|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
"Protection of contractual rights"
Pretty sure Justice Traynor put that ornamental phrase where it belongs more than 60 years ago.....
|
On December 30 2014 17:43 IgnE wrote:That's not how it works in the real world. I linked you to the Department of Labor explaining that the overwhelming consensus by economists, the people who would be most apt to agree with your ruthless mathematical logic if it were correct, is that minimum wage laws have no discernible effect on labor. But you are undeterred. It just makes sense to you that this is how it is, reality be damned. If you actually thought about what people have been saying, people who know more than you about this topic, you might have thought that your investigation warranted some outside help. All you have to do is go to google. Here I did it for you: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdfhttp://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdfhttp://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/166-08.pdfhttp://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/reports/FLSAPaperSeries.pdfThe funny thing is that I have seen you shit on the general forum in other threads but it turns out that you are one of the individuals who does the shitting with your stubborn ignorance. Everyone can read what you have been saying, trust me. We aren't misunderstanding you. You should go back and really try to engage with what people have been saying to you.
You really shouldn't patronize me with your appeal to authority. The links alone would have sufficed, thanks.
I came here because I was bored. And wanted to disturb your little groupthink, lol. I knew I'd regret it because I knew this would happen. Feel free to blame only me, but the truth is both of us are immovable and frustrated the other doesn't relent.
Which is why these discussions never move forward. Which is why I don't bother with General in general.
On December 30 2014 21:22 oneofthem wrote:
pages of blah and you've yet to understand that their problem is a labor shortage. a wage decrease isn't going to fix that. this is hurting my head
How is there a labor shortage? Unemployment is still not 0%.
|
How is there a labor shortage? Unemployment is still not 0%.
that's a curious way to look at it ^^
|
On December 30 2014 21:19 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 16:17 IgnE wrote:On December 30 2014 15:10 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 30 2014 12:19 IgnE wrote:
I do not think you would work a job doing back-breaking labor for $6 an hour (which when taxed is more like $4.50 an hour). You would work an 8 hour day to collect a check of $36 bucks. You can't buy anything with that, unless you are living 12 to a house and eating rice and beans every day. Because it's better to wait to starve to death?... ('¬_¬) On December 30 2014 11:23 oneofthem wrote:
for a geologist you have some serious issues with basic arithmetic
"No one is jumping onto those jobs for the same reason no one is publicly selling illegal drugs"
no.
the pay is too low to fill their position. so lowing the pay would somehow fill these positions?
this is just silly On December 30 2014 12:19 IgnE wrote:\
It's a total fantasy that the reason people aren't working for less pay is because it's illegal. I have no idea where you even got this idea, but it's absurd on it's face. You're both assuming high underemployment. If that's the case, then potential workers would prefer to sit around, not gain experience, and collect welfare until, again, they win the lottery and find a job. If it's unemployment, then my case holds true: employers would offer more jobs and (I highly suspect) more individuals would choose to work them if we didn't have a law preferentially setting the lowest price of labor. I got the idea when I thought about how silly a maximum wage would be. There's a reason no one discusses that; I contend it's the same that counters the minimum wage argument. And instead of dismissing me from authority as some economic simpleton, do point me to these "reams" of evidence. EDIT: I answered with my vocation out of courtesy of being asked and I could use it to support my argument. It's ultimately irrelevant to the discussion. I should've known it'd be twisted into a personal insult. for a geologist you have some serious issues with basic arithmetic Perhaps the copper mine is not the right place to get a finger on the pulse of the American labor force. C'mon, guys, really? I expected better.... Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a “last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired” scenario. Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Source: Department of LaborYour intuitions are grossly in error. If people's only choices are to starve or work as a slave in a field (disregarding the token sub-minimum wage that is barely enough to keep a person in good enough health to continue working in the field for long) then something is fucked up. Rather than you coming to the conclusion that something is fucked up, you persist in this delusion that you would actually stoop to pick oranges for $4.50 an hour take home, 40 or 50 hours a week, for years. Again you are making absurd claims that "if it wasn't illegal to pay people less, then people would be clamoring to take jobs for sub-minimum wages." There's literally no evidence for this, and the huge volume of illegal immigrants taking jobs that no one else would take is substantial evidence against it. As for your "ridiculous" notion of a maximum wage, it is not actually that ridiculous, and was more than casually considered by FDR during the 30s, by instating a 100% tax on income earned over what would be roughly $400,000 per year in today's terms. Minimum causes unemployment when the wage is higher than the market-wage (sans interventions). If minimum wage didn't cause unemployment, why not raise the rate to 50$ a hour? Reductio Ad Absurdurm clearly demonstrates this would cause massive unemployment in low-wage rate sectors (notably service industries, non-skilled and low-skilled work, etc.). Not only this, but it would cause a shortage of workers with actual experience (contrary to popular belief, building ones resume does indeed increase ones expected wage). Now, we can quibble what the market-wage is, since we cannot know with the myriad of interventions, but we can look at the unemployment and employment rates in certain industries and sectors. You also have to take into account COL and other data. You can't at face say that a 7$ minimum wage is poverty. 7$ minimum wage would be middle class in many countries. It's a simpleton notion to 'just increase minimum wage' as an answer to poverty. If it was that easy, those doofus' called politicians could decree it so! That's not how an economy functions and grows. Rothbard gives a good explanation of how to increase standard of living through the Robinson Crusoe analogy. If we want to tackle poverty, we need to address the fundamental problems of our economy. We can start by looking at the Federal Reserve and our increasing regulatory burdens. Sound money and protection of contractual rights will immensely help the poor and lower middle-class.
$7/hr is poverty in the United States.
EDIT: Furthermore man, I linked a study comparing states that bordered each other with different minimum wages. Your position is just wrongly conceived.
|
Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) announced Monday night that he is resigning from Congress, effective Jan. 5.
"The events which led to this day did not break my spirit, nor the will of the voters," reads a statement from the congressman. "However, I do not believe that I can continue to be 100% effective in the next Congress, and therefore, out of respect for the Office and the people I so proudly represent, it is time for me to start the next chapter of my life."
The New York Daily News first reported Grimm's intention to retire earlier Monday evening.
The news comes less than a week after Grimm pleaded guilty to one count of felony tax fraud. (The congressman was indicted on 20 counts in April.) His plea carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison.
Source
|
|
|
On December 31 2014 01:56 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 17:43 IgnE wrote:That's not how it works in the real world. I linked you to the Department of Labor explaining that the overwhelming consensus by economists, the people who would be most apt to agree with your ruthless mathematical logic if it were correct, is that minimum wage laws have no discernible effect on labor. But you are undeterred. It just makes sense to you that this is how it is, reality be damned. If you actually thought about what people have been saying, people who know more than you about this topic, you might have thought that your investigation warranted some outside help. All you have to do is go to google. Here I did it for you: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdfhttp://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdfhttp://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/166-08.pdfhttp://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/reports/FLSAPaperSeries.pdfThe funny thing is that I have seen you shit on the general forum in other threads but it turns out that you are one of the individuals who does the shitting with your stubborn ignorance. Everyone can read what you have been saying, trust me. We aren't misunderstanding you. You should go back and really try to engage with what people have been saying to you. You really shouldn't patronize me with your appeal to authority. The links alone would have sufficed, thanks. I came here because I was bored. And wanted to disturb your little groupthink, lol. I knew I'd regret it because I knew this would happen. Feel free to blame only me, but the truth is both of us are immovable and frustrated the other doesn't relent. Which is why these discussions never move forward. Which is why I don't bother with General in general. Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 21:22 oneofthem wrote:
pages of blah and you've yet to understand that their problem is a labor shortage. a wage decrease isn't going to fix that. this is hurting my head How is there a labor shortage? Unemployment is still not 0%.
I appealed first to evidence, but you didn't care to look.
This thread wouldn't be 1500 pages long if everyone who frequented it held the same views. It might just look like group think because most people here know that we have empirical data about the minimum wage; empirical data that contradicts what you've been saying is true. We've already had pages and pages of discussion about it. But when people try to tell you that you are talking nonsense you don't think it appropriate to reevaluate your situation, to investigate further, or to marshall evidence in your favor.
You are like one of those pessimists who says "this is going to go poorly," who wishes it so, and so makes it so.
|
Following new revelations that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) addressed a white nationalist group founded by a former KKK leader, Roll Call resurfaced a 1999 interview in which Scalise, then a state legislator considering a congressional bid, offered his thoughts on the man who is now causing so much trouble for his career.
Scalise has acknowledged that he spoke in front of the European-American Rights and Unity Organization in 2002, though he has said this week that he "didn't know who all of these groups were and I detest any kind of hate group."
EURO was founded by David Duke, who is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as "the most recognizable figure of the American radical right, a neo-Nazi, longtime Klan leader and now international spokesman for Holocaust denial."
Duke has flirted with political office throughout his life, being elected to the Louisiana legislature and mounting bids for governor and Congress. Back in 1999, Duke was considering another congressional campaign, and Roll Call caught up with some other Louisiana politicians — including Scalise — who were also thinking about getting into the race and asked them about Duke.
According to Roll Call, Scalise said he shared many of Duke's "conservative" beliefs, but then argued that the prominent white nationalist was unelectable.
“The novelty of David Duke has worn off,” Scalise said. “The voters in this district are smart enough to realize that they need to get behind someone who not only believes in the issues they care about, but also can get elected. Duke has proven that he can’t get elected, and that’s the first and most important thing.”
Source
|
On December 29 2014 17:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Reasonable debate basically ends as soon as you pretend the UN can force anyone to do anything.
That said, I think Western culture is way too picky about what they consider "disgusting" as food. Never personally had grasshopper, would love to try it if it was actually prepared well. Heard they taste quite good, depending on their diet and species.
Some restaurants serve it in a wrap so you cant see the animals ugly parts but however, i tried and did not like it. It was not close to any taste, usually they say it tastes like apple but no way, it tastes like BUG and its a BUG.
And of course UN will not point a gun to your head if you dont eat them. According to them, IN 50 YEARS, meat will be very expensive and not easy to reach, -see China's pig case then and now- why it will be very rare to find, because they will limit the animal count with harsh punishment, this is FORCE i meant. They are starting to create a basis. Im not saying this is gonna happen surely. But its getting bigger and and wider, we just dont know yet, and underestimate. Please see the report for real. http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e.pdf - And food and Agriculture Org is more powerful than you think probably. http://www.fao.org/forestry/edibleinsects/en/
http://www.buggrub.com/
http://www.insecteurope.com/
http://www.thailandunique.com/edible-insects-bugs
|
If we want to tackle poverty, we need to address the fundamental problems of our economy. We can start by looking at the Federal Reserve and our increasing regulatory burdens.
Never change!
|
On December 31 2014 03:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 01:56 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 30 2014 17:43 IgnE wrote:That's not how it works in the real world. I linked you to the Department of Labor explaining that the overwhelming consensus by economists, the people who would be most apt to agree with your ruthless mathematical logic if it were correct, is that minimum wage laws have no discernible effect on labor. But you are undeterred. It just makes sense to you that this is how it is, reality be damned. If you actually thought about what people have been saying, people who know more than you about this topic, you might have thought that your investigation warranted some outside help. All you have to do is go to google. Here I did it for you: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdfhttp://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdfhttp://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/166-08.pdfhttp://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/reports/FLSAPaperSeries.pdfThe funny thing is that I have seen you shit on the general forum in other threads but it turns out that you are one of the individuals who does the shitting with your stubborn ignorance. Everyone can read what you have been saying, trust me. We aren't misunderstanding you. You should go back and really try to engage with what people have been saying to you. You really shouldn't patronize me with your appeal to authority. The links alone would have sufficed, thanks. I came here because I was bored. And wanted to disturb your little groupthink, lol. I knew I'd regret it because I knew this would happen. Feel free to blame only me, but the truth is both of us are immovable and frustrated the other doesn't relent. Which is why these discussions never move forward. Which is why I don't bother with General in general. On December 30 2014 21:22 oneofthem wrote:
pages of blah and you've yet to understand that their problem is a labor shortage. a wage decrease isn't going to fix that. this is hurting my head How is there a labor shortage? Unemployment is still not 0%. I appealed first to evidence, but you didn't care to look. This thread wouldn't be 1500 pages long if everyone who frequented it held the same views. It might just look like group think because most people here know that we have empirical data about the minimum wage; empirical data that contradicts what you've been saying is true. We've already had pages and pages of discussion about it. But when people try to tell you that you are talking nonsense you don't think it appropriate to reevaluate your situation, to investigate further, or to marshall evidence in your favor.You are like one of those pessimists who says "this is going to go poorly," who wishes it so, and so makes it so.
You don't think I am? You don't believe that's what I've been doing?
I think you all are talking nonsense and I've been trying to prove it to you through logic, but our perceptions of reality differ too greatly. We see different things as the source of the problem.
What I originally said was that the jobs that illegal immigrants work are jobs no one can work, whether they want to or not, because the rate of pay they'd receive would be below the minimum wage. If there's no profitable way to do a job, people generally aren't going to do it. If farmers didn't have so many illegal immigrants to rely upon for cheaper labor, they couldn't sustain their businesses. If the wages were above the minimum, law-abiding citizens could've taken their place, without the risk of breaking the law. I don't see those jobs getting filled if we spontaneously require farmers to pay them higher wages.
What I hear you all saying is that workers should be paid an arbitrary amount despite their productivity potentially being less than that. I just think that's patently unsound economics. I cannot wrap my head around the idea that raising the price of labor suddenly increases productivity from the same pool of workers. If work being worth $5/hr is a constant, I don't see how requiring companies to incur losses every hour due to the price of labor is a net benefit. It appears a very short-sighted solution to a problem with yet more variables in play.
Would love to see a place that had a minimum wage, abolished it for a substantial portion of time, and examine the effects. The American economy is robust; it could easily absorb negative effects from a policy like the min. wage, if any exist. But what about the other way around?
EDIT: If you want me to take this to PMs, I can.
|
On December 31 2014 03:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 03:07 IgnE wrote:On December 31 2014 01:56 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 30 2014 17:43 IgnE wrote:That's not how it works in the real world. I linked you to the Department of Labor explaining that the overwhelming consensus by economists, the people who would be most apt to agree with your ruthless mathematical logic if it were correct, is that minimum wage laws have no discernible effect on labor. But you are undeterred. It just makes sense to you that this is how it is, reality be damned. If you actually thought about what people have been saying, people who know more than you about this topic, you might have thought that your investigation warranted some outside help. All you have to do is go to google. Here I did it for you: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdfhttp://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdfhttp://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/166-08.pdfhttp://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/reports/FLSAPaperSeries.pdfThe funny thing is that I have seen you shit on the general forum in other threads but it turns out that you are one of the individuals who does the shitting with your stubborn ignorance. Everyone can read what you have been saying, trust me. We aren't misunderstanding you. You should go back and really try to engage with what people have been saying to you. You really shouldn't patronize me with your appeal to authority. The links alone would have sufficed, thanks. I came here because I was bored. And wanted to disturb your little groupthink, lol. I knew I'd regret it because I knew this would happen. Feel free to blame only me, but the truth is both of us are immovable and frustrated the other doesn't relent. Which is why these discussions never move forward. Which is why I don't bother with General in general. On December 30 2014 21:22 oneofthem wrote:
pages of blah and you've yet to understand that their problem is a labor shortage. a wage decrease isn't going to fix that. this is hurting my head How is there a labor shortage? Unemployment is still not 0%. I appealed first to evidence, but you didn't care to look. This thread wouldn't be 1500 pages long if everyone who frequented it held the same views. It might just look like group think because most people here know that we have empirical data about the minimum wage; empirical data that contradicts what you've been saying is true. We've already had pages and pages of discussion about it. But when people try to tell you that you are talking nonsense you don't think it appropriate to reevaluate your situation, to investigate further, or to marshall evidence in your favor.You are like one of those pessimists who says "this is going to go poorly," who wishes it so, and so makes it so. You don't think I am? You don't believe that's what I've been doing? I think you all are talking nonsense and I've been trying to prove it to you through logic, but our perceptions of reality differ too greatly. We see different things as the source of the problem. What I originally said was that the jobs that illegal immigrants work are jobs no one can work, whether they want to or not, because the rate of pay they'd receive would be below the minimum wage. If there's no profitable way to do a job, people generally aren't going to do it. If farmers didn't have so many illegal immigrants to rely upon for cheaper labor, they couldn't sustain their businesses. If the wages were above the minimum, law-abiding citizens could've taken their place, without the risk of breaking the law. I don't see those jobs getting filled if we spontaneously require farmers to pay them higher wages. What I hear you all saying is that workers should be paid an arbitrary amount despite their productivity potentially being less than that. I just think that's patently unsound economics. I cannot wrap my head around the idea that raising the price of labor suddenly increases productivity from the same pool of workers. If work being worth $5/hr is a constant, I don't see how requiring companies to incur losses every hour due to the price of labor is a net benefit. It appears a very short-sighted solution to a problem with yet more variables in play. Would love to see a place that had a minimum wage, abolished it for a substantial portion of time, and examine the effects. The American economy is robust; it could easily absorb negative effects from a policy like the min. wage, if any exist. But what about the other way around?
Do you have some reason for thinking that the agricultural industry isn't able to pass on part of the increased cost from offering higher wages to consumers? As far as I can tell, there's no reason to think that higher labor prices would cause farmers to go out of business, because, you know, it's important to buy food even when it gets more expensive.
|
On December 31 2014 04:01 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 03:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 31 2014 03:07 IgnE wrote:On December 31 2014 01:56 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 30 2014 17:43 IgnE wrote:That's not how it works in the real world. I linked you to the Department of Labor explaining that the overwhelming consensus by economists, the people who would be most apt to agree with your ruthless mathematical logic if it were correct, is that minimum wage laws have no discernible effect on labor. But you are undeterred. It just makes sense to you that this is how it is, reality be damned. If you actually thought about what people have been saying, people who know more than you about this topic, you might have thought that your investigation warranted some outside help. All you have to do is go to google. Here I did it for you: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdfhttp://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdfhttp://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/166-08.pdfhttp://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/reports/FLSAPaperSeries.pdfThe funny thing is that I have seen you shit on the general forum in other threads but it turns out that you are one of the individuals who does the shitting with your stubborn ignorance. Everyone can read what you have been saying, trust me. We aren't misunderstanding you. You should go back and really try to engage with what people have been saying to you. You really shouldn't patronize me with your appeal to authority. The links alone would have sufficed, thanks. I came here because I was bored. And wanted to disturb your little groupthink, lol. I knew I'd regret it because I knew this would happen. Feel free to blame only me, but the truth is both of us are immovable and frustrated the other doesn't relent. Which is why these discussions never move forward. Which is why I don't bother with General in general. On December 30 2014 21:22 oneofthem wrote:
pages of blah and you've yet to understand that their problem is a labor shortage. a wage decrease isn't going to fix that. this is hurting my head How is there a labor shortage? Unemployment is still not 0%. I appealed first to evidence, but you didn't care to look. This thread wouldn't be 1500 pages long if everyone who frequented it held the same views. It might just look like group think because most people here know that we have empirical data about the minimum wage; empirical data that contradicts what you've been saying is true. We've already had pages and pages of discussion about it. But when people try to tell you that you are talking nonsense you don't think it appropriate to reevaluate your situation, to investigate further, or to marshall evidence in your favor.You are like one of those pessimists who says "this is going to go poorly," who wishes it so, and so makes it so. You don't think I am? You don't believe that's what I've been doing? I think you all are talking nonsense and I've been trying to prove it to you through logic, but our perceptions of reality differ too greatly. We see different things as the source of the problem. What I originally said was that the jobs that illegal immigrants work are jobs no one can work, whether they want to or not, because the rate of pay they'd receive would be below the minimum wage. If there's no profitable way to do a job, people generally aren't going to do it. If farmers didn't have so many illegal immigrants to rely upon for cheaper labor, they couldn't sustain their businesses. If the wages were above the minimum, law-abiding citizens could've taken their place, without the risk of breaking the law. I don't see those jobs getting filled if we spontaneously require farmers to pay them higher wages. What I hear you all saying is that workers should be paid an arbitrary amount despite their productivity potentially being less than that. I just think that's patently unsound economics. I cannot wrap my head around the idea that raising the price of labor suddenly increases productivity from the same pool of workers. If work being worth $5/hr is a constant, I don't see how requiring companies to incur losses every hour due to the price of labor is a net benefit. It appears a very short-sighted solution to a problem with yet more variables in play. Would love to see a place that had a minimum wage, abolished it for a substantial portion of time, and examine the effects. The American economy is robust; it could easily absorb negative effects from a policy like the min. wage, if any exist. But what about the other way around? Do you have some reason for thinking that the agricultural industry isn't able to pass on part of the increased cost from offering higher wages to consumers? As far as I can tell, there's no reason to think that higher labor prices would cause farmers to go out of business, because, you know, it's important to buy food even when it gets more expensive.
Competition? Competitors would offer a lower price. Can't form a trust to keep the price high, either.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
can you get back to explaining how you will get more workers into your industry by offering the illegal below minimum wage rate?
|
On December 31 2014 04:13 oneofthem wrote:
can you get back to explaining how you will get more workers into your industry by offering the illegal below minimum wage rate?
Sure.
If you have 5 citizens approach you willing to work for $10/hr, and 10 illegal immigrants approach you willing to work for $5/hr, which one's the better deal to you economically, legal inhibitions aside?
|
On December 31 2014 04:10 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 04:01 Mercy13 wrote:On December 31 2014 03:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 31 2014 03:07 IgnE wrote:On December 31 2014 01:56 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 30 2014 17:43 IgnE wrote:That's not how it works in the real world. I linked you to the Department of Labor explaining that the overwhelming consensus by economists, the people who would be most apt to agree with your ruthless mathematical logic if it were correct, is that minimum wage laws have no discernible effect on labor. But you are undeterred. It just makes sense to you that this is how it is, reality be damned. If you actually thought about what people have been saying, people who know more than you about this topic, you might have thought that your investigation warranted some outside help. All you have to do is go to google. Here I did it for you: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdfhttp://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdfhttp://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/166-08.pdfhttp://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/reports/FLSAPaperSeries.pdfThe funny thing is that I have seen you shit on the general forum in other threads but it turns out that you are one of the individuals who does the shitting with your stubborn ignorance. Everyone can read what you have been saying, trust me. We aren't misunderstanding you. You should go back and really try to engage with what people have been saying to you. You really shouldn't patronize me with your appeal to authority. The links alone would have sufficed, thanks. I came here because I was bored. And wanted to disturb your little groupthink, lol. I knew I'd regret it because I knew this would happen. Feel free to blame only me, but the truth is both of us are immovable and frustrated the other doesn't relent. Which is why these discussions never move forward. Which is why I don't bother with General in general. On December 30 2014 21:22 oneofthem wrote:
pages of blah and you've yet to understand that their problem is a labor shortage. a wage decrease isn't going to fix that. this is hurting my head How is there a labor shortage? Unemployment is still not 0%. I appealed first to evidence, but you didn't care to look. This thread wouldn't be 1500 pages long if everyone who frequented it held the same views. It might just look like group think because most people here know that we have empirical data about the minimum wage; empirical data that contradicts what you've been saying is true. We've already had pages and pages of discussion about it. But when people try to tell you that you are talking nonsense you don't think it appropriate to reevaluate your situation, to investigate further, or to marshall evidence in your favor.You are like one of those pessimists who says "this is going to go poorly," who wishes it so, and so makes it so. You don't think I am? You don't believe that's what I've been doing? I think you all are talking nonsense and I've been trying to prove it to you through logic, but our perceptions of reality differ too greatly. We see different things as the source of the problem. What I originally said was that the jobs that illegal immigrants work are jobs no one can work, whether they want to or not, because the rate of pay they'd receive would be below the minimum wage. If there's no profitable way to do a job, people generally aren't going to do it. If farmers didn't have so many illegal immigrants to rely upon for cheaper labor, they couldn't sustain their businesses. If the wages were above the minimum, law-abiding citizens could've taken their place, without the risk of breaking the law. I don't see those jobs getting filled if we spontaneously require farmers to pay them higher wages. What I hear you all saying is that workers should be paid an arbitrary amount despite their productivity potentially being less than that. I just think that's patently unsound economics. I cannot wrap my head around the idea that raising the price of labor suddenly increases productivity from the same pool of workers. If work being worth $5/hr is a constant, I don't see how requiring companies to incur losses every hour due to the price of labor is a net benefit. It appears a very short-sighted solution to a problem with yet more variables in play. Would love to see a place that had a minimum wage, abolished it for a substantial portion of time, and examine the effects. The American economy is robust; it could easily absorb negative effects from a policy like the min. wage, if any exist. But what about the other way around? Do you have some reason for thinking that the agricultural industry isn't able to pass on part of the increased cost from offering higher wages to consumers? As far as I can tell, there's no reason to think that higher labor prices would cause farmers to go out of business, because, you know, it's important to buy food even when it gets more expensive. Competition? Competitors would offer a lower price. Can't form a trust to keep the price high, either.
Which competitors? The ones who are subject to the exact same changes in labor prices? You seem to be jumping from one fallacious free market buzzword to the next without making any arguments.
|
No you aren't. You are talking out of your ass using logic so laden with erroneous assumptions that it would take hours to get to the bottom of them all. You are trying to construct a theory about something with a faulty method of analysis because it is (unkowingly) untethered from reality. If you would just look at the empirical data you would see that, and that should make you wonder about your assumptions. Did you read the minimum wage study comparing inter-state economic growth between stated with different minimum wages? Did you read the article from NewRepublic posted above? This might surprise you but the farm owners are going to be fine.
|
On December 31 2014 04:17 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 04:13 oneofthem wrote:
can you get back to explaining how you will get more workers into your industry by offering the illegal below minimum wage rate? Sure. If you have 5 citizens approach you willing to work for $10/hr, and 10 illegal immigrants approach you willing to work for $5/hr, which one's the better deal to you economically, legal inhibitions aside?
lol wat? Are you just trolling now?
|
On December 31 2014 04:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 04:17 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 31 2014 04:13 oneofthem wrote:
can you get back to explaining how you will get more workers into your industry by offering the illegal below minimum wage rate? Sure. If you have 5 citizens approach you willing to work for $10/hr, and 10 illegal immigrants approach you willing to work for $5/hr, which one's the better deal to you economically, legal inhibitions aside? lol wat? Are you just trolling now?
This was my entire, original point. I'm not trolling.
|
Argument by solecism is either trolling or stupidity. Surely, surely, you can see that your post isn't a response to the question being asked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
