Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

    I have asked a legitimate, serious question of many people in many places and have yet to receive a straight answer. Typically the response is either invective or a deflection.

    How does an increase in the minimum wage help a person who wants a job get a job?
    "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

    "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

    "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

    "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

    Comment


    • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

      Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
      I have asked a legitimate, serious question of many people in many places and have yet to receive a straight answer. Typically the response is either invective or a deflection.

      How does an increase in the minimum wage help a person who wants a job get a job?
      The only potential answer I could see is if the minimum wage threshold eclipses the welfare threshold, plus any taxes that would otherwise be paid on that money.

      Even then, you'd probably still see "Now Hiring" signs in the windows of establishments because some people have been brainwashed to believe they are above flipping burgers.

      Comment


      • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

        Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
        Secondly, they think that certain loopholes only apply to certain people. Not true; they apply to everyone.
        "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges."
        Cornell University
        National Champion 1967, 1970
        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

        Comment


        • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

          Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
          I have asked a legitimate, serious question of many people in many places and have yet to receive a straight answer. Typically the response is either invective or a deflection.

          How does an increase in the minimum wage help a person who wants a job get a job?
          It probably wouldn't help with that particular problem. It also wouldn't help defeat ISIS.

          Comment


          • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

            Originally posted by GrinCDXX View Post
            It probably wouldn't help with that particular problem. It also wouldn't help defeat ISIS.
            That's a really horrible deflection. At least put your back into it.
            "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

            "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

            "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

            Comment


            • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

              Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
              That's a really horrible deflection. At least put your back into it.
              How is that a deflection?

              Comment


              • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                Though he's on Ignore, you folks insist on quoting him to argue with him, so I'll end the suspense. The answer is it doesn't, it helps a person with a minimum wage job pay their bills. But the question is like asking "how does penicillin lower the unemployment rate"? I'm sure there's a Latin name for it, but it's a logical fallacy to attempt to discredit something by altering its scope and then finding it deficient. How does quitting smoking help you memorize Hamlet?

                Grin's joke wasn't a deflection, it was pointing out the game inherent in the question, to engage with which concedes the ground to the questioner. It's a classic rhetorical dirty trick, and rather transparent.

                Well, I'd say it was obvious, but at least 2 people fell for it. Well played, Grin, for gutting it.

                How does lowering taxes save the environment. It doesn't? Well then clearly the thing to do is raise taxes.
                Last edited by Kepler; 05-15-2015, 09:08 AM.
                Cornell University
                National Champion 1967, 1970
                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                Comment


                • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                  Kep, I'd argue that people throw out a blanket statement that raising the minimum wage helps the poor. What they neglect to address, how does raising the labor floor costs improve conditions who weren't able to get a job at the old level? How does it help those who are marginally employed? Those people are either going to have their hours cut or be released outright. We've seen that in the fast food industry. In order to avoid higher labor costs, the restaurant owners have reduced their burger flippers' hours to just under the Obamacare hours floor for insurance coverage. Restauarant owners are acting as a sort of informal cabal, if Susie works 15 hours at Wendy's, then the Burger King down the street will take her on for another 15 hours, and if Susie is lucky, she'll get another 10-20 hours at Arby's, and so on. Laborers are directly impacted by having to find more jobs to get in enough hours to pay the bills while labor costs rise for employers because the hiring and training process isn't cheap. So now you have the best of the low-skilled laborers taking more positions, and the lower end of those same low-skilled workers find fewer and fewer opportunities. Minimum wage acts much the same as what we've seen with the Obamacare, except that the total hours available are simply diminished and not split between more people. What FF asked is directly connected, not an obfuscation of the argument.
                  "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

                  "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

                  "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

                  Comment


                  • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                    Though he's on Ignore, you folks insist on quoting him to argue with him, so I'll end the suspense. The answer is it doesn't, it helps a person with a minimum wage job pay their bills. But the question is like asking "how does penicillin lower the unemployment rate"? I'm sure there's a Latin name for it, but it's a logical fallacy to attempt to discredit something by altering its scope and then finding it deficient. How does quitting smoking help you memorize Hamlet?
                    The point that is trying to be made, and has been made many times, is that labour is a cost for businesses, and if you increase the cost of something, entities are less likely to purchase it, the rate of which is dependent on its elasticity. Jobs are getting cut left and right in Seattle because of the $15/hr minimum wage there.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                      Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
                      The point that is trying to be made, and has been made many times, is that labour is a cost for businesses, and if you increase the cost of something, entities are less likely to purchase it, the rate of which is dependent on its elasticity. Jobs are getting cut left and right in Seattle because of the $15/hr minimum wage there.
                      What you fail to acknowledge is that labor is not as important to the ruling class as money. If Labor were taxed at the same rate as money we'd be swimming in middle class taxpayers.
                      **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                      Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                      Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                        Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                        Kep, I'd argue that people throw out a blanket statement that raising the minimum wage helps the poor. (lotsa stuff I know snipped)
                        I've read Henry Hazlitt's explanation of how minimum wage laws decrease employment, believe me. There's something to be said for his argument. However, if we want to be technical the minimum wage in the context of a welfare state actually is an unconditional help to the poor, since those who retain their jobs are in a better position while those who lose their jobs drop from low income employment to state support.

                        I suspect that all gutting minimum wage does in the real world is make the expected value function for crime more attractive. If a job is not in itself sufficient to live on, your time is better spent planning a heist. Not that I think popular opposition to welfare policies is driven by analysis. It relies on the emotional appeal to the idea of the poor as unfit, unworthy, and deserving of their fate.
                        Cornell University
                        National Champion 1967, 1970
                        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                          Though he's on Ignore, you folks insist on quoting him to argue with him, so I'll end the suspense. The answer is it doesn't, it helps a person with a minimum wage job pay their bills. But the question is like asking "how does penicillin lower the unemployment rate"? I'm sure there's a Latin name for it, but it's a logical fallacy to attempt to discredit something by altering its scope and then finding it deficient. How does quitting smoking help you memorize Hamlet?

                          Grin's joke wasn't a deflection, it was pointing out the game inherent in the question, to engage with which concedes the ground to the questioner. It's a classic rhetorical dirty trick, and rather transparent.

                          Well, I'd say it was obvious, but at least 2 people fell for it. Well played, Grin, for gutting it.

                          How does lowering taxes save the environment. It doesn't? Well then clearly the thing to do is raise taxes.
                          So you put fishy on ignore but still respond to flaggy's shiat?

                          Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                            I've read Henry Hazlitt's explanation of how minimum wage laws decrease employment, believe me. There's something to be said for his argument. However, if we want to be technical the minimum wage in the context of a welfare state actually is an unconditional help to the poor, since those who retain their jobs are in a better position while those who lose their jobs drop from low income employment to state support.

                            I suspect that all gutting minimum wage does in the real world is make the expected value function for crime more attractive. If a job is not in itself sufficient to live on, your time is better spent planning a heist. Not that I think popular opposition to welfare policies is driven by analysis. It relies on the emotional appeal to the idea of the poor as unfit, unworthy, and deserving of their fate.
                            The elephant in the room is that every single economic decision made by anyone ever has its winners and losers. Did you eat breakfast at home today? You just took a dollar out of the local coffee shop and now they have to raise prices by .0000001% to compensate. Walk to work today? You just took money from the oil companies.

                            You can concern troll any decision because of that, and if that's what floats your boat, well fark off and let the adults handle things.

                            You can take any government decision involving economics and find people who will be hurt by it. The question that needs to be answered is whether it's better in the aggregate based on society's needs and desires. Yes, raising the minimum wage will cause some people somewhere to either lose their job ornot be hired in the first place. It will also cause someone somewhere to pay an extra quarter for their big Mac. But it will also help many other people and provide some stability in their lives. I happen to think the latter would outweigh the former, especially since the federal minimum wage is near historic lows on a real (inflation adjusted) basis.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                              Originally posted by unofan View Post
                              So you put fishy on ignore but still respond to flaggy's shiat?
                              Flag is crazy, but his craziness is interesting and partly original. The other guy is just regurgitating whatever glop Redstate ladled into his bowl that morning, either consciously, which makes him a shill, or unconsciously, which makes him a fool.
                              Cornell University
                              National Champion 1967, 1970
                              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                              Comment


                              • Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

                                Originally posted by unofan View Post
                                The elephant in the room is that every single economic decision made by anyone ever has its winners and losers.
                                This is certainly true, and why it's to laugh (or cry) whenever a pol or pundit sagely intones "government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers." That's all policy choices are. What they mean when they say that is they favor certain ways of picking winners and losers, because those give the "correct" results.
                                Cornell University
                                National Champion 1967, 1970
                                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X