The $15 minimum wage

terp said:

nohero said:

terp said:

I'm not sure the lockdowns have crushed enough small businesses. Perhaps a high minimum wage will finish the job.

The unstated assumption in this bon mot is that raising the minimum wages hurts businesses.  Making that assumption itself assumes that the following questions have been considered:

  • Has the diminishing real value of the minimum wage (over time, due to inflation) helped or hurt business?
  • Is there a study of the viability of small businesses, over time, as the real value of the minimum wage gone down?
  • What do studies show about the impact of higher minimum wages (where they are set higher locally) on businesses covered by it?

 The minimum wage helps big business at the expense of small business.   Like most regulations, if the minimum wage has any effect on business it will make doing business more expensive.  Big businesses are much better positioned to absorb these additional costs. 

You may want to take your inflation argument up with drummerboy(what inflation?).  But yes, price inflation will lessen the effects of minimum wage over time as everything else(including the minimum wage rate) being equal.   This helps both the worker and the business.  This especially helps the unskilled worker who's time is best spent acquiring job skills. The best way to acquire job skills is to work.  You can demand a higher wage as you acquire skills.  

This is pretty straightforward stuff.  The late great Walter Williams captured this in his 1982 documentary "Good Intentions".  While he focuses on the affects these type of policies have on the black community, these concepts are universal. He states them in a way that is very easy to understand.  While Part 2 is the most appropriate for this conversation, I recommend watching all 3 parts.

Thank you, but I will decline to watch any videos.

 I don't think that anyone on this message board doubted the existence of inflation - as in, the rise of prices over time.

All of the words and the diversion to the video don't address the simple point in my post - while the minimum wage has been unchanged, there has been inflation.  I think you are capable of understanding how this affects the relationship of the cost of wages to other costs of doing business.  If the "raising the minimum wage hurts businesses" argument worked, then the fact that the minimum wage did not rise was a benefit to businesses, and so we'd see more businesses appearing as a result.  I'm not aware of any studies that show this happened.


PVW said:

Steve said:


Of course, @terp will reject this study because it doesn't fit his preconceived notion that the "market" cures all.

 Well it's still the market. The government is neither shuttering businesses nor requiring new ones to open -- it's adjusting the constraints and letting market forces work within that.

I've never fully understood the thinking behind laissez faire economics, that goes beyond championing market forces to claiming that any attempt to direct them at all is a mistake. We don't accept this with other forces. No one attacks plumbing as an illegitimate interference with the forces of gravity and fluid dynamics. But market forces -- which are as blind and uncaring as any other force -- for some reason should be beyond any attempts to temper their destructive potential and maximize their usefulness?

 First paragraph is objectively false.  The second is a strawman. 


nohero said:

terp said:

nohero said:

terp said:

I'm not sure the lockdowns have crushed enough small businesses. Perhaps a high minimum wage will finish the job.

The unstated assumption in this bon mot is that raising the minimum wages hurts businesses.  Making that assumption itself assumes that the following questions have been considered:

  • Has the diminishing real value of the minimum wage (over time, due to inflation) helped or hurt business?
  • Is there a study of the viability of small businesses, over time, as the real value of the minimum wage gone down?
  • What do studies show about the impact of higher minimum wages (where they are set higher locally) on businesses covered by it?

 The minimum wage helps big business at the expense of small business.   Like most regulations, if the minimum wage has any effect on business it will make doing business more expensive.  Big businesses are much better positioned to absorb these additional costs. 

You may want to take your inflation argument up with drummerboy(what inflation?).  But yes, price inflation will lessen the effects of minimum wage over time as everything else(including the minimum wage rate) being equal.   This helps both the worker and the business.  This especially helps the unskilled worker who's time is best spent acquiring job skills. The best way to acquire job skills is to work.  You can demand a higher wage as you acquire skills.  

