should minimum wage be mandated?

[Polk]

Well a breezy rainy day may not have the same effects right away as a hurricane but you get enough breezy rainy days and over time your roof will start to leak. Same with donating blood. It's certainly not healthy to have blood removed from your body. So your analogies only further prove the point.

Right, because it's nearly impossible to fix a leaky roof!

And studies have shown that donating blood is actually very heathy.
donating blood health benefits - Google Search


So actually, your reponse only serves to prove my point, that advancing this ridiculous $100/hr argument proves that your quiver is empty in this battle. Time to cut and run.

Fixing a leaky roof requires money. But the point remains the same. Just because the rain is not a hurricane doesn't mean it doesn't do damage to your house, just as the minimum wage even though it's not $100/hour still leads to unemployment.

That is interesting about donating blood, though. I guess I shouldn't make any medical pronouncements I know nothing about.

The entire point is that it doesn't lead to unemployment at the current levels. In theory, it should. However, it doesn't in reality. The most likely explanation is that the increase raises the purchasing power of those most likely to spend the money, creating a multiplier effect which stimulates demand.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gotta love the ridiculousness of the $100/hr argument!

That's like saying category 5 hurricanes cause billions in property damage, therefore a breezy rainy day does too, and if you can't see that you're just being ignorant.

Or...

if you drain all the blood out of a person's body, they will likely die. Therefore anyone that donates blood is putting their life at risk, and anyone who can't see this is an imbecile.

Or...

an effective tax rate of 100% eliminates any incentive to make money, therefore all taxes regardless of the rate are bad. And anyone that doesn't see this is an ingnorant shitstain.





Extreme and absurd hypotheticals only prove that those advancing them clearly have no leg left to stand on in the debate. True story.

Instead of dismissing the argument with misleading analogies and name calling, why not tell me what's wrong with setting the min wage at $100/hr.

 

[manifold]

The entire point is that it doesn't lead to unemployment at the current levels. In theory, it should. However, it doesn't in reality. The most likely explanation is that the increase raises the purchasing power of those most likely to spend the money, creating a multiplier effect which stimulates demand.

The obvious explanation is that the theory is flawed, plain and simple. There are so many variables, inter-dependencies and autocorrelation in econometrics that almost any cause and effect relationships are at best an educated guess. But if the minimum wage were raised to an absurd level like $100/hr, that one variable would wield so much influence as to render all others insignificant... and the reality in that case would more than likely match the theory. But if you can get Ribeye to understand any of this, I'll be duly impressed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Right, because it's nearly impossible to fix a leaky roof!

And studies have shown that donating blood is actually very heathy.
donating blood health benefits - Google Search


So actually, your reponse only serves to prove my point, that advancing this ridiculous $100/hr argument proves that your quiver is empty in this battle. Time to cut and run.

Fixing a leaky roof requires money. But the point remains the same. Just because the rain is not a hurricane doesn't mean it doesn't do damage to your house, just as the minimum wage even though it's not $100/hour still leads to unemployment.

That is interesting about donating blood, though. I guess I shouldn't make any medical pronouncements I know nothing about.

The entire point is that it doesn't lead to unemployment at the current levels. In theory, it should. However, it doesn't in reality. The most likely explanation is that the increase raises the purchasing power of those most likely to spend the money, creating a multiplier effect which stimulates demand.

Of course it does.

 

[Oddball]

The entire point is that it doesn't lead to unemployment at the current levels. In theory, it should. However, it doesn't in reality. The most likely explanation is that the increase raises the purchasing power of those most likely to spend the money, creating a multiplier effect which stimulates demand.

The obvious explanation is that the theory is flawed, plain and simple. There are so many variables, inter-dependencies and autocorrelation in econometrics that almost any cause and effect relationships are at best an educated guess. But if the minimum wage were raised to an absurd level like $100/hr, that one variable would wield so much influence as to render all others insignificant... and the reality in that case would more than likely match the theory. But if you can get Ribeye to understand any of this, I'll be duly impressed.

Then what's the unambiguous and quantifiable argument in favor of the minim wage, eh?

 

[The Rabbi]

Right, because it's nearly impossible to fix a leaky roof!

And studies have shown that donating blood is actually very heathy.
donating blood health benefits - Google Search


So actually, your reponse only serves to prove my point, that advancing this ridiculous $100/hr argument proves that your quiver is empty in this battle. Time to cut and run.

Fixing a leaky roof requires money. But the point remains the same. Just because the rain is not a hurricane doesn't mean it doesn't do damage to your house, just as the minimum wage even though it's not $100/hour still leads to unemployment.

