ECONOMY: Minimum wage

Donguillermo:

Then its time for you to start representating the Democrat/Liberal Team you selected and spend less time worrying about the Libertarian Party and the Party's nationally recognized platform.

The whole point of Campaign 2004 issues is to discuss the issues and stances of our respective Parties.

If you cannot adhere to terms and conditions set forth for this discussion, I suggest you withdraw and stick to the "pit."

My apologies to PurdueNuc.

Originally posted by Bleys
Donguillermo:

Then its time for you to start representating the Democrat/Liberal Team you selected and spend less time worrying about the Libertarian Party and the Party's nationally recognized platform.

Excuse me, are you a member of my team? It is none of your business how I choose to represent my team. That is between me and my team members.

The whole point of Campaign 2004 issues is to discuss the issues and stances of our respective Parties.

How can there be a discussion if there is no criticism of the stances and positions put forth by the teams? My criticisms are an important part of the discussion.

If you cannot adhere to terms and conditions set forth for this discussion, I suggest you withdraw and stick to the "pit."

Excuse me, again??? The terms and conditions make it quite clear that I am allowed to make criticisms of political positions posted by members of other teams. I suggest you mind your own business, stop lecturing me about the terms and conditions, and giving me suggestions about withdrawing.

I suggest you review the volume and quality of my posts in this new forum and tell me how they compare to the volume and quality of posts you have made. In this thread in particular, I think you will find I have made quality posts in response to the original poster. Others have made off-topic posts, and I have responded to them. Please do not criticize me for responding to off-topic comments with off-topic comments of my own.

Originally posted by donguillermo
Precisely. There is no empirical data to support the contention of right-wing libertarians that increasing the minimum wage results in a decrease in employment. While even the critics of Card and Krueger only claim that there is no evidence to support that increasing the minimum wage increases employment. The arguments of critics of the minimum wage have no credibility because there is no supporting empirical evidence, and there is plenty of contradictory empirical evidence in the form of the studies by Card and Krueger.

Did you even bother to read the other half of the Economist article? The article refers to two sets of data, the first of which (New Jersey fast food industry) was analyzed by three different groups yielding three different results, and the second of which (entire economy) was concluded to show a strong relationship between increasing the minimum wage and an overall increase in unemployment. If this is what you consider "plenty of" empirical evidence that increasing the minimum wage has no effect on unemployment, please stay away from science and engineering. Ignoring contradictory evidence when drawing a conclusion is academic dishonesty at its worst, and is a quick way to lose all credibility. In engineering, it's a good way to put lives in danger. Good thing politics doesn't have nearly as high of stakes...or does it?

Why is it fallacy? Because you say so? I was talking about early twentieth century, not nineteenth century. And I will make whatever comparisons I like. You are not the arbiter of what are non-fallacious comparisons. You completely fail to address the fact that the historical result of free market capitalism was the great depression. Since that time, we have been living under Roosevelt's reforms, which you seem to think is socialism. If Roosevelt's reforms were socialism, then the economic success of the last seventy years is the result of socialism, not free market capitalism.

I apologize, I thought that that my argument was self-explanatory; however, apparently further explanation is required. You are trying to show how poor the conditions were in the early 20th century by comparing them to modern day. This itself is acceptable. However, you use this comparison to show how the free market, which was in effect before your chosen time of comparison, failed. This is the fallacy. If you are going to show how bad it is, you had better show how it reduced the standard of living (i.e. compare to previous conditions). Of course, you can not do this, as all evidence is to the contrary, so you construct a fallacious argument. In that light, yes, I am the "arbiter of what are non-fallacious comparisons."

Regarding the Great Depression, the causes are wide and varied. Historians and economists have yet to agree on a single set of causes. Here are a few of the identified causes:

• People hoarding cash (in the back yard, mattresses, etc.) combined with the gold standard (it is more difficult for the government to regulate the money supply when a decent portion of it is out of circulation).
  
• The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was passed in June of 1930 (not a cause, but a contributer). The effect of the increased tariffs was to increase prices and increase price rigidity, and about 1,000 economists signed a petition begging Congress not to pass it.
  
• The Federal Reserve Board took several actions that contributed as well. It inflated the money supply in the 1920's by around 60%, which may have helped cause the stock market boom and subsequent crash. The Fed's control over the interest rate during the late 20's-early 30's is argued by many economists to have been unresponsible and poorly decided.
  

There are certainly other issues that could be pointed to as helping to cause the Great Depression; this is not an exhaustive list, and not all economists and historians will agree with these causes. Such is the nature of economics and history.

However, these cleary show that government intervention in the market helped contribute to the Great Depression. The argument "the historical result of free market capitalism was the great depression" is poorly constructed and far from fact. On the contrary, the evidence tends to show that excessive government intervention causes unnatural instabilities in the market, the common solution of which is to enact further government intervention.

It is the Libertarian (notice the capital "L") view that government intervention in the market should be greatly limited. Government intervention has done little to help the economy (except correct mistakes previously made by the government), and much to disrupt it.

I don't understand how left-wing libertarians can continue to believe that government intervention in every aspect of the economy will lead to economic bliss for all, in light of failures such as the Soviet Union.

Stop constructing strawman arguments.

This was not a strawman argument. It wasn't even an argument, it was an opinion. The "I don't understand" quite clearly marks it as an opinion based upon my personal understanding. I suggest you focus your efforts more on the facts of the issue and less on the minutia of my opinion. Oh yeah, that was an opinion, too (just so there's no more misunderstanding).

Bleys, I appreciate the apology. It would be a shame to see this discussion thrown in the trash due to petty bickering and the straying from the issue. Let us all try to maintain our composure, and save the political mud-slinging for the pub.

[edit on 8/5/2004 by PurdueNuc]

Originally posted by donguillermo

by Bleys: The whole point of Campaign 2004 issues is to discuss the issues and stances of our respective Parties.

Excuse me, again??? The terms and conditions make it quite clear that I am allowed to make criticisms of political positions posted by members of other teams. I suggest you mind your own business, stop lecturing me about the terms and conditions, and giving me suggestions about withdrawing.

Don, you have misread the intent of this forum. Re-read Bleys' post (I quoted it for convenience) and take it to heart. Bleys is DEAD-ON relative to the intent of this forum.

The idea is to discuss the POLICIES/Ideas promoted by the Candidates/Parties NOT the personalities/ personal positions of those involved.

In a word ZERO SPIN is allowed here, Ignorance is DENIED, facts and factual documentation of the policies/ideas, sans the rhetoric is what this forum is about.

While I won't say you have necessarily crossed that line in this thread I felt it valuable to point out that the concept you illiterated in your rebut was headed down a "spinmeister" path...

Focus on the Politician's/Parties' ideas and sales pitches and NOT personal beleifs/opinions. Naturally, personal perceptions of said ideas and sales pitches are welcome when they are [erceptions of YOUR party's goods.

m...

Originally posted by donguillermo
That is an opinion, not fact. Corporations are just as guilty of corruption and waste as government. It is just another libertarian myth that corporations are more efficient than government. Just look in Iraq. Private security contractors, AKA mercenaries, are paid ten times what a government soldier is paid to do the same job. Remember the $600 toilet seats? It was a corporate government contractor who charged that price.

I've got to raise the B.S. flag on this. Corporations are at least subject to competition from other corporations, which will help drive down prices. The federal government has no such competitive force working against it. Further, you might say that private security contractors are paid 10x what a government soldier is paid, but who hired them? The corrupt federal government giving pet contracts to Halliburton instead of opening them up to the company with the best price. Who hired the contractor that charged $600 for that toilet seat? Yep. The 'efficient' feds.

If a facilities manager working for a corporation paid $600 for a toilet seat, do you think they'd still have a job when the corporation's C.F.O. uncovered it? I'm unaware that anyone in the federal government was fired for purchasing a $600 porcilen pot cover. In fact, government traditionally doesn't fire underperformers or people that make mistakes. (I'm not saying that this type of bad behavior is non-existent in the corporate world. I'm just saying it happens with less frequency.)

