Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 125

Thread: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Top $10 Minimum Wage

  1. #81
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Top $10 Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Maybe firms that are only in business because of low skill labor should not be in business?
    That too, seems to be an arbitrary value judgement.
    If they are successful, sans legislation, they should be in business.

    Healthy economies need a blend of skill levels.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  2. #82
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,028

    Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Top $10 Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Maybe firms that are only in business because of low skill labor should not be in business?
    How high of skill do you need to turn a burger at McD's, Burger King, etc?
    Guess those business need to have high class master chef's. Can see it now the Golden Arches home of the $30 burger.

    As someone else posted. We need a range of skills and a range of laborers. Some skilled and some not so skilled.
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  3. #83
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Top $10 Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    That too, seems to be an arbitrary value judgement.
    Not really. Firms that can only exist with "relativily" low labor costs display a deficiency at the product/service level.

    If they are successful, sans legislation, they should be in business.
    A company that is successful via paying their employees **** is obviously a company provides little value in production/service. You never hear of a lawyer or an engineer losing their job because of an increasing minimum wage.

    Healthy economies need a blend of skill levels.
    Blend ≠ heavy reliance.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #84
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Top $10 Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    How high of skill do you need to turn a burger at McD's, Burger King, etc?
    Guess those business need to have high class master chef's. Can see it now the Golden Arches home of the $30 burger.
    If you believe that McD's and Burger King are in business only because they have access to low skilled labor, i have some ocean front property in Montana for sale if you are interested!

    As someone else posted. We need a range of skills and a range of laborers. Some skilled and some not so skilled.
    And as i already mentioned, we have far too great of a reliance on low skilled labor. A $10 minimum wage does not mean that the total number of employees earning said wage evaporates. As far as i know, McD's operates in Paris France!
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  5. #85
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Top $10 Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Not really. Firms that can only exist with "relativily" low labor costs display a deficiency at the product/service level.
    Not necessarily, it depends on the specific job.
    Janitorial services are not hard to learn, it's a basic skill set that most everyone learns before they become an adult and thus the pay level is generally low.
    That doesn't mean we should get rid of janitorial services.


    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    A company that is successful via paying their employees **** is obviously a company provides little value in production/service. You never hear of a lawyer or an engineer losing their job because of an increasing minimum wage.
    Again, you're making an arbitrary value judgment of the worth of work, just like the minimum wage.
    Lawyers and engineers have a higher, more in demand skill set, that doesn't mean everyone can be lawyers or engineers.
    And if they were, the relative value of their pay would go down, from the readily available supply of labor for those specific fields.

    (It's also interesting to note that these 2 fields have added barriers to entry, like degree requirements and state certification, which further props up their pay.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Blend ≠ heavy reliance.
    1 business can have a heavy reliance on unskilled labor, while the entire labor market can be blended.
    You made an arbitrary value judgment about the value of a firm, based on what they pay their employees, without accounting for the necessity the work and the available supply of labor, for that work.
    Last edited by Harry Guerrilla; 12-13-11 at 06:58 PM.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #86
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

    Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Top $10 Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    we already have an underclass. a minimum wage ensures that they remain so. that, after all, was the reason we adopted the minimum wage in the first place.
    You're refutations are not too compelling, I'll try to address as much of them as I can.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    then you admit that minimum wage laws increase unemployment (ie: reduce the supply of available workers).

    given that the first portion of "supply" to be reduced is the most vulnerable among us, how do you justify such a thing?

    perish the thought!

    that depends entirely on the employee and the nature of the position.
    Why would you say the supply of the workers is decreased and also say prices are raised to cover the increased cost of labor? Its either one or the other, either they will be laid off or the business will raise prices. Both reactions will not be in effect doubly.

    Employees won't have a choice, they will have to work for whatever they are dictated to work for even if its very low.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    in reality, however, these people's labor is already worth a set amount to an employer. when you deny the employer the ability to pay them what they are worth, he is simply not going to pay them at all. The Americans with Disabilities Act would be a prime example - passed in 1992, the ostensible goal was to help the physically or mentally impaired... but because the ADA raised the cost of businesses for hiring such individuals, employment of people with disabilities declined, as employers were unable and unwilling to spend more than an employee was worth.
    That's not the same situation. Employers could easily get out of it by hiring other people. With a minimum wage floor you can't get out of it, everyone must be paid the minimum.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    actually I think that you are failing to realize how "powerful monopolies" typically fall.

    no, it prevents those suppliers from supplying competitors.

    dumping supply is one of the more laughable claims. oh - don't get me wrong here - it's been tried. it just also fails.

    that is incorrect both historically and economically. free markets tend to destroy monopolies, historically, monopolies that survive require government intervention. and this is precisely because large businesses are always susceptible to innovators, such as small businesses.

    wrong. free markets being made up of mutually beneficial trade, what they do is maximize profit for the largest possible number of people, while ensuring that that number of people also steadily goes up.
    You are completely wrong about monopolies. Free markets do not maximize profit for the largest number of people, they maximize profit for only a certain segment of people and businesses.

