andyt andyt:
As we know from all the xspurts on this forum,
I know this is a topic near to your heart, andyt, but that doesn't excuse you trying specifically to get a very negative response from the people who have disagreed with you, nor is it an excuse to ignore the dozens of juror'd articles I have provided you over the years. The experts who matter most are the hordes of economists who do not have reason to lie about their findings in response to minimum wage, those results of which some members of this site have taken the time to defend and explain in greater detail, inclusive of bootslegga, myself, and the user of the late Lemmy account. Further, in the past there were polls done by economists show they don't believe minimum wage can be used effectively in the majority.
Those who currently support it support the marginal increase, under the idea of minimum labour standards being a good thing. No one should rationally accept pay under a certain amount, even a teenager, so the market needs a correcting factor for that. They do not propose increasing the minimum wage to a living wage. They do no propose increasing it to even double what it currently is. They also support the methods I discussed over the ones you do, and would prefer my methods to yours. Keep this in mind, and do not mistakenly conflate your stance with that of economists willing to tolerate the hike. Frankly, they tolerate it because when the minimum wage is super low anyways, it's distortion effects are likely small as well -- ie, economists tolerate a bump because the bump increases it to an equally irrelevant small wage. Unfortunately, the topic is now politicized -- we don't deal with facts so much as hunches. If you are liberal or conservative, even as an economist, there's an expectation that you not take the literature fully into account when you take a position, and unfortunately it's the more politically minded that are now driving this discussion, not the experts of those fields.
The typically debate over it I read in the newspaper gets really sad once you get to the end, and realize that what started as what could have been a rousing argument over minimum wage was essentially more neoliberal economists stating "whatever, this is so small and still so low it won't even make a difference," while advocates admit "it won't make a difference, and we admit we aren't really changing anything for people here." For every Krugman who (fallaciously) argues there isn't any evidence of some of what we've posted, there's someone else who points out Krugman can't really provide evidence it will improve anything either. In fact, most newspapers go to opinion polls of Joe Blow off the street to try and fill out the article. It actually irritates me how much time we waste on this useless debate rather than actually implementing anti-poverty agreements everyone would support.
In the past, you and I have been in more than one argument over what is a valid source, and more than once you have been angry as a result. I even once pointed out your connection to the Fraser Institute on one topic while ignoring it on the other, when that other is actually supported by the economists of not just Canada, but the world. Recognize that when I provide you sources, and I mean that in plural because I often offer many sources at once, I am providing you with the best information I can to answer why, time and time again, minimum wage has not had a markedly positive effect on either the welfare, the buying power, or the strength of the lowest earners in the market, and time and time I have offered you alternatives.
The answer is welfare, not minimum wage. We can argue the specifics if you'd like, we've done it before. I have also offered you many, many times links to past disagreements where you left the thread after I called you on these patterns, and after I provided you a new set of links, or referenced you to an older set. I won't do it again; you can search the site yourself, and I admit to having gotten tired of linking people back to their own posts after a while.
andyt andyt:
raising the minimum wage will just cause inflation, leaving the workers who received the raise worse off than they were. Also it will cause massive job losses, causing the government to subsidize these workers - oh, wait, they're already doing that.
It's interesting, because that is exactly what most of the sources I have provided you with have stated, yes. There is nothing in your link that acts effectively as a counter-argument for any of it; just one man arguing about it. Now, I shouldn't have to remind you about those times both you and I were in agreement over how members of the business community have caused significant harm to the economy through pushing unfortunate forms of deregulation, or how others have come out in firm support of some pretty questionable economic and social ideas. I don't think I have to walk you down those times we were in agreement over the Tea Party. Nor should I have to explain the difference between dozens of trained economists and a business man.
What he is doing here with his workers isn't a problem. I think it's fine. It's rational and works in the assumed MPL. The workers are good people and highly dedicated as a result, and Costco isn't the only business that is doing the right thing in using wages to encourage their work force. His call for minimum wage is questionable. If the best you have is the internet version of rolling your eyes and snarling out some sarcasm while repeating what other people have said, then you aren't engaging in an argument. In real life, you'd just be pissing people off, whether or not they agree with you.
Finally, recognize your list falls far short of a lot of the likely changes that do come from the minimum wage that aren't so much harms but should cause concern. Recognize, for example, that a rise in minimum wage harms one set of companies most; those without a lot of capital, or who aren't very flexible. There is a very real concern that the more we expand minimum wage or even corporate tax, the more we will be beholden on the ones who can pay, or who are big enough to shove those problems elsewhere (wasn't it Starbucks who kept all their profit elsewhere?). I don't know about you, but I don't want the West to be dependent on megacorporations and multinationals to meet our needs. This was brought up the last time you and I were in a thread on minimum wage, and this is why I'm concerned. I want competition, and I don't want it to be between McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy's. This is but one example.
andyt andyt:
What a disaster, just as BC collapsed when it raised the min wage from $8 to $10.25.
I've also criticized you in the past about putting words in other people's mouths. No one views minimum wage as something which is going to kill Canada or America, nor has anyone ever made such an accusation. I maintain there are better ways, Boots points out it's lack of efficacy, and even Bart maintains the best that comes from it is status quo once you balance harms and benefits.
It's a lot easier to try and push us into some extreme gutter to make your arguments easier, but the reality is that the stance of those members who do engage you on this topic is surprisingly middle of the road.
Trust me, if it worked, I'd be behind it 100%. Hell, if it had the evidence (given the length of it's existence, there SHOULD be tons) to back it up, we'd never have a policy debate about this ever again; we'd double minimum wage and be done with it. The unfortunate thing is that there
are harms, well established ones that you have never made an effort to reply to, debunk, or argue directly. As a result of what evidence does exist, economists and a lot of non-economists reject the minimum wage panacea as an adequate poverty reduction mechanism. It's not out of some hatred of anything that isn't capitalist (and I remind you here Lemmy, our one-time economist, even rejected capitalism directly a few times), it's out of a recognition of reality and a new to look at better solutions.
Right now, poverty-reduction activists sometimes look at minimum wage as a bridge across a chasm to their solution. If they can get it going, then it'll be a shortcut to fixing poverty. The unfortunate thing about poverty is that it is a social, cultural, economic and even psychological set of harms, a complex beast that requires a complex set of resolutions to work. Nations who have worked to end poverty have gone to great lengths to re-order a lot of the inner workings of their country to manage it. It's why I support programs that pay stay-at-home Moms, and others that provide re-location costs of people seeking work, like most economists aware of those paradigms. They have real, tangible results that can be tracked, but don't come with the costs that are caused by minimum wage.
It's a massively ballsy thing to assume that everyone who disagrees with minimum wage is somehow uberlibertarian, or a business crony, or just hates poor people. No one should the issues with poverty and so forth, and I shouldn't have to defend my own anti-poverty record on here. Boots, Lemmy and I, among others, have all bemoaned poverty. We would like it to end. We just want to
actually end it. The aim is the same, but the mechanism is all wrong.
andyt andyt:
Inflation here is out of control, I tell you, and McDonald's et al all had to shut down because they couldn't afford to hire people at such a rich wage.
... or they just downsized the amount of hours they gave out. Companies think at the margin, man. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there was a spike in underemployment, if not straight out unemployment. Further, the inflation discussed tends to be long-end CPI inflation, or the "basic goods" basket. The kind of thing that keeps cars from being impacted by inflation pricing differences but makes juice more expensive.
CKA Elite 
CKA Uber 
