing down our necks to move the product to Mexico, even though we charge more for manufacturing in Wisconsin. Why? Well, when a product leaves the Mexico facility, it has about a 25% chance of failing (not an exact number, but close). These failures can often cause problems for our customers if the product is out in the field when it fails. Our company tests the product before we ship, but that doesn't catch everything. Plus, whenever a product fails our test, we need to repair, which takes more time. In the end, total cost to the customer is about equal between Wisconsin and Mexico. Now the difference between Mexico and Wisconsin is more than just the culture difference. There are a lot of immigrant workers working in our Wisconsin Facility, and there are some very high quality manufacturing companies in Mexico, or on the border that employ all Mexican workers, with excellent quality and consistency. But for our company, the pay rate in Mexico is about half or less what our pay rate is in Wisconsin. Because of this, we attract much lower quality workers in Mexico, and produce a much poorer product. Workmanship is much more sloppy there. If an employee comes to our Mexico plant and does well, they aren't rewarded the same as in Wisconsin, so they leave. They have better jobs available. But because we pay well in Wisconsin, we keep the quality high. However, a few years ago, when we were facing lay-offs, and pay cuts, the quality in Wisconsin declined as well. The workers were more sloppy when they were making less money. A worker is more productive when they feel they have been compensated fairly.

Your economic theory works great in a vacuum, but you have to figure many human factors in there, the biggest of which being motivation.

[JerryLove]

What is "fair"? This assumes that working full time automatically should earn one enough to live above the "poverty line", which is a moral argument, not an economic one, and if it is indeed a moral argument, you are going to have to prove it with more than just an appeal to how miserable life is below the poverty line.

It's interesting to see you call "unfair" and "moral" compatable... but I'm not buying the premise.

And, of course, there is the "promote the general welfare" aspect of the Constitution that comes into play.

Equally important, though, is the real effect of the lack of minimum wage and fair labor. It promotes unrest ("ensure domestic tranquility" is in the constitution too), and was the cause for the rise of Communism, the rise of the Nazi party, and a slew of revolts against monarchies. It also doesn't work well from an economic standpoint, and ends up with a situation that we used to sanction other countries for (before WalMart convinced us that child slave-labor was OK as long as it ment cheap shoes).

It also undermines the base of the economy by removing consumers.

Can you address the arguments I made earlier on the basis of supply and demand? I'm too lazy to type them out again. To put it simply, minimum wage laws cause shortages. Now, I'm not expecting a quick little supply and demand graph to work out perfectly in time, but it definitely establishes trends, and you would have to deny basic supply and demand to deny the shortage that would flow from minimum wage laws.

Economies functio by moving money around. Stagnant money does no good.

Super-wealthy people do not spend a great percentage of their money. Poor and middle-class people do.

Forcing higher wages moves money from the wealthy to the poor and middle class who, in turn, consume (thereby moving it again). This is how a healthy economy functions.

Finally, though perhaps less rationally, move to Indonesia and have everyone in your family work in a sweat-shop (or, if you prefer here, drop your existing jobs to do migrant farm work), and see if you still hold your current position.

[+Donny]

Absolutely, this is a moral argument. The argument stems from the idea that a person should not have to work 16 hours a day in order to earn enough to live under a roof and eat, while still having money for medical bills and other expenses. There is a certain standard of living that nobody should be forced to live below, as a principle. This is an argument that can only, and will only, appeal to the compassionate side that everybody is supposed to have. But if you want an argument based on other than moral arguments, consider the following:

My point in pointing that out is that there are other ways to make sure such people don't have to live like that. The next step would be to find out which of the methods work best, which is where economics come in.

