patrick.net

JodyChunder says

indigenous
says

You reject the profound thinking of Dr Sowell and Dr Williams both of whom
grew up in the projects and instead go with your empirical experience.

Empiricism has served me fairly well. I'm just sharing my perspective based
upon what I have experienced in my life and the mistakes I've learned from, and
weighing it all against some careful research.

Yes as far as you know...

JodyChunder says

indigenous says

You reject the profound thinking of Dr Sowell and Dr Williams both of whom grew up in the projects and instead go with your empirical experience.

Empiricism has served me fairly well. I'm just sharing my perspective based upon what I have experienced in my life and the mistakes I've learned from, and weighing it all against some careful research.

By the way, there are at least four things I can think of right off the bat that are hampering the next Apple: patent hoarders, education (both the cost and the quality of), an over-lawyered playing field and our serial bubble economy. Not the cost of labor!

Those are all fine points but irrelevant as the investor is simply going to say deal me out, I get treated better elsewhere.

JodyChunder says

By the way, there are at least four things I can think of right off the bat that are hampering the next Apple: patent hoarders, education (both the cost and the quality of), an over-lawyered playing field and our serial bubble economy. Not the cost of labor!

Funny I agree! But all these are problems that are caused by the government.

indigenous says

Those are all fine points but irrelevant as the investor is simply going to say deal me out, I get treated better elsewhere.

They're entirely relevant, and you're conflating investors with speculators.

thomaswong.1986 says

how do you set the standard for min wage ? is is based on worker in Urban California, which is certainly different than rural California, or middle America, or the Southern States. If we were to apply the Min Wage Standards based on SF prime, it certainly would impact your own business.

Yeah, I'd be sitting even prettier.

JodyChunder says

Reality says

hmm, the minimum wage law literally says jobs paying less than a certain amount are outlawed. duh.

I'm not sure what point you think you're illustrating with this. Yes -- jobs paying below a living wage are "outlawed" -- however, inflation as it is measured today in this country, is pegged to some very dicey metrics. Even at 10 dollars an hour, you're well south of the poverty line in America. That's inexcusable for a country this wealthy. It's even embarrassing.

What's your point? People making below poverty line (before counting support from family) shouldn't be allowed to work at all? Everyone has to start somewhere. Chances are that person starting the very first job in his/her life is still living with parents! No wonder we have a high youth employability problem.

JodyChunder says

Australia had exactly such mandates in place since the late 19th century. Their dollar was never as anemic as you suggest -- certainly not in 2005 when the AFPC was first established to oversee fair pay practices. Trust me, the AUS dollar was never half the USD in 2005 or at any point in your lifetime. I have done business with and in Australia for the last 25 years.

In April of 2001, the Australian Dollar was equivalent to less than 48 US cents. I'm pretty sure that I was alive in 2001, and 2001 was within the last 25 years. In fact, as recently as 2009, the A$ was below 65 US cents.

Reality says

What's your point? People making below poverty line (before counting support from family) shouldn't be allowed to work at all?

That's a very bizarre conclusion, and entirely your own. This would be like me saying, "livestock should not be fed meal comprised of other livestock; therefore, livestock should not be fed at all." What?

JodyChunder says

Laws mandating livable wage (i.e. wage enough to provide for a family) is just another way of saying each family can only have one bread winner legally; everyone else, especially at the lower social strata, would have to start at illegal jobs like drug dealing and prostitution first.

Wha?? That's a really fucking bizarre extrapolation. It's not any such thing.

What is bizarre about it? Cost of living and poverty line are relative measures that move up with the average income. What you are proposing is as silly as a law to make everyone's income above average!

JodyChunder says

Reality says

What's your point? People making below poverty line (before counting support from family) shouldn't be allowed to work at all?

That's a very bizarre conclusion, and entirely your own. This would be like me saying, "livestock should not be fed meal comprised of other livestock; therefore, livestock should not be fed at all." What?

No, what you are proposing is the equivalent of that livestocks have to be fed only with feeds that cost as much per pound as the livestocks themselves would fetch. Such a law would indeed ensure that no livestock would be fed. Only pets would be fed.

Do you not understand higher wages bid up the cost of living? People live by consuming the output of other people's work. There are literally less productive people in this world who can not produce enough to trade for food and housing all on their own (a classic example of that would be some young person trying out the very first job in his/her life). Should they not be allowed to work at all? That's what your "livable wage" law is essentially advocating.

