It’s not a non sequitur but they may have come from a misunderstanding of what you were saying. I thought you meant as an experiential situation in which case a similar good may come from conservatives working for pay the situation into which some people will be forced in you’re supporting.What is this non-sequitur supposed to mean?
No. What I meant was that liberals say they are against inequality; but the masses want it, and that’s why most people, liberals included, work to rise above others. This rising above others is inequality by definition. Since liberals say they are for equality and claim to be for the little guy, they should be made equal to the little guy by working for MW. IOW, they should be forced to live according to their professed convictions.It’s not a non sequitur but they may have come from a misunderstanding of what you were saying. I thought you meant as an experiential situation in which case a similar good may come from conservatives working for pay the situation into which some people will be forced in you’re supporting.
Your being illogical on a number of points here.I speak about things in which I do not have academic training. I am, however, hesitant to make grand proclamations about the state of a field in which I do not have training. For example, while I am comfortable talking about evolution, cosmology, myth theory or the historicity of Jesus there comes a point where I simply to not have a sufficient grasp on the details or issues at hand to speak intelligently on a given level.
?
So you concede that the MW raises unemployment?As I recall from that same site (which I read through about half of) the small change in unemployment seems mostly to affect the very young (which I read as high school students but this may not be true).
If a person wants to work for free, or for meals and lodging, there are volunteer positions available for that. They even “count” as experience, for a person’s resume.So, I ask yet again; in what way is it moral to raise unemployment for those on the low end of the wage scale?
And by having that minimum wage, someone else is out of a job and is thereby even less able to afford rent and food.If a person wants to work for free, or for meals and lodging, there are volunteer positions available for that. They even “count” as experience, for a person’s resume.
But once the person is being expected to pay his own rent and buy his own food, there is a minimum wage in place, so that he can do those things.
The minimum wage in the U.S is so low that it is unlikely to have that effect. Employers rarely pay as much as they can afford to be paying, and that’s particularly true for those who have few skills and low bargaining power.So please, someone, anyone, tell me how it is more moral to raise unemployment for the lowest wage earners.
What you write makes no sense. If the price set for a price floor is below the price at equilibrium, then it has no effect. If it is above the equilibrium price, then supply increases while demand decreases, which causes unemployment.The minimum wage in the U.S is so low that it is unlikely to have that effect. Employers rarely pay as much as they can afford to be paying, and that’s particularly true for those who have few skills and low bargaining power.
Unemployment is present even when their is a labour demand, which points ot other causes, like welfare (depending on country), lack of workforce education and mobility.
Furthermore, you take a very simplistic view of the setting of a wage rate. A wage is almost never decided solely on who happens to be the lowest bidder. The Cleveland Cavaliers could save a ton of money on salary by replacing Lebron James with me. Does that mean they would?The minimum wage in the U.S is so low that it is unlikely to have that effect. Employers rarely pay as much as they can afford to be paying, and that’s particularly true for those who have few skills and low bargaining power.
Unemployment is present even when their is a labour demand, which points ot other causes, like welfare (depending on country), lack of workforce education and mobility.
Apples and oranges. Lebron James demonstrably, personally, makes squillions in profits for the Cavaliers - records can be produced to evidence this, they can see how much merchandise with his name or image on it is bought and sold as one example.Furthermore, you take a very simplistic view of the setting of a wage rate. A wage is almost never decided solely on who happens to be the lowest bidder. The Cleveland Cavaliers could save a ton of money on salary by replacing Lebron James with me. Does that mean they would?
when wages offered for most entry level jobs are significantly higher than the minimum wage (as in the U.S), there is still unemployment.The fact that unemployment exists without MW is not the same as saying the MW doesn’t cause unemployment. You’re denying the antecedent.
That does not necessarily follow.And by having that minimum wage, someone else is out of a job and is thereby even less able to afford rent and food…
Not at all true. Lebron James is an extreme case, which is why I used him, to illustrate the point, but he is the rule rather than the exception.Apples and oranges. Lebron James demonstrably, personally, makes squillions in profits for the Cavaliers - records can be produced to evidence this, they can see how much merchandise with his name or image on it is bought and sold as one example.
Your average office or factory worker will give a big boost to company profits if they work well, but have buckleys chance of being able to quantify their personal contribution and demand appropriate rewards.
If ‘who happens to be the lowest bidder’ matters so little, why is such a HUGE proportion of manufacturing for Western companies done in China, Mexico and other countries whose ONLY advantage is that labour and running costs are cheaper there than here?
Yes, and the MW is a big factor in that unemployment.when wages offered for most entry level jobs are significantly higher than the minimum wage (as in the U.S), there is still unemployment.
How do you mean? Analytically, deductively, it doesn’t necessarily follow. But it doesn’t analytically and deductively follow that fire is hot either. Synthetically, inductively, empirically it does follow.That does not necessarily follow.
No, a large global labor supply made the global labor market (at least for unskilled labor) a zero-sum (or even a negative sum game) because such a large labor supply would contain people willing to work for very low wages causing the living standard of workers to drop.Yes, and the MW is a big factor in that unemployment.
Not when the market is left to its own devices.No, a large global labor supply made the global labor market (at least for unskilled labor) a zero-sum (or even a negative sum game) because such a large labor supply would contain people willing to work for very low wages causing the living standard of workers to drop.
There is such a thing as too many workers.
So what will happen when it is left to its own devices? Does you have a good theoretical explanation why that with a “free market” unemployment would fall ***AND ***the resulting real wages of most workers will be high? I doubt it would involve abstract reasoning or concrete evidence at all; just something filled with neoliberal platitudes about the “efficiency” of the market.Not when the market is left to its own devices.
It would seem to me that the conservatives in this argument are arguing to pay what the work is really worth, not what some arbitrary government organization decides.I have worked for minimum wage. Your system works as long as all conservatives are willing to work for less than what the minimum wage is now (e.g. $5 an hour let’s say).
It is not true that most entry level positions in the U.S. pay significantly higher then minimum wage.when wages offered for most entry level jobs are significantly higher than the minimum wage (as in the U.S), there is still unemployment.