If you are an employer, and you have an employee who works 8 hours, makes 5.45 an hour. That person makes about $900 a month before taxes. Take out about $100 for taxes (an estimate, not calculated) but figuring that they won't have to pay much in income taxes, just mostly payroll taxes. So the person takes home $800 a month. They have rent of $400. Food for the month costs them $150, Utilities $100, transportation $50...So they are now down to $100 a month to spend on medicine, clothes, entertainment, maybe a car, etc... Well, hopefully that person doesn't have any extra expenses...not to mention that even my estimates on food expenses would be the bare minimum amount and type of food. And that doesn't even figure that they have kids, a spouse, etc... Well, that person is forced to work a second job in order to have enough money to pay for everything. So they work two jobs, they leave your company, and go directly to their second job, go home after that job, and go to sleep, but with travel time, their work day lasts about 18 hours, and they get very little sleep. Their productivity at work will suffer greatly due to lack of sleep, increased stress, not to mention the emotional problems that would come from having to work their entire day just to get by. So the productivity of that employee is going to decrease, and it may take two employees to do the work of one fully productive employee. So you hire a second employee at 5.45 an hour just to make up for the lost productivity. Now wouldn't it make sense to pay the first guy $10 an hour, so he can survive on what you pay him, and increase his productivity, as well as saving the company $.90 an hour?

Yes, which is why I am fully confident that companies would pay them more if this trend was noticed by the management. I don't see why we have to automatically assume that employers are that stupid.

Well, it would create a surplus of labor, and a shortage of jobs. That is what the economic theory says. But that would be in a complete vacuum. I think you have to figure that there are a lot of factors that go into this type of a calculation. Employee satisfaction is a huge one. Level of government subsidy required for the person who is working at sub-standard rates. Decreases in quality are sure to follow once worker morale goes down.

Take this example, I work for an Electronics manufacturer. We have manufacturing facilities in Wisconsin, and Mexico. In Wisconsin, wages are much higher than mexico, but we don't have customers breathing down our necks to move the product to Mexico, even though we charge more for manufacturing in Wisconsin. Why? Well, when a product leaves the Mexico facility, it has about a 25% chance of failing (not an exact number, but close). These failures can often cause problems for our customers if the product is out in the field when it fails. Our company tests the product before we ship, but that doesn't catch everything. Plus, whenever a product fails our test, we need to repair, which takes more time. In the end, total cost to the customer is about equal between Wisconsin and Mexico. Now the difference between Mexico and Wisconsin is more than just the culture difference. There are a lot of immigrant workers working in our Wisconsin Facility, and there are some very high quality manufacturing companies in Mexico, or on the border that employ all Mexican workers, with excellent quality and consistency. But for our company, the pay rate in Mexico is about half or less what our pay rate is in Wisconsin. Because of this, we attract much lower quality workers in Mexico, and produce a much poorer product. Workmanship is much more sloppy there. If an employee comes to our Mexico plant and does well, they aren't rewarded the same as in Wisconsin, so they leave. They have better jobs available. But because we pay well in Wisconsin, we keep the quality high. However, a few years ago, when we were facing lay-offs, and pay cuts, the quality in Wisconsin declined as well. The workers were more sloppy when they were making less money. A worker is more productive when they feel they have been compensated fairly.

Your economic theory works great in a vacuum, but you have to figure many human factors in there, the biggest of which being motivation.

I really don't see how this actually deals with my argument. I am not claiming that workers making minimum wage are not worth it to the company, I am saying that workers who normally would make a fair amount below minimum wage are simply not going to find employment because, due to their lack of skill, aren't producing enough to make it worth the hire. A company will not hire an employee if the employee isn't worth hiring. Thus, in all probably, min. wage laws only raise the wages of a small portion of workers, making jobs harder to find for most that would regularly make less than the min. wage, and not really affecting those who would normally make above min. wage. Charity, on the other hand, doesn't do this.

[+Donny]

It's interesting to see you call "unfair" and "moral" compatable... but I'm not buying the premise.

And, of course, there is the "promote the general welfare" aspect of the Constitution that comes into play.

Equally important, though, is the real effect of the lack of minimum wage and fair labor. It promotes unrest ("ensure domestic tranquility" is in the constitution too), and was the cause for the rise of Communism, the rise of the Nazi party, and a slew of revolts against monarchies. It also doesn't work well from an economic standpoint, and ends up with a situation that we used to sanction other countries for (before WalMart convinced us that child slave-labor was OK as long as it ment cheap shoes).

It also undermines the base of the economy by removing consumers.

In places where no minimum wage laws supposedly led to revolt, were there any well-executed laws against companies forcing the price of labor down?

Economies functio by moving money around. Stagnant money does no good.

Super-wealthy people do not spend a great percentage of their money. Poor and middle-class people do.

Forcing higher wages moves money from the wealthy to the poor and middle class who, in turn, consume (thereby moving it again). This is how a healthy economy functions.

Not always. If the wealthy people aren't going to make money off the higher priced workers, they won't necessarily buy them. It's an indirect way to move money from the rich to the poor, so it doesn't seem very effective.

Finally, though perhaps less rationally, move to Indonesia and have everyone in your family work in a sweat-shop (or, if you prefer here, drop your existing jobs to do migrant farm work), and see if you still hold your current position.

What does this prove? That working for little money sucks? I'm sure it does, and employers that are unfair are being immoral. But I do believe that over time, the market will correct itself, as long as the government doesn't allow companies to jointly lower wages (I forgot the terminology for that).

But what of company owners. There is another side to this coin. If min. wage is raised too much, companies that normally hire unskilled labor are screwed.

[JerryLove]

Yes, which is why I am fully confident that companies would pay them more if this trend was noticed by the management. I don't see why we have to automatically assume that employers are that stupid.

Standard Oil, US Steel, any pre-Ford company.

I am saying that workers who normally would make a fair amount below minimum wage are simply not going to find employment because, due to their lack of skill, aren't producing enough to make it worth the hire. A company will not hire an employee if the employee isn't worth hiring.

No, but they are very likely to hire someone for less than they are worth. Again, I refer you to the entire American economy around 1900. Don't like that? Try modern ShriLanka.

Of course, that's dealing with "fair labor"... let's look at your claim regarding minimum wage (let's take a MinWage job like slinging hamburgers at McDonalds).

Obviously, McD has hired enough people to get the job done. If people were cheaper, do you think they would hire more people so that some could stand around and do nothing? What's an entirely unneccessairy person worth? Nothing at all.

So we can conclude that the number of workers will not increase by lowering the wage (i.e. Employment within the McD economy will be level regardless), so all changing the wage does is change wheter the workers in question get to sleep indoors and eat regularly, or if they will need to sleep in their uniform on a park bench.

Thus, in all probably, min. wage laws only raise the wages of a small portion of workers, making jobs harder to find for most that would regularly make less than the min. wage, and not really affecting those who would normally make above min. wage.

Cite an example of a min-wage implamentation or change that resulted in a higher unemployment.

Charity, on the other hand, doesn't do this.

Tithing (deifically obligitory charity) takes money off the top (taxes) and redistributes it (welfare). Like all money (whether given to charity, paid in taxes, or paid to employees), this money comes from somewhere. I consider a "fair wage" a far better way to get money to someone than tithing and donations... but perhaps you prefer a welfare system to an economy based on a willingness to work.

[+Donny]

No, but they are very likely to hire someone for less than they are worth. Again, I refer you to the entire American economy around 1900. Don't like that? Try modern ShriLanka.

Of course they would. Who wouldn't buy a good if it was cheap?

Of course, that's dealing with "fair labor"... let's look at your claim regarding minimum wage (let's take a MinWage job like slinging hamburgers at McDonalds).

Obviously, McD has hired enough people to get the job done. If people were cheaper, do you think they would hire more people so that some could stand around and do nothing? What's an entirely unneccessairy person worth? Nothing at all.

So we can conclude that the number of workers will not increase by lowering the wage (i.e. Employment within the McD economy will be level regardless), so all changing the wage does is change wheter the workers in question get to sleep indoors and eat regularly, or if they will need to sleep in their uniform on a park bench.

That was a horrible argument. If such labor were cheaper, McDonald's would expand it's business. As variable costs go down, the benefits of expanding business to certain levels start to outweigh the costs, which means businesses expand.

Cite an example of a min-wage implamentation or change that resulted in a higher unemployment.

My arguments are not from history, but from economic principles. I don't know enough history to argue with you there, and never pretended to. We are dealing with economics in the abstract, not economics in history, due to my ignorance of the latter. If your case is built mainly on the latter, then we will continue talking past each other, so I see no reason to continue this.