Reality says

What is bizarre about it? Cost of living and poverty line are relative measures that move up with the average income. What you are proposing is as silly as a law to make everyone's income above average!

It's bizarre because it makes not one fucking iota of sense on this or any other planet in this solar system.

Besides Cost of Living is not figured in relative terms. CPI is approximated using a geometric mean formula which grossly understates real inflation.

JodyChunder says

Reality says

What is bizarre about it? Cost of living and poverty line are relative measures that move up with the average income. What you are proposing is as silly as a law to make everyone's income above average!

It's bizarre because it makes not one fucking iota of sense on this or any other planet in this solar system.

Besides Cost of Living is not figured in relative terms. CPI is approximated using a geometric mean formula which grossly understates real inflation.

Cost of living is bid up by rising household income. If you pass a law that insists a snotty faced 15yr old delivering papers and making hamburger have to be paid enough to have his/her own apartment . . . either you build zillions of apartments to ensure everyone in town can have his/her own apartment without having to live with their parents, or more likely the hapless 15yr old is banned from working by your law.

Reality says

Do you not understand higher wages bid up the cost of living?

You are considering only two variables in the equation in order to create a boogeyman. The cost of living goes up (by a miniscule percentage) but guess what? Revenues also go up!

Reality says

No, what you are proposing is the equivalent of that livestocks have to be fed only with feeds that cost as much per pound as the livestocks themselves would fetch.

Not at all. Look again at the impact the minimum wage hike Santa Fe' had in 2004. None of the sturm und drang that you and other libertarians like to proffer.

Let me try out some of your specious reasoning here: the less we can get away with paying for labor, the more money there would be in the overall economy -- dollar for dollar. Right? By this logic, I should actually debit my employees for the privilege of providing their labor to me.

JodyChunder says

indigenous says

Those are all fine points but irrelevant as the investor is simply going to say deal me out, I get treated better elsewhere.

They're entirely relevant, and you're conflating investors with speculators.

Either way it doesn't matter. The irrelevance is that unless the business is able to create jobs everything you said is irrelevant.

JodyChunder says

Reality says

Do you not understand higher wages bid up the cost of living?

You are considering only two variables in the equation in order to create a boogeyman. The cost of living goes up (by a miniscule percentage) but guess what? Revenues also go up!

What Revenue? Tax revenue or revenue for businesses catering to consumers? Either way, how can workers laid off help generate revenue?

JodyChunder says

Reality says

No, what you are proposing is the equivalent of that livestocks have to be fed only with feeds that cost as much per pound as the livestocks themselves would fetch.

Not at all. Look again at the impact the minimum wage hike Santa Fe' had in 2004. None of the sturm und drang that you and other libertarians like to proffer.

In case you did not realize, 2004-2008 Santa Fe economy was driven by a massive real estate bubble, quite unrelated to minimum wage one way or another.

Let me try out some of your specious reasoning here: the less we can get away with paying for labor, the more money there would be in the overall economy -- dollar for dollar. Right?

Wrong. It has nothing to do with getting away with less or getting away with more. Let the market clear, so as to maximize jobs / employment / market-exchange.

By this logic, I should actually debit my employees for the privilege of providing their labor to me.

That's what minimum wage laws have already led to: unpaid internships and surplus graduate school students!

Reality says

Cost of living is bid up by rising household income.

No it isn't.

Reality says

If you pass a law that insists a snotty faced 15yr old delivering papers and making hamburger have to be paid enough to have his/her own apartment . . .

"Snotty faced 15 year olds" are not the demographic I'm concerned with here. But I think I'm getting a glimpse of the real narrative here.

Reality says

What Revenue? Tax revenue or revenue for businesses catering to consumers?

Both, of course.

Either way, how can workers laid off help generate revenue?

Pure bullshit. Show me one single example of a recession or spike in unemployment caused by a hike in the minimum wage anywhere in the world.

JodyChunder says

Reality says

Cost of living is bid up by rising household income.

No it isn't.

Of course it is. It's ludicrous to make a law that mandates every person in a household having a job at all should be able to afford his/her own place. It's common to find more than one income in a household.

JodyChunder says

Reality says

If you pass a law that insists a snotty faced 15yr old delivering papers and making hamburger have to be paid enough to have his/her own apartment . . .

"Snotty faced 15 year olds" are not the demographic I'm concerned with here. But I think I'm getting a glimpse of the real narrative here.