So please don't say that it's a libertarian myth that corporations are more efficient than government. Government Employment = Zero Accountability. I'll take your Iraq example as my proof. (OK - maybe Bushie will be 'accountable' when he's voted out. )


[edit on 8/9/2004 by HoonieSkoba]

Donguiermo,
You're doing a heck of a job defending common sense vs. the hoard of free-marketers.

Kerry/Edwards support an increase in minimum wage to $7.00 by 2007. search.atomz.com...

I do agree with some of the points made by our Libertarian brethren, such as the minimum wage not being designed as a permanent living wage. Minimum wage is a stepping stone. By the way, not even illeagal immigrants in my community are willing to work for the minimum.

As pointed out earlier, the Republican's tend to view this topic as a leave it alone. I agree that the miniumum wage as it stands protects our poorest workers from being wage gouged.

Beyond that, the market does and should drive the wages beyond this minimum level. Take the SF Bay area for example.

An entry level job at In and Out Burger (a trendy fast food place) starts at $9.45 an hour. Starbucks is around $10. In this case due to the high cost of living has dictated a higher entry level wage.

[edit on 19-8-2004 by FredT]

The idea of minimum wage is a good thing in my opinion since it means that at least everyone is being paid a fair amount at least. However there are some problems with minimum wage and that comes down to inflation. Think about this right, if the minimum wage was alwasy increasing, it would cost companies more money to employ people, thus cause goods to increase in price, which then pushes the minimum wage up again. And so the vicious circle begins. This is something that happend to Germany before world war 2, which resulted in people abanding money for a short period and taking it upon themselves to trade items for goods.

Dont you think this is a pretty good example of what could happen ?

Final verdict: The more you increase minimum wage the more, the price of things increase, thus starting a vicious circle. In the worlds ecconomy there needs to be an equilibrium between cash in and cash out.

I think a good example of the failed logic behind the minimum wage is the idea taken to its extreme. If the minimum wage worked, why not just raise it $30 per hour, then everyone would be doing good, right? Wrong. So what a $30 minimum wage would do to the economy can be seen on a smaller scale with a smaller wage.

It is fine to wish the poor had more money, but using false logic and knee jerk reactions to justify a system to make you feel better about the situation of poverty many of our families are in is not just stupid, it is evil. It is evil because it winds up hurting the poor. But hey, so long as you sleep better tonight, right?

What ? Are you trying to say that minimum wage is something the government uses to basically, try to justify there so called helping the poor, in supporting a larger minimum wage ? But like I said before increasing the minimum wage to much just causes increases in other area's of ecconomy :S its just a vicious circle

I believe that the Minimum wage should be kept!

If it is abolished then people will just live off the state ect (Higher Taxes) as people wont work for next to nothing and probly find it pays more to do nothing (dole ect)

Also Crime will most likley become higher as you could make far more money in illigal activity?

Why work for a very low wage for a full week when you can get more in one hour doing illigal activites ect

People wont have it

That is an opinion, not fact. Corporations are just as guilty of corruption and waste as government. It is just another libertarian myth that corporations are more efficient than government. Just look in Iraq. Private security contractors, AKA mercenaries, are paid ten times what a government soldier is paid to do the same job. Remember the $600 toilet seats? It was a corporate government contractor who charged that price.

I�ve got to raise the BS flag here too. It is not a myth it is logical, the examples shown are driven by the government being the payer...more than likely over paying due to rules instituted by democrats. In private industry when a corporation gets in-efficient there is a natural cure...its called bankruptcy / dissolution. In the government it's called procedure.

While doing a purchase recently for the government I tried to sole source some equipment due to cost....and was informed that sole sourcing due to cost is not allowed under $100,000. The approx 12K purchase went to approx 17K, and that was from the fourth cheapest alternative. After requesting clarification I was informed that a Clinton presidential order was to blame. If a private concern operated in this manner it would very quickly be gone. Many of the outrageous costs attributed to corporations working for the government are due to rules forced on those same corporations by the government.