This is pretty straightforward stuff.  The late great Walter Williams captured this in his 1982 documentary "Good Intentions".  While he focuses on the affects these type of policies have on the black community, these concepts are universal. He states them in a way that is very easy to understand.  While Part 2 is the most appropriate for this conversation, I recommend watching all 3 parts.

Thank you, but I will decline to watch any videos.

 I don't think that anyone on this message board doubted the existence of inflation - as in, the rise of prices over time.

All of the words and the diversion to the video don't address the simple point in my post - while the minimum wage has been unchanged, there has been inflation.  I think you are capable of understanding how this affects the relationship of the cost of wages to other costs of doing business.  If the "raising the minimum wage hurts businesses" argument worked, then the fact that the minimum wage did not rise was a benefit to businesses, and so we'd see more businesses appearing as a result.  I'm not aware of any studies that show this happened.

 My point is simply that many small businesses have struggled mightily as they were forced to shut down or thier ability to do business has been severely inhibited over roughly the last year.   Note that big business has done just fine, by and large, during this era of severe economic repression. 

Do you really want to raise labor costs right now if you care at all about small businesses? If you favor crony capitalism, please disregard the previous paragraph. 


terp said:

 My point is simply that many small businesses have struggled mightily as they were forced to shut down or thier ability to do business has been severely inhibited over roughly the last year.   Note that big business has done just fine, by and large, during this era of severe economic repression. 

Do you really want to raise labor costs right now if you care at all about small businesses? If you favor crony capitalism, please disregard the previous paragraph. 

Your last paragraph suggests this "either/or" - Either I accept your assumption (which is in fact the issue in dispute), or I show myself as a fan of "crony capitalism".  That's not a serious response to my post.


terp said:

PVW said:

Steve said:


Of course, @terp will reject this study because it doesn't fit his preconceived notion that the "market" cures all.

 Well it's still the market. The government is neither shuttering businesses nor requiring new ones to open -- it's adjusting the constraints and letting market forces work within that.

I've never fully understood the thinking behind laissez faire economics, that goes beyond championing market forces to claiming that any attempt to direct them at all is a mistake. We don't accept this with other forces. No one attacks plumbing as an illegitimate interference with the forces of gravity and fluid dynamics. But market forces -- which are as blind and uncaring as any other force -- for some reason should be beyond any attempts to temper their destructive potential and maximize their usefulness?

 First paragraph is objectively false.  The second is a strawman. 

We have already established in previous posts that you don't know what a strawman is.

Carry on.


drummerboy said:

terp said:

PVW said:

Steve said:


Of course, @terp will reject this study because it doesn't fit his preconceived notion that the "market" cures all.

 Well it's still the market. The government is neither shuttering businesses nor requiring new ones to open -- it's adjusting the constraints and letting market forces work within that.

I've never fully understood the thinking behind laissez faire economics, that goes beyond championing market forces to claiming that any attempt to direct them at all is a mistake. We don't accept this with other forces. No one attacks plumbing as an illegitimate interference with the forces of gravity and fluid dynamics. But market forces -- which are as blind and uncaring as any other force -- for some reason should be beyond any attempts to temper their destructive potential and maximize their usefulness?

 First paragraph is objectively false.  The second is a strawman. 

We have already established in previous posts that you don't know what a strawman is.

Carry on.

 He's equating opposition to the minimum wage to the argument that market forces "should be beyond any attempts to temper their destructive force".  

Oddly, he seems ok with the destructive force of the ignorance of politicians and the people who vote for them.  Seems like the argument around here is "Let those forces fly!"


You know your biggest problem? The tipping culture. Pay everyone a liveable wage, and you don’t need to tip every single person who serves you in some way. 
We use tipping as an add-on to signify approval of a job well done by the team: they divvy it up at the end of the day, or you can specify the worker you’d like to receive it. But it’s not expected. 
people here have (mostly) liveable wages set as an Industrial Award that anyone can look up, or can negotiate on hiring (the Employee Bargaining Agreement). Yeah, there are issues, but USians who work here tend to prefer the system.

I’m sorry: gotta run. Pls don’t think I’m ducking questions if they’re asked. 


terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

PVW said:

Steve said:


Of course, @terp will reject this study because it doesn't fit his preconceived notion that the "market" cures all.

 Well it's still the market. The government is neither shuttering businesses nor requiring new ones to open -- it's adjusting the constraints and letting market forces work within that.

I've never fully understood the thinking behind laissez faire economics, that goes beyond championing market forces to claiming that any attempt to direct them at all is a mistake. We don't accept this with other forces. No one attacks plumbing as an illegitimate interference with the forces of gravity and fluid dynamics. But market forces -- which are as blind and uncaring as any other force -- for some reason should be beyond any attempts to temper their destructive potential and maximize their usefulness?

 First paragraph is objectively false.  The second is a strawman. 

We have already established in previous posts that you don't know what a strawman is.

Carry on.

 He's equating opposition to the minimum wage to the argument that market forces "should be beyond any attempts to temper their destructive force".  

Oddly, he seems ok with the destructive force of the ignorance of politicians and the people who vote for them.  Seems like the argument around here is "Let those forces fly!"

 yeah, like I said. Not a straw man.

btw, re minimum wage , how do you account for the fact that many countries run healthy economies with higher minimum wages than ours?


The best stimulus package could very well be $15 minimum wage. 


PVW said:

 A challenge not just for economics, but the social sciences in general. The interesting research on minimum wage I've seen tries to address this by looking for "natural" experiments, for instance cases were one state raised their minimum wage but their neighbor didn't and they share a common labor market.

 ^this


terp said:


 He's equating opposition to the minimum wage to the argument that market forces "should be beyond any attempts to temper their destructive force".  

Oddly, he seems ok with the destructive force of the ignorance of politicians and the people who vote for them.  Seems like the argument around here is "Let those forces fly!"

On your second point, I've been consistent in being very pro-democracy in my posts, worried about the democracy deficit in our country, and regularly post about ideas like ranked choice voting, anti-gerrymandering, multi-member districts, etc that might address that deficit. If you disagree that democratic elections are an effective way to contain and channel political forces, I'm open to hearing what you think is a better alternative, but to  say that I am not at all concerned about directing political forces feels like a pretty gross misreading of my posting history.

On your first point, am I wrong in believing that you are opposed to the minimum wage as a matter of principle? What kind of constraints do you think are proper and legitimate to place on markets? There must be some, if you're accusing me of attacking a straw man.


So are the anti-minimum wage arguments enough to give courage to GOP senators so that they filibuster a bill to raise it?


terp said:

 My point is simply that many small businesses have struggled mightily as they were forced to shut down or thier ability to do business has been severely inhibited over roughly the last year.   Note that big business has done just fine, by and large, during this era of severe economic repression. 

 I'm not following how this is relevant, given that the proposal isn't to immediately raise the minimum wage to $15/hour, but to raise over over several years?


terp said:

sprout said:

terp said:

 If you have a good fundamental standard of economics, you can see right through these studies.  

And your good fundamental understanding of economics understands how the system has clearly been rigged against African Americans gaining entry to the middle- and upper-classes, and continues to perpetuate this economic inequity, correct?

 You should really watch the Walter Williams documentary I posted further up in this thread.

I did. 

  • It showed how with "free market" economics, those who start with an advantage will maintain their advantage.  
  • It also demonstrated how you can encourage the working class to fight each other for scraps of jobs, and use their need for jobs to maintain racial strife. 
  • They also indicated how when capitalism takes away jobs, the next best option capitalism offers is making money by selling drugs or selling their bodies.(Which then leads to profiteering off the incarceration of those who tried surviving off the latter option).
  • And finally, it promoted the propaganda that it is actually 'good' to pay your workers less -- and that you would be a blessing to the world for doing so.