    Are you familiar with the Carnegie steel monopoly? That is a classic case of how monopolies work.

    I'll give you a similar example. Lets say there's a big car manufacturer A that needs aluminum to make cars. He signs an exclusive contract with aluminum maker B. A sells cars at slightly under cost. Everyone buys the cheapest car. Small companies cannot compete and are put out of business. A then signs exclusive contracts with all the aluminum makers. Now A raises the price, no one can enter the market because all the other aluminum makers are out of business and A has an exclusive contract with all the aluminum makers. Lets say someone did enter the market. A lowers the price of his car again briefly, then raises the price once the other guy is out of business.

    Don't forget, there are entry costs which form a barrier for entering the market. In markets with significant entry costs, a monopoly can significantly maintain their dominance.

    Anyways, ideally, markets tend towards aggregation because a larger business is inherently more powerful than a smaller business.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    that is incorrect both historically and economically. free markets tend to destroy monopolies, historically, monopolies that survive require government intervention. and this is precisely because large businesses are always susceptible to innovators, such as small businesses.
    Free markets do not tend to destroy monopolies. The free market is powerful and does produce competition, but it is not the answer to everything. Entry costs are huge barrier for people to enter into the market and is something that larger businesses can exploit. Nowadays we have anti-trust regulation, like no dumping, no price fixing, etc. which maintains a healthy free market that allows competition to be healthy and not dirty.

    Also, you haven't addressed price fixing and collusion in an industry. What's to stop the entire industry from colluding? Only regulation does that, not the free market.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    except that since the prices of everything have just gone up, that "living" wage isn't as "livable". the working poor are no better off than they were before, and the formerly working poor are now much worse off. They suddenly find themselves with no income, but with the price of necessary goods climbing higher than before.
    That's wrong as I explained before. Prices climb only slightly, while the worker's wages have increase dramatically.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    that is precisely correct. everyone always forgets that the real "minimum wage" is zero. when you institute a price floor, you simply push everyone below it down to nothing.
    Let me get your take on environmental regulation, because that starts at zero too. But I'm sure that we all can agree that we are better off without cadmium and mercury floating around in our rivers, like what might happen in China, and possible poisonous chemicals in baby food.
    Last edited by Opteron; 12-13-11 at 07:08 PM.

  7. #87
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Top $10 Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Not necessarily, it depends on the specific job.
    Janitorial services are not hard to learn, it's a basic skill set that most everyone learns before they become an adult and thus the pay level is generally low.
    That doesn't mean we should get rid of janitorial services.
    I never said that we should get rid of anything (except maybe companies that only exist due to low skilled labor). Janitorial services will still be in demand @ a $10/hr wage.

    Again, you're making an arbitrary value judgment of the worth of work, just like the minimum wage.
    Not at all. As already stated, McD's stays in business not because we have a low (relatively) minimum wage in the U.S., but because their products they serve are highly valued by our (obese, but that is for another topic) society.

    Lawyers and engineers have a higher, more in demand skill set, that doesn't mean everyone can be lawyers or engineers.
    Never said everyone can.

    1 business can have a heavy reliance on unskilled labor, while the entire labor market can be blended.
    You made an arbitrary value judgment about the value of a firm, based on what they pay their employees, without accounting for the necessity the work and the available supply of labor, for that work.
    Nope! I made a statement that reflects reality. There is a strong relationship between wages and productivity; marginal profitability increases as wages increase. Holding all else equal, a firm that employs 10 engineers will always be more valuable than a firm that employs 10 "landscape technicians".

    edit: firefox ****ed my original response, so this is all im willing to put forth
    Last edited by Kushinator; 12-13-11 at 07:32 PM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #88
    Student nathanj63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    09-16-12 @ 03:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    195

    Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Top $10 Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    either your reading comprehension suffers, or you are being deliberately obtuse. he was pointing out that when you raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour, those whose skill sets makes their labor worth less than $10 an hour are no longer employable.
    I don't understand this line of reasoning. Lets say a company needs someone to do a very low skill job, like janitorial work. Regardless of whether the minimum wage is $5 or $10, they still need someone to fill that position. I don't see how someone could be priced out of that position.

  9. #89
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Top $10 Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by nathanj63 View Post
    I don't understand this line of reasoning. Lets say a company needs someone to do a very low skill job, like janitorial work. Regardless of whether the minimum wage is $5 or $10, they still need someone to fill that position. I don't see how someone could be priced out of that position.
    The worst janitors will surely be priced out of that position; but that is really just a reflection of human capital.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #90
    Student nathanj63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    09-16-12 @ 03:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    195

    Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Top $10 Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    that is correct because there is still a high regulatory cost that burdens employers for each American they hire. It is cheaper for the lowest-skill-job employers, therefore, to hire illegal aliens.
    What exactly are the regulatory costs to a business that hires an American?

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •