Should minimum wage be increased?

[Escher's Waterfall]

I'd like one of you to actually define Capitalism outside of Marxian language.

I'll bite. Capitalism is a system where goods/services are owned/produced by non-government entities (either individuals or groups or businesses) where decision making is driven by profit.

How much clearer can it get? I already told you to go and look at how they are being calculated back then and compare it to now. It's not that hard to figure out. What you are really saying is that you are entirely too lazy to do it yourself.

Both I, and BK Bonkey Kong have looked. What we both have found, through our separate searches, not only fails to back up your claims, but seems to negate them.

Perhaps we're making a mistake. Or perhaps you are.

Real wealth is tangible goods that improve the standard of living and enhance productivity.

That seems like a vague answer. If I produce a super-nifty tractor that is faster than other models, but also contributes to more soil erosion, have I created real wealth? Or removed it?

Argue all you wish, it doesn't make you correct. Fluctuates in pricing due to moving capital in the markets are not inflation. It's merely what is referred to as the "Wealth Effect". Inflation is something completely different.

I would say the velocity of money in effect increases the total amount of money in an economy. More money chasing the same amount of goods will result in a shifting of the demand curve until a new equilibrium is reached. Therefore: An increase in money causes an increase in the price of goods.

However, I did spend some time googling, and I found that Ludwig von Mises (an Austrian economist) disagrees with this. He claims that prices do not necessarily change in response to changes in the availability of money.

PS: I'm not sure if most economists would apply the "wealth effect" in this scenario. It's like arguing that printing money without any foundation (like Weimar Germany) didn't lead to inflation - it's just that the amount of additional money available made the people think that they were wealthier, thus they spent more and that's what made prices increase.

No, actually, I am saying the work load will decrease and efficiency will stay relatively the same or improve.

Do I have this right?

So we have two scenarios according to you. Scenario #1 is when efficiency remains the same regardless if the workers spend their downtime sweeping floors or not. Scenario #2 is when efficiency increases if the workers don't have to sweep the floors, and their efficiency decreases when they do.

Let's see how they play out:

Scenario #1: Fire Elroy, the sweeper (he'll never get his gold watch now!). He's the only worker affected by the minimum wage restriction. The remaining workers work harder, but the output is the same.

The result: Workers are equally productive. Labor costs have gone down. Conclusion: The factory was inefficient by hiring Elroy in the first place.

Scenario #2 (efficiency decreases): Fire Elroy, the sweeper. All other workers remain. They have to sweep the bloody floor now. Their happiness decreases. Efficiency goes down and output suffers.

If the cost of hiring Elroy is less than the drop in efficiency, Elroy should keep his job, assuming hypothetical perfect efficient capitalist marketplaces. If the cost of hiring Elroy is more than the drop in efficiency, he loses his job.

Which leads me back to what I said:

"as long as the increase in minimum wage isn't more than the productivity of the person, we should see no changes in unemployment."

Yet here you are unable to find it, and I have given you everything needed to find the data.

I was having a debate, not a scavanger hunt.

I presented data that seems to disprove your claims. Your response is to say that there's data that backs up your claim, but you don't produce it, and you don't produce any evidence to show that the data I presented is fatally flawed.

Do you understand why I'm not finding your rebuttal to be credible?

No it isn't. You are just incapable of looking something up. Something so simple as the age range of workers from that era. Something so ridiculously simple that none of you could find it, but I am saying there's a vast conspiracy to cover it up. Yet, you still were not able to find something so simple as that point of data. This points more directly at your sources of information being more than highly flawed and knowledge of history being mediocre.

Stop throwing out vague hints.

If your data is strong enough to stand on its own, it doesn't have to be hidden from anyone who might disagree.

So far you've refused to reveal the evidence you have. You have not produced any evidence in rebuttal to the information myself and others have provided. You ask us to believe, on faith, that you've found the right answer and that the evidence we have is fatally flawed, even though you don't say why.

 

[Bardeaux]

I'd like one of you to actually define Capitalism outside of Marxian language.

From another thread:

I would say an economic system driven by a private relationship to the means of production and exchange (even with government rules in place) is a capitalist system.

 

[Joeof1]

I'll bite. Capitalism is a system where goods/services are owned/produced by non-government entities (either individuals or groups or businesses) where decision making is driven by profit.

Incorrect. Capitalism is a philosophy that believes that people should have the ability to pool and kinder resources for the benefit of all those involved. Private property rights exist independent of capitalism.

Both I, and BK Bonkey Kong have looked. What we both have found, through our separate searches, not only fails to back up your claims, but seems to negate them.

Perhaps we're making a mistake. Or perhaps you are.