So, you do see how this has all been rigged?  Right?


And, McDonald’s will automate to the extent that it believes it will reduce labor costs.  Yes, raising labor rates will impact that calculus. 


PVW said:

terp said:


 He's equating opposition to the minimum wage to the argument that market forces "should be beyond any attempts to temper their destructive force".  

Oddly, he seems ok with the destructive force of the ignorance of politicians and the people who vote for them.  Seems like the argument around here is "Let those forces fly!"

On your second point, I've been consistent in being very pro-democracy in my posts, worried about the democracy deficit in our country, and regularly post about ideas like ranked choice voting, anti-gerrymandering, multi-member districts, etc that might address that deficit. If you disagree that democratic elections are an effective way to contain and channel political forces, I'm open to hearing what you think is a better alternative, but to  say that I am not at all concerned about directing political forces feels like a pretty gross misreading of my posting history.

On your first point, am I wrong in believing that you are opposed to the minimum wage as a matter of principle? What kind of constraints do you think are proper and legitimate to place on markets? There must be some, if you're accusing me of attacking a straw man.

 I am opposed to the minimum wage because it harms the very people that we are told it will help.  All those studies that try to quantify all the effects are basically arguing 2+2=5.  Someone could do a study that says a sleigh could theoretically defy gravity.  That doesn't mean I'm going to bake cookies and wait for Santa to come on Christmas night. 

Democracy does not work.  We should focus as much power towards the individual as we can.  Free people can vote with their dollars and vote with their feet.   I am for decentralization.  I don't care what kind of facade you put over it, a centralized power as big and powerful as our federal government is never going to serve the people.  It is going to serve its own interests and the ruling class.  It is as true here as it was in Soviet Russia as it is in Communist China.  

All of those schemes you outline as a feeble attempt to make our centralized system serve the people will never work as well as giving people their soverignty.  


PVW said:

terp said:

 My point is simply that many small businesses have struggled mightily as they were forced to shut down or thier ability to do business has been severely inhibited over roughly the last year.   Note that big business has done just fine, by and large, during this era of severe economic repression. 

 I'm not following how this is relevant, given that the proposal isn't to immediately raise the minimum wage to $15/hour, but to raise over over several years?

 So, just a little burden then?  30% of NJ Small businesses have closed their doors.  We should be doing the exact opposite.  We should try to help them. 


terp said:

PVW said:

terp said:


 He's equating opposition to the minimum wage to the argument that market forces "should be beyond any attempts to temper their destructive force".  

Oddly, he seems ok with the destructive force of the ignorance of politicians and the people who vote for them.  Seems like the argument around here is "Let those forces fly!"

On your second point, I've been consistent in being very pro-democracy in my posts, worried about the democracy deficit in our country, and regularly post about ideas like ranked choice voting, anti-gerrymandering, multi-member districts, etc that might address that deficit. If you disagree that democratic elections are an effective way to contain and channel political forces, I'm open to hearing what you think is a better alternative, but to  say that I am not at all concerned about directing political forces feels like a pretty gross misreading of my posting history.

On your first point, am I wrong in believing that you are opposed to the minimum wage as a matter of principle? What kind of constraints do you think are proper and legitimate to place on markets? There must be some, if you're accusing me of attacking a straw man.

 I am opposed to the minimum wage because it harms the very people that we are told it will help.  All those studies that try to quantify all the effects are basically arguing 2+2=5.  Someone could do a study that says a sleigh could theoretically defy gravity.  That doesn't mean I'm going to bake cookies and wait for Santa to come on Christmas night. 

Democracy does not work.  We should focus as much power towards the individual as we can.  Free people can vote with their dollars and vote with their feet.   I am for decentralization.  I don't care what kind of facade you put over it, a centralized power as big and powerful as our federal government is never going to serve the people.  It is going to serve its own interests and the ruling class.  It is as true here as it was in Soviet Russia as it is in Communist China.  

All of those schemes you outline as a feeble attempt to make our centralized system serve the people will never work as well as giving people their soverignty.  

 And I bet you think you're pragmatic and reality-based, right?


sprout said:

terp said:

sprout said:

terp said:

 If you have a good fundamental standard of economics, you can see right through these studies.  

And your good fundamental understanding of economics understands how the system has clearly been rigged against African Americans gaining entry to the middle- and upper-classes, and continues to perpetuate this economic inequity, correct?

 You should really watch the Walter Williams documentary I posted further up in this thread.

I did. 

  • It showed how with "free market" economics, those who start with an advantage will maintain their advantage.  
  • It also demonstrated how you can encourage the working class to fight each other for scraps of jobs, and use their need for jobs to maintain racial strife. 
  • They also indicated how when capitalism takes away jobs, the next best option capitalism offers is making money by selling drugs or selling their bodies.(Which then leads to profiteering off the incarceration of those who tried surviving off the latter option).
  • And finally, it promoted the propaganda that it is actually 'good' to pay your workers less -- and that you would be a blessing to the world for doing so.

So, you do see how this has all been rigged?  Right?

 That sounds like the 2+2=5 version of that video.


drummerboy said:

terp said:

PVW said:

terp said:


 He's equating opposition to the minimum wage to the argument that market forces "should be beyond any attempts to temper their destructive force".  

Oddly, he seems ok with the destructive force of the ignorance of politicians and the people who vote for them.  Seems like the argument around here is "Let those forces fly!"

On your second point, I've been consistent in being very pro-democracy in my posts, worried about the democracy deficit in our country, and regularly post about ideas like ranked choice voting, anti-gerrymandering, multi-member districts, etc that might address that deficit. If you disagree that democratic elections are an effective way to contain and channel political forces, I'm open to hearing what you think is a better alternative, but to  say that I am not at all concerned about directing political forces feels like a pretty gross misreading of my posting history.

On your first point, am I wrong in believing that you are opposed to the minimum wage as a matter of principle? What kind of constraints do you think are proper and legitimate to place on markets? There must be some, if you're accusing me of attacking a straw man.

 I am opposed to the minimum wage because it harms the very people that we are told it will help.  All those studies that try to quantify all the effects are basically arguing 2+2=5.  Someone could do a study that says a sleigh could theoretically defy gravity.  That doesn't mean I'm going to bake cookies and wait for Santa to come on Christmas night. 

Democracy does not work.  We should focus as much power towards the individual as we can.  Free people can vote with their dollars and vote with their feet.   I am for decentralization.  I don't care what kind of facade you put over it, a centralized power as big and powerful as our federal government is never going to serve the people.  It is going to serve its own interests and the ruling class.  It is as true here as it was in Soviet Russia as it is in Communist China.  

All of those schemes you outline as a feeble attempt to make our centralized system serve the people will never work as well as giving people their soverignty.  

 And I bet you think you're pragmatic and reality-based, right?

 I'm certainly idealistic in certain ways. That doesn't mean I'm going to sign up for a plan that hinges on a law of nature being wrong. 


ml1 said:

PVW said:

 A challenge not just for economics, but the social sciences in general. The interesting research on minimum wage I've seen tries to address this by looking for "natural" experiments, for instance cases were one state raised their minimum wage but their neighbor didn't and they share a common labor market.

 ^this

 You know its funny, because when I was comparing Covid cases in like states where some had lockdowns and some didn't I was shouted down.   And we were talking about closing businesses, severely inhibiting the ability to open businesses, increasing suicides, increase in drug abuse, domestic abuse, what have you.  I was shouted down.  And there doesn't really seem to be any evidence that lockdowns have been effective. 

Now, you would like to go against a very basic economic law using the exact same knowledge. Not only that, your policy makes it illegal for 2 consenting adults to change. 