What's your point? I was a snotty faced 15yr old once. I'm grateful for "being exploited" and gaining my first work experience at that job.

indigenous says

The irrelevance is that unless the business is able to create jobs everything you said is irrelevant.

I can't create jobs for people who don't have money to spend on my products and services. Get it?

JodyChunder says

Either way, how can workers laid off help generate revenue?

Pure bullshit. Show me one single example of a recession or spike in unemployment caused by a hike in the minimum wage anywhere in the world.

You living in one right now! Why else do you think there is a massive youth unemployment problem? The combination of de jure minimum wage and de facto minimum wage due to student debt and welfare/taxation have convinced many young not to work a legit job.

Reality says

What's your point?

Because snotty-faced 15 year olds is what springs to mind for you when I'm discussing living wages -- which is insane, as a 15 year-old is still a fucking dependent and not the subject being considered. Red herring, etc, etc.

I hope you grew out of your enjoyment of exploitation. But if not, don't go around assuming your masochism is a one-size fits-all neurosis.

Reality says

Of course it is

Nope.

JodyChunder says

indigenous says

The irrelevance is that unless the business is able to create jobs everything you said is irrelevant.

I can't create jobs for people who don't have money to spend on my products and services. Get it?

So you think you'd create more jobs if you are required to pay them more while they don't have jobs?

Reality says

You living in one right now!

If you're really trying to suggest that our current economic twilight is the result of the minimum wage, then you're a lost soul.

JodyChunder says

Because snotty faced 15 year olds is what springs to mind when I'm discussing living wages -- which is insane, as a 15 year old is still a fucking dependent.

People at minimum wage jobs often are dependents. Everyone has to start somewhere. You are proposing to ban the dependents from working. That's horrible for both the young needing work experience and the families that count on the dependents for part of the household income.

Reality says

So you think you'd create more jobs if you are required to pay them more while they don't have jobs?

I know, from experience, that no hike in the minimum wage has ever caused my bottom line to flag. More money in the economy means more demand, and more demand means more work to fulfill the demand. It's very basic.

Reality says

People at minimum wage jobs often are dependents. Everyone has to start somewhere. You are proposing to ban the dependents from working.

Let me clarify: at 15, you are not even legally eligible for full-time employment.

JodyChunder says

Reality says

You living in one right now!

If you're really trying to suggest that our current economic twilight is the result of the minimum wage, then you're a lost soul.

Of course it is the result of both de jure minimum wage, as well as de facto "minimum wage" due to a combination of welfare, unemployment benefits and graduate school /unemployment deferment on student loans. For many of the heavily burdened with student debts, garnishment of loan repayment on top of high taxation is making illegal jobs such as drug trafficking and prostitution much more attractive than legit jobs that face taxation and garnishment.

JodyChunder says

Reality says

People at minimum wage jobs often are dependents. Everyone has to start somewhere. You are proposing to ban the dependents from working.

Let me clarify: at 15, you are not even legally eligible for full-time employment.

With over 1/4 of college graduates moving back to their families, the dependents can be as old as 22yo or older.

sbh says

Reality says

So you think you'd create higher paying jobs if you are required to pay them more while they have jobs?

FTFY. Yes.

okay, you got me there, missing the word "no" in my post. should be "while they have no jobs?"

JodyChunder says

Let me clarify: at 15, you are not even legally eligible for full-time employment.

you can go down to 14 in some cases, with PT.. thats OK, by the time
your 18 you have some great work history and several references.
thats what many want to see anyway. Your way past min wage by
that time. But today, most of these jobs are given to older immigrants.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets wage, hours worked, and safety requirements for minors (individuals under age 18) working in jobs covered by the statute. The rules vary depending upon the particular age of the minor and the particular job involved. As a general rule, the FLSA sets 14 years of age as the minimum age for employment, and limits the number of hours worked by minors under the age of 16.

Also, the FLSA generally prohibits the employment of a minor in work declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor (for example, work involving excavation, driving, and the operation of many types of power-driven equipment). The FLSA contains a number of requirements that apply only to particular types of jobs (for example, agricultural work or the operation of motor vehicles) and many exceptions to the general rules (for example, work by a minor for his or her parents). Each state also has its own laws relating to employment, including the employment of minors. If state law and the FLSA overlap, the law which is more protective of the minor will apply.

Reality says

If you're really trying to suggest that our current economic twilight is the result of the minimum wage, then you're a lost soul.