Nope, the mistake is yours.

That seems like a vague answer. If I produce a super-nifty tractor that is faster than other models, but also contributes to more soil erosion, have I created real wealth? Or removed it?

It's a rather vague question. Depends on the rate of soil erosion, and how does a tractor cause soil erosion?

I would say the velocity of money in effect increases the total amount of money in an economy. More money chasing the same amount of goods will result in a shifting of the demand curve until a new equilibrium is reached. Therefore: An increase in money causes an increase in the price of goods.

The problem is that the money moving doesn't increase the supply. The numerical figures for supply will remain the same.

However, I did spend some time googling, and I found that Ludwig von Mises (an Austrian economist) disagrees with this. He claims that prices do not necessarily change in response to changes in the availability of money.

PS: I'm not sure if most economists would apply the "wealth effect" in this scenario. It's like arguing that printing money without any foundation (like Weimar Germany) didn't lead to inflation - it's just that the amount of additional money available made the people think that they were wealthier, thus they spent more and that's what made prices increase.

That's just Mises though. His argument has merit.

Uhh, wealth effect is merely the perceptive change in available money, whether or not the actual amount changes doesn't matter. A lot of work has been done since Mises wrote on this topic, his work on Money theory started the whole thought though.

Do I have this right?

So we have two scenarios according to you. Scenario #1 is when efficiency remains the same regardless if the workers spend their downtime sweeping floors or not. Scenario #2 is when efficiency increases if the workers don't have to sweep the floors, and their efficiency decreases when they do.

Let's see how they play out:

Scenario #1: Fire Elroy, the sweeper (he'll never get his gold watch now!). He's the only worker affected by the minimum wage restriction. The remaining workers work harder, but the output is the same.

The result: Workers are equally productive. Labor costs have gone down. Conclusion: The factory was inefficient by hiring Elroy in the first place.

Scenario #2 (efficiency decreases): Fire Elroy, the sweeper. All other workers remain. They have to sweep the bloody floor now. Their happiness decreases. Efficiency goes down and output suffers.

If the cost of hiring Elroy is less than the drop in efficiency, Elroy should keep his job, assuming hypothetical perfect efficient capitalist marketplaces. If the cost of hiring Elroy is more than the drop in efficiency, he loses his job.

Which leads me back to what I said:

"as long as the increase in minimum wage isn't more than the productivity of the person, we should see no changes in unemployment."

The problem is that you are making prediction based upon individual motives that are likely to change when incentives change. Each worker will likely have his or her own motives for employment and whether or not they value the job at the work load and pay that is presented. Which is why it can go either way depending on the circumstances.

Minimum wage laws, and their increases should not be viewed in that manner though, as the effect is economy wide, and a business losing a worker on one side of the town can effect a business on the other side of the town. Divisions of labor have this thing called co-dependence on each other.

I was having a debate, not a scavanger hunt.

I presented data that seems to disprove your claims. Your response is to say that there's data that backs up your claim, but you don't produce it, and you don't produce any evidence to show that the data I presented is fatally flawed.

Do you understand why I'm not finding your rebuttal to be credible?

I wasn't debating the issue, I was telling you that you were wrong in your positions because your premises are flawed.

Stop throwing out vague hints.

If your data is strong enough to stand on its own, it doesn't have to be hidden from anyone who might disagree.

So far you've refused to reveal the evidence you have. You have not produced any evidence in rebuttal to the information myself and others have provided. You ask us to believe, on faith, that you've found the right answer and that the evidence we have is fatally flawed, even though you don't say why.

I already told you the major sticking point where they differ.

From another thread:

That is the Marxian definition. Define it from the Capitalist point of view, say an economist.

 

[Bardeaux]

Incorrect. Capitalism is a philosophy that believes that people should have the ability to pool and kinder resources for the benefit of all those involved. Private property rights exist independent of capitalism.

Doesn't any system of exchange or mode of production fall into the "capitalist" philosophy under this definition? The Soviet Union pooled resources together in order to benefit those who were involved in production or administration. Ancient hunter-gatherers pooled resources together to sustain villages and tribes. Is there any system of distributing goods and services that isn't capitalism?

That is the Marxian definition. Define it from the Capitalist point of view.

Alright. Capitalism is a god-given, divine rule of human nature that must go unquestioned for it is the very pinnacle of humanity and the reason the earth turns every 24 hours

Another definition, by a source you may be more familiar with, defines capitalism as:

Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. Modern Capitalism is essentially mass production for the needs of the masses.

If it's a good enough for the Mises Institute, it should be good enough for this discussion.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Incorrect. Capitalism is a philosophy that believes that people should have the ability to pool and kinder resources for the benefit of all those involved. Private property rights exist independent of capitalism.

Obviously, by the same logic, defining the cat as a domesticated quadruped of the family "felis" is wrong, since quadrupeds include more than just cats.

Nope, the mistake is yours.

So you claim. Without evidence.

It's a rather vague question. Depends on the rate of soil erosion, and how does a tractor cause soil erosion?

You're really asking how a tractor causes soil erosion? You ain't a farmer. Tractors tend to pull things that break up the soil, unless you're engaged in no-till agriculture.

The problem is that the money moving doesn't increase the supply. The numerical figures for supply will remain the same.

I don't care about the numerical figures for the amount. I care about the effect. Money is an artificial construct. Velocity of money increases the apparent supply of money.

Uhh, wealth effect is merely the perceptive change in available money, whether or not the actual amount changes doesn't matter. A lot of work has been done since Mises wrote on this topic, his work on Money theory started the whole thought though.

Does the "wealth effect" drive up prices?

The problem is that you are making prediction based upon individual motives that are likely to change when incentives change. Each worker will likely have his or her own motives for employment and whether or not they value the job at the work load and pay that is presented. Which is why it can go either way depending on the circumstances.

My scenarios, in the fine tradition of economists everywhere, deal with homo economicus.

Minimum wage laws, and their increases should not be viewed in that manner though, as the effect is economy wide, and a business losing a worker on one side of the town can effect a business on the other side of the town. Divisions of labor have this thing called co-dependence on each other.

Of course. Same with other effects - low paid workers will have less to spend, resulting in less money being spent in the community, thus having an effect on businesses in town. Low paid workers are also frequently, in effect, a government subsidy on businesses who hire them, since they frequently rely on government aid. In effect, it transfers money from the community to those who don't pay a livable wage.

I wasn't debating the issue, I was telling you that you were wrong in your positions because your premises are flawed.

Yet you don't say how.

I already told you the major sticking point where they differ.

And yet you remain remarkably vague in my opinion, and it appears, in one other poster's opinion. This is a debate, we don't accept things on faith.

 

[P A]

You're seriously underestimating the worth of a good CEO. Compare someone like Steve Jobs' tenure at Apple to Leo Apotheker's at HP and you'll see clearly that CEOs are vital to productive functioning.

Well sure, but as we all know, the above individuals represent shining exceptions to a rather dismal rule. In my assessment above, I was treating managers in the abstract, and certainly wasn't limiting such treatment to chief executive officers, among whom one could certainly count a handful of genuinely indispensable and ingenious leaders.

When you think of corporations as large, bloated, inefficient machines that are only marginally effective, filled with layers of superfluous management, you are absolutely correct. However, to lead a massive clusterfuck such as this and make it competitive takes some skill.

But could anyone, in good faith, attribute such improbable success to the deliberate and meticulous machinations of a small cadre of uniquely insightful individuals (as opposed to the potent combination of the spontaneous organizational faculties of a much larger congelation of underlings tasked with the maintenance of day-to-day operations and good old fashioned luck) and be taken seriously?

 

[P A]

^This array of producers is exactly what makes them indispensable as a whole though. Individually, a manager or an administrator is much more scarce than an individual moderately skilled worker, but considering their relationship to production, the producer class is absolutely crucial. Especially when compared to the figureheads and executives who aren't even a prerequisite for production. The issue is in the structure of enterprise, giving the comparatively irrelevant management staff authority and control over the actual producers.

Speaking even more generally, it's the system of power relations that give rise to and sustains such structures that is to blame for these inequities. But I was speaking about laborers and their current market value on the individual level. At any rate, I fully sympathize with your views re. the rightful primacy of labor (as opposed to management) in the processes of production, as it's almost tautological (as in, it follows readily from any coherent definition of an 'industry'). After all, if economies were upheld by bosses and bureaucrats, how could any labor strike ever have succeeded?

Well, we need to take a step back and ask, what is the function of the manager in collaborative production? My answer is that it is to make decisions governing the allocation of capital to production to facilitate it. These decisions are always in some sense politicized, as a particular scheme for allocation of capital (at any point in circulation or production, in any form) will differentially benefit and hinder the different class-members involved at various points of production. Since these decisions are inherently political, it seems like they should be conducted democratically in some sense (with some voluntary deference to experts in highly technical but uncontroversial matters) to ensure that they are more fair. This suggests the type of micro-level, 'syndicalist' workplace democracy that Bardeaux describes above.

With all that said, I still find it hard to dispute or overstate the value of specialization in any sufficiently technologically advanced, socially sophisticated economy, and the well-honed political and logistical skills of a talented manager, when deployed to the mutual advantage of all involved, are no exception. I take no particular issue with the idea of top-down organization and coordination as such (though I can think of a few preferable alternatives in many or most industrial contexts), even in comparatively non-technical matters. For instance, the participation of a central coordinator of a large project at some mechanical engineering firm would spare a team of engineers the difficulty of maintaining detailed tabs on the progress of each particular widget their coworkers are currently honing, and would certainly expedite the completion of said project by assuming the burden of collecting and synthesizing large quantities of data that would otherwise constitute extraneous, secondary clutter to the individual engineers. By sparing the workers this additional responsibility of data collection, analysis, and retention, our hypothetical analyst-coordinator would facilitate production (in this scenario, completion of the project) in a manner that is mutually beneficial to all involved. However, I'm definitely not comfortable the idea that this manager should receive significantly greater material compensation for their contribution to the finished product, which is arguably less materially significant than that of the individual engineers. Anyway, I don't consider this scenario to be completely incompatible with the 'syndicalistic' approach preferred by Bardeaux, assuming of course that all final decision-making authority is semi-democratically distributed (as you mentioned) and the power of the analyst-coordinator is sufficiently checked and balanced so as not to impinge upon the ability of an individual engineer (or group thereof) to officially dispute or otherwise substantially influence any quasi-manager's instructions or conclusions. Of course, I'm uncertain as to how all this might play out IRL, but it doesn't seem too infeasible from this armchair.

 

[23536]

McDonald's suggested budget for its minimum wage employees:

Assumes no heating costs. Does not account for food or fuel. Assumes a 74-hour work week! No such thing as $20 a month health insurance--not even close.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/202...w-impossible-it-is-to-get-by-on-minimum-wage/

 

[kaywholed]

McDonald's suggested budget for its minimum wage employees:

Assumes no heating costs. Does not account for food or fuel. Assumes a 74-hour work week! No such thing as $20 a month health insurance--not even close.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/202...w-impossible-it-is-to-get-by-on-minimum-wage/

A) it is officially a sample budget, to educate their workforce how to fill out a budget and illustrate the importance of it.
B) heat included with rent is common. food and fuel are daily expenditures
C) mcDonalds offers $20 insurance to employees. cost is 40$ but half is covered by the business

i think the budget is a joke and it is terrible that people have to live on this. been there, done that.

 

[L2R]

peanuts are a good source of protein, perhaps we should go back to paying minimum wagers entirely in peanuts.

 

[23536]

i think the budget is a joke and it is terrible that people have to live on this. been there, done that.

I don't know how but on $8 an hour I had a studio in South Beach and an IV heroin habit for like a year a few years back. That whole year is a blur but I think my secret was I never bought food. There's usually free food to be had if you know how to get it.

No free heroin though, usually. At least not for heterosexual males.

 

[MrGrunge]

^ Just because you suck dick for heroin doesn't make you gay, it just makes you a guy who sucks dick for heroin. When you start sucking dick for free, that's when you become gay (unless you don't enjoy it, I guess).

peanuts are a good source of protein, perhaps we should go back to paying minimum wagers entirely in peanuts.

You know, I think I've just devised a way we can combine 23536's "dick sucking" plan and your "working for protein" plan. We're gonna need mason jars, a large funnel, and some women's clothing. Yeah, I think this should work out fine - it'll be a damn sight better than working at McDonald's, anyway.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

I want $20/mo health insurance, damnit!

 

[L2R]

^you're a sucking leech, dammit!
(perhaps you should talk to mr grunge).

 

[Coolwhip]

C) mcDonalds offers $20 insurance to employees. cost is 40$ but half is covered by the business

Unless things have changed, that's complete bullshit.

The cheapest plan starts at around $60(per month, and thats how much comes out of your checks). And it fuckings blows, caps out at $2,000 in coverage per year.

Where did you even get that from?

 

[kaywholed]

Unless things have changed, that's complete bullshit.

The cheapest plan starts at around $60(per month, and thats how much comes out of your checks). And it fuckings blows, caps out at $2,000 in coverage per year.

Where did you even get that from?

people that work at mcdonalds

 

[severely etarded]

people that work at mcdonalds

liars... i bet they say that but that the insurance is either worthless, or they just say that to cover the embarrassment of working such a shitty job

 

[kaywholed]

liars... i bet they say that but that the insurance is either worthless, or they just say that to cover the embarrassment of working such a shitty job

I am sure the insurance is shit, but hey whatever.

 

[superelephant]

That whole year is a blur but I think my secret was I never bought food. There's usually free food to be had if you know how to get it.

lol

 

[BK Bonkey Kong]

There's usually free food to be had if you know how to get it.

Please, do tell...