And people wonder why I think people here are really authoritarians at heart. You are always on the side of a distant detached authority and against the freedom of individuals to make their own decisions.  


terp said:

sprout said:

terp said:

sprout said:

terp said:

 If you have a good fundamental standard of economics, you can see right through these studies.  

And your good fundamental understanding of economics understands how the system has clearly been rigged against African Americans gaining entry to the middle- and upper-classes, and continues to perpetuate this economic inequity, correct?

 You should really watch the Walter Williams documentary I posted further up in this thread.

I did. 

  • It showed how with "free market" economics, those who start with an advantage will maintain their advantage.  
  • It also demonstrated how you can encourage the working class to fight each other for scraps of jobs, and use their need for jobs to maintain racial strife. 
  • They also indicated how when capitalism takes away jobs, the next best option capitalism offers is making money by selling drugs or selling their bodies.(Which then leads to profiteering off the incarceration of those who tried surviving off the latter option).
  • And finally, it promoted the propaganda that it is actually 'good' to pay your workers less -- and that you would be a blessing to the world for doing so.

So, you do see how this has all been rigged?  Right?

 That sounds like the 2+2=5 version of that video.

No. It's just how capitalism works -- It's fundamentally about making money, right?

So, if you don't understand how some hidden rules of capitalism (to make money) are in those bullet points, then your economic understanding is just beginner level.


sprout said:

terp said:

sprout said:

terp said:

sprout said:

terp said:

 If you have a good fundamental standard of economics, you can see right through these studies.  

And your good fundamental understanding of economics understands how the system has clearly been rigged against African Americans gaining entry to the middle- and upper-classes, and continues to perpetuate this economic inequity, correct?

 You should really watch the Walter Williams documentary I posted further up in this thread.

I did. 

  • It showed how with "free market" economics, those who start with an advantage will maintain their advantage.  
  • It also demonstrated how you can encourage the working class to fight each other for scraps of jobs, and use their need for jobs to maintain racial strife. 
  • They also indicated how when capitalism takes away jobs, the next best option capitalism offers is making money by selling drugs or selling their bodies.(Which then leads to profiteering off the incarceration of those who tried surviving off the latter option).
  • And finally, it promoted the propaganda that it is actually 'good' to pay your workers less -- and that you would be a blessing to the world for doing so.

So, you do see how this has all been rigged?  Right?

 That sounds like the 2+2=5 version of that video.

No. It's just how capitalism works -- It's fundamentally about making money, right?

So, if you don't understand how some hidden rules of capitalism (to make money) are in those bullet points, then your economic understanding is just beginner level.

 Your understanding is incorrect.  Free markets are about individuals exchanging goods and services how they see fit as a way to maximize their own benefit.  That's all it is.  


terp said:

sprout said:

terp said:

sprout said:

terp said:

sprout said:

terp said:

 If you have a good fundamental standard of economics, you can see right through these studies.  

And your good fundamental understanding of economics understands how the system has clearly been rigged against African Americans gaining entry to the middle- and upper-classes, and continues to perpetuate this economic inequity, correct?

 You should really watch the Walter Williams documentary I posted further up in this thread.

I did. 

  • It showed how with "free market" economics, those who start with an advantage will maintain their advantage.  
  • It also demonstrated how you can encourage the working class to fight each other for scraps of jobs, and use their need for jobs to maintain racial strife. 
  • They also indicated how when capitalism takes away jobs, the next best option capitalism offers is making money by selling drugs or selling their bodies.(Which then leads to profiteering off the incarceration of those who tried surviving off the latter option).
  • And finally, it promoted the propaganda that it is actually 'good' to pay your workers less -- and that you would be a blessing to the world for doing so.

So, you do see how this has all been rigged?  Right?

 That sounds like the 2+2=5 version of that video.

No. It's just how capitalism works -- It's fundamentally about making money, right?

So, if you don't understand how some hidden rules of capitalism (to make money) are in those bullet points, then your economic understanding is just beginner level.