Of course it is

You're seriously undermining your already precarious footing here by even suggesting this. Rampant speculation and fraud were the two engines in the economic downturn of 2008. Nothing to do with our shitty minimum wage.

Reality says

With over 1/4 of college graduates moving back to their families, the dependents can be as old as 22yo or older.

Right -- but they're eligible for full-time employment, unlike the 15 year-old.

JodyChunder says

Reality says

So you think you'd create more jobs if you are required to pay them more while they don't have jobs?

I know, from experience, that no hike in the minimum wage has ever caused my bottom line to flag. More money in the economy means more demand, and more demand means more work to fulfill the demand. It's very basic.

In the US, about 1/2 of all workers are hourly workers. Of those, about 2% are at Federal Minimum Wage. So you are saying roughly 1% of existing workers making a little more would mean more money in the economy. I'd think the 10+% working age population not working is likely gated out of work, and raising the gate would shove more people into the unemployed and underemployed.

JodyChunder says

indigenous says

The irrelevance is that unless the business is able to create jobs everything you said is irrelevant.

I can't create jobs for people who don't have money to spend on my products and services. Get it?

That is a fundamental difference between Keynesians and Austrians.

If what you are saying is true then what does someone buy if it hasn't been produced?

Do people first have to have money and then the products can be produced? Is that what happened with Henry Ford, did he pay the factory workers so they could then then buy a car?

Reality says

So you are saying roughly 1% of existing workers making a little more would mean more money in the economy.

I am, yes. I'll hazard an even grosser bit of conjecture: If they made significantly more money, it would mean significantly more money in the economy.

JodyChunder says

Reality says

If you're really trying to suggest that our current economic twilight is the result of the minimum wage, then you're a lost soul.

Of course it is

You're seriously undermining your already precarious footing here by even suggesting this. Rampant speculation and fraud were the two engines in the economic downturn of 2008. Nothing to do with our shitty minimum wage.

Failed speculations and fraud work out as reduction on the demand side for labor. Minimum wage works as gating on the supply side. It takes a mismatch between the supply and demand to vaporize jobs.

indigenous says

If what you are saying is true then what does someone buy if it hasn't been produced?

This is a little like debating the chicken or the egg.

And yes, Henry Ford compensated his workers enough so that they could afford his product, and did so with this explicit end in mind.

sbh says

Sorry, old man, but I flagrantly butchered your post in the quote to highlight your manipulation. I thought that was obvious. But I'm proud you presumed you had made the mistake when really it was I who punked you.

It was late at night for me . . . and I assumed there was some kind of intellectual honesty involved here . . . apparently not the case at all for the left-leaning crowd, who apparently takes pride in outright fraud and dishonesty :-)

My point is to contest your presumption that banning a wage level bans the job itself.

A job offer comes with a wage level as its intrinsic component. If a listing is not legal, the job is banned, as simple as that.

Surely in your codified Talmud of axioms it does, but in the rest of the world we disagree. Still, I think more of you for having owned it.

I'm open to correcting my own mistakes. I make typographical mistakes quite often because I don't have patience for proof-reading myself. That's usually my secretary's job for work, but this is not work.

JodyChunder says

indigenous says

If what you are saying is true then what does someone buy if it hasn't been produced?

This is a little like debating the chicken or the egg.

And yes, Henry Ford compensated his workers enough so that they could afford his product, and did so with this explicit end in mind.

This is utter nonsense. Henry Ford said that for propaganda value. There were 15 million Ford Model T's alone. How many workers did Henry Ford have when making Model T? 20k? Even if every single one of his workers bought a Model T, their purchase would have accounted for something like 0.2% of total output! Henry Ford was just being a good propagandist. The real reason why he had to pay his workers much more was because his job offerings were boring as hell compared to craftsmanship at his competitors.

indigenous says

Do people first have to have money and then the products can be produced? Is that what happened with Henry Ford, did he pay the factory workers so they could then then buy a car?

his factory workers skills were rare. there wasnt that many he could hire easily. this was all during the very very early years of the Auto industry.

so where do you go to find this rare and skilled workers?

and he certainly didnt want them to leave for the competition as the industry grew.

JodyChunder says

And yes, Henry Ford compensated his workers enough so that they could afford his product, and did so with this explicit end in mind.

The point is that the cars were produced first. The reverse is impossible. Do you get that?

Another point about minimum wage is that the jobs would simply go to China, oh that's right they did...