That is interesting about donating blood, though. I guess I shouldn't make any medical pronouncements I know nothing about.

The entire point is that it doesn't lead to unemployment at the current levels. In theory, it should. However, it doesn't in reality. The most likely explanation is that the increase raises the purchasing power of those most likely to spend the money, creating a multiplier effect which stimulates demand.

Have you not been reading the papers? Do you not see the unemployment rate among black teenagers? Of course it results in higher unemployment. It already has!
Taking money from one person and giving it to another will not raise the overall purchasing power, nor will it create a multiplier effect. That is just misinformation.

 

[Mr Natural]

I have to side with the conservatives on this issue. I think minimum wage is a bad idea.

But then again, I live in an area where the "minimum wage" is like eight dollars an hour.

 

[auditor0007]

The same principle applies to mandating $100/hour as mandating $7.25/hour. If you can see how one leads to unemployment you can see how the other does as well.

You are right; it does apply if the average worker was earning $300 per hour.

What, you don't even make three benjamins per hour?

Fuck'n loser!

I know; I know. I'm hanging my head in shame.

 

[Oddball]

I have to side with the conservatives on this issue. I think minimum wage is a bad idea.

But then again, I live in an area where the "minimum wage" is like eight dollars an hour.

In most places, the minimum wage is entirely irrelevant to the prevailing wages dictated by the marketplace.

All the bullshit about the minimum wage is about is keeping people at the Gubmint Printing Office in business.

 

[Polk]

The entire point is that it doesn't lead to unemployment at the current levels. In theory, it should. However, it doesn't in reality. The most likely explanation is that the increase raises the purchasing power of those most likely to spend the money, creating a multiplier effect which stimulates demand.

The obvious explanation is that the theory is flawed, plain and simple. There are so many variables, inter-dependencies and autocorrelation in econometrics that almost any cause and effect relationships are at best an educated guess. But if the minimum wage were raised to an absurd level like $100/hr, that one variable would wield so much influence as to render all others insignificant... and the reality in that case would more than likely match the theory. But if you can get Ribeye to understand any of this, I'll be duly impressed.

It's not flawed in the abstract, but you hit the nail on the head. So many variables are interconnected that the reality is far different from the theory.

 

[Polk]

Fixing a leaky roof requires money. But the point remains the same. Just because the rain is not a hurricane doesn't mean it doesn't do damage to your house, just as the minimum wage even though it's not $100/hour still leads to unemployment.

That is interesting about donating blood, though. I guess I shouldn't make any medical pronouncements I know nothing about.

The entire point is that it doesn't lead to unemployment at the current levels. In theory, it should. However, it doesn't in reality. The most likely explanation is that the increase raises the purchasing power of those most likely to spend the money, creating a multiplier effect which stimulates demand.

Have you not been reading the papers? Do you not see the unemployment rate among black teenagers? Of course it results in higher unemployment. It already has!
Taking money from one person and giving it to another will not raise the overall purchasing power, nor will it create a multiplier effect. That is just misinformation.

Correlation does not imply causation. Add in the fact that these variable don't correlation in general, and your argument is very, very weak.

 

[Oddball]

It's not flawed in the abstract, but you hit the nail on the head. So many variables are interconnected that the reality is far different from the theory.

Right...In turn making 100% of the claims by the supporters of the MW, including your pulled-out-of-your-ass- doozie, equally spurious and specious.

 

[auditor0007]

Gotta love the ridiculousness of the $100/hr argument!

That's like saying category 5 hurricanes cause billions in property damage, therefore a breezy rainy day does too, and if you can't see that you're just being ignorant.

Or...

if you drain all the blood out of a person's body, they will likely die. Therefore anyone that donates blood is putting their life at risk, and anyone who can't see this is an imbecile.

Or...

an effective tax rate of 100% eliminates any incentive to make money, therefore all taxes regardless of the rate are bad. And anyone that doesn't see this is an ingnorant shitstain.





Extreme and absurd hypotheticals only prove that those advancing them clearly have no leg left to stand on in the debate. True story.

Well a breezy rainy day may not have the same effects right away as a hurricane but you get enough breezy rainy days and over time your roof will start to leak. Same with donating blood. It's certainly not healthy to have blood removed from your body. So your analogies only further prove the point.

Removing blood from the body is not healthy? Since when? This is only true if a person is anemic. In my case, not having blood removed made me extremely sick. I wish I had donated blood four times per year for my entire life. I would be in much better health now if I had.

 

[The Rabbi]

The entire point is that it doesn't lead to unemployment at