Tithing (deifically obligitory charity) takes money off the top (taxes) and redistributes it (welfare). Like all money (whether given to charity, paid in taxes, or paid to employees), this money comes from somewhere. I consider a "fair wage" a far better way to get money to someone than tithing and donations... but perhaps you prefer a welfare system to an economy based on a willingness to work.

That's too simplistic. Charity is voluntary, which is why it works best in the ideal. Charity works better because it is personal, and can adjust to situations, while national/state laws to redistribute wealth cannot. This really boils down to a much more overarching political philosophy question, which is to what extent the state can/should/has the right to go when it thinks its people will fail to act righteously.

[JerryLove]

Of course they would. Who wouldn't buy a good if it was cheap?

Almost no one would by somethign simply because it's cheap. How bigis your stockpile of plastic washers? They are cheap.

How many Indians do you have in your personal employ doing nothing? They are cheap too. Please offer some support for your claim.

That was a horrible argument. If such labor were cheaper, McDonald's would expand it's business. As variable costs go down, the benefits of expanding business to certain levels start to outweigh the costs, which means businesses expand.

Which explains why McDonalds in very cheap labor markets (say Somalia) doesn't do as well as in expensive labor markets (say The US or Japan)?

You assert this over and over; and over and over I provide one example after another that this is not the case. Now please provide *some* support other than "you say so". Give some example somewhere of this, or its inverse happening when such an economy-wide change occurs. I've given several examples of the opposite view.

My arguments are not from history, but from economic principles. I don't know enough history to argue with you there, and never pretended to. We are dealing with economics in the abstract, not economics in history, due to my ignorance of the latter. If your case is built mainly on the latter, then we will continue talking past each other, so I see no reason to continue this.

As Cuz said: The rat is always right. When you have a prediction over what will occur, and something else occurs, it is your prediction, not reality, that is flawed.

The topics we are discussing are real things that have really happened on many, mnay occasions. I don't see a point in dicussing why you think planes can't fly when we know empirically that they do, and I'm confused by your obvious desire to hold to a demonstratively false belief regarding how economics works.

That's too simplistic. Charity is voluntary, which is why it works best in the ideal. Charity works better because it is personal, and can adjust to situations, while national/state laws to redistribute wealth cannot.

You mean in the taking or the giving? The giving is handled by an organization, whether that be a church or a government. Obviously, the government's greater universiality makes it a more effective base.

The taking is mandated by Biblical law, or by secular law, depending on which we are discussing. One will put you in jail for tax evasion, the other will condem you to eternal hellfire. One will have an income it can budget, one will not. One will have a lot of money for the poor in good times (when there are less poor) and very little in hard times (when the need is greater, there will be less to go around); the other is not saddled by such a problem. One can adjust tax rates to suit current needs, the other has no control. One is regulated, the other is not.

But again, let's look at some real examples. The Catholic church is *very* strong in Africa and Central America, while the secular governments are strong in Europe and Canada. Who has better support of the poor?

This really boils down to a much more overarching political philosophy question, which is to what extent the state can/should/has the right to go when it thinks its people will fail to act righteously.

OK. Let's look at real world examples... from the Chruch-run Europe of 500 years ago, to the civially run Europe of today, and see how your idea pans out.

[+Donny]

I can't discuss the historical outworking of economic theory because I know too little about it. I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying I don't know enough to formulate an opinion.

Now, regarding economic theory, do you deny the basic principles behind supply and demand, or do you just think human psyche influences real-world examples in a way that renders it practically useless to predict things.

If the former, I obviously disagree, if the latter, I would be inclined to agree, to an extent. It seems that whenever you move from theory to actual example, things get much more complicated than we can put down on paper. This is why I stopped studying economics; it seemed to idealistic.

Of course, now that I think about this in relation to this debate, I'll just concede. According to basic economic principles, I don't think min. wage laws should work, but that doesn't mean they won't.



Therefore, it seems the crux of the issue is what I mentioned at the end of my last post. You responded with this:

OK. Let's look at real world examples... from the Chruch-run Europe of 500 years ago, to the civially run Europe of today, and see how your idea pans out.

I'm not sure what you mean here. My original question was on whether the state has the right to or should intervene as much as it does in making min. wage laws.