 Your understanding is incorrect.  Free markets are about individuals exchanging goods and services how they see fit as a way to maximize their own benefit.  That's all it is.  

That's capitalism.


terp said:


 I am opposed to the minimum wage because it harms the very people that we are told it will help. 
 

If your opposition isn't on principle, but on results, then it looks like we disagree on how we interpret the data. I also oppose policies I believe harm the people they are supposed to help. I wouldn't support, say, raising the minimum wage to $100/hour, for that reason. From past experience, though, I don't think it likely we'll make much progress on jointly reviewing data, so I'll just take our agreement on the principle here as a win for both of us.

Democracy does not work. We should focus as much power towards the individual as we can. Free people can vote with their dollars and vote with their feet. I am for decentralization. I don't care what kind of facade you put over it, a centralized power as big and powerful as our federal government is never going to serve the people. It is going to serve its own interests and the ruling class. It is as true here as it
was in Soviet Russia as it is in Communist China.

We clearly disagree on how to effectively constrain and channel political power, but your claim wasn't that we disagree, but that I don't care. I still think that's an unfair accusation.

So, just a little burden then? 30% of NJ Small businesses have closed their doors. We should be doing the exact opposite. We should try to help them.

The same proposal that includes the minimum wage increase also includes aid for businesses, so that concern seems addressed. I don't think anyone disagrees that businesses need help at this time -- so as with the minimum wage, looks like we're actually in agreement here on principle.

I still don't see what current economic conditions have to do with future wage increases, though -- perhaps you are expecting the pandemic to continue longer than I am?

terp said:

Democracy does not work.  We should focus as much power towards the individual as we can.  Free people can vote with their dollars and vote with their feet.

I did. I donated to Biden and voted for him because he said he wants to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour. 


PVW said:

terp said:


 I am opposed to the minimum wage because it harms the very people that we are told it will help. 
 

If your opposition isn't on principle, but on results, then it looks like we disagree on how we interpret the data. I also oppose policies I believe harm the people they are supposed to help. I wouldn't support, say, raising the minimum wage to $100/hour, for that reason. From past experience, though, I don't think it likely we'll make much progress on jointly reviewing data, so I'll just take our agreement on the principle here as a win for both of us.

Democracy does not work. We should focus as much power towards the individual as we can. Free people can vote with their dollars and vote with their feet. I am for decentralization. I don't care what kind of facade you put over it, a centralized power as big and powerful as our federal government is never going to serve the people. It is going to serve its own interests and the ruling class. It is as true here as it
was in Soviet Russia as it is in Communist China.

We clearly disagree on how to effectively constrain and channel political power, but your claim wasn't that we disagree, but that I don't care. I still think that's an unfair accusation.

So, just a little burden then? 30% of NJ Small businesses have closed their doors. We should be doing the exact opposite. We should try to help them.

The same proposal that includes the minimum wage increase also includes aid for businesses, so that concern seems addressed. I don't think anyone disagrees that businesses need help at this time -- so as with the minimum wage, looks like we're actually in agreement here on principle.

I still don't see what current economic conditions have to do with future wage increases, though -- perhaps you are expecting the pandemic to continue longer than I am?

 We don't disagree on the data. I'm saying that what you are proposing is against an economic law. You will use that same law to argue for other policies.  This is not about data. Your proposal won't accomplish what you want it to. Not only that, it will aggravate the issue you are trying to solve. 

If democracy works so well, then why is this country burdened with debt, endlessly at war, have crumbling infrastructure, have overcrowded prisons, corporate bailouts & welfare, government closing down businesses with dubious evidence, extremely high tax rates, etc.  I would posit that most Americans are aginst these things, but we still have them.  If democracy works so well, then why doesn't it seem to work very well?


And the idea that we should help businesses with one hand while we smack them down with the other reeks of arrogance.  This is basically the fatal conceit.


terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

PVW said:

terp said:


 He's equating opposition to the minimum wage to the argument that market forces "should be beyond any attempts to temper their destructive force".  

Oddly, he seems ok with the destructive force of the ignorance of politicians and the people who vote for them.  Seems like the argument around here is "Let those forces fly!"

On your second point, I've been consistent in being very pro-democracy in my posts, worried about the democracy deficit in our country, and regularly post about ideas like ranked choice voting, anti-gerrymandering, multi-member districts, etc that might address that deficit. If you disagree that democratic elections are an effective way to contain and channel political forces, I'm open to hearing what you think is a better alternative, but to  say that I am not at all concerned about directing political forces feels like a pretty gross misreading of my posting history.

On your first point, am I wrong in believing that you are opposed to the minimum wage as a matter of principle? What kind of constraints do you think are proper and legitimate to place on markets? There must be some, if you're accusing me of attacking a straw man.

 I am opposed to the minimum wage because it harms the very people that we are told it will help.  All those studies that try to quantify all the effects are basically arguing 2+2=5.  Someone could do a study that says a sleigh could theoretically defy gravity.  That doesn't mean I'm going to bake cookies and wait for Santa to come on Christmas night. 

Democracy does not work.  We should focus as much power towards the individual as we can.  Free people can vote with their dollars and vote with their feet.   I am for decentralization.  I don't care what kind of facade you put over it, a centralized power as big and powerful as our federal government is never going to serve the people.  It is going to serve its own interests and the ruling class.  It is as true here as it was in Soviet Russia as it is in Communist China.  

All of those schemes you outline as a feeble attempt to make our centralized system serve the people will never work as well as giving people their soverignty.  

 And I bet you think you're pragmatic and reality-based, right?

 I'm certainly idealistic in certain ways. That doesn't mean I'm going to sign up for a plan that hinges on a law of nature being wrong. 

 You're not "idealistic"...You're just plain nuts !


Dennis_Seelbach said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

PVW said:

terp said:


 He's equating opposition to the minimum wage to the argument that market forces "should be beyond any attempts to temper their destructive force".  

Oddly, he seems ok with the destructive force of the ignorance of politicians and the people who vote for them.  Seems like the argument around here is "Let those forces fly!"

On your second point, I've been consistent in being very pro-democracy in my posts, worried about the democracy deficit in our country, and regularly post about ideas like ranked choice voting, anti-gerrymandering, multi-member districts, etc that might address that deficit. If you disagree that democratic elections are an effective way to contain and channel political forces, I'm open to hearing what you think is a better alternative, but to  say that I am not at all concerned about directing political forces feels like a pretty gross misreading of my posting history.

On your first point, am I wrong in believing that you are opposed to the minimum wage as a matter of principle? What kind of constraints do you think are proper and legitimate to place on markets? There must be some, if you're accusing me of attacking a straw man.

 I am opposed to the minimum wage because it harms the very people that we are told it will help.  All those studies that try to quantify all the effects are basically arguing 2+2=5.  Someone could do a study that says a sleigh could theoretically defy gravity.  That doesn't mean I'm going to bake cookies and wait for Santa to come on Christmas night. 

Democracy does not work.  We should focus as much power towards the individual as we can.  Free people can vote with their dollars and vote with their feet.   I am for decentralization.  I don't care what kind of facade you put over it, a centralized power as big and powerful as our federal government is never going to serve the people.  It is going to serve its own interests and the ruling class.  It is as true here as it was in Soviet Russia as it is in Communist China.  

All of those schemes you outline as a feeble attempt to make our centralized system serve the people will never work as well as giving people their soverignty.  

 And I bet you think you're pragmatic and reality-based, right?

 I'm certainly idealistic in certain ways. That doesn't mean I'm going to sign up for a plan that hinges on a law of nature being wrong. 

 You're not "idealistic"...You're just plain nuts !

 You're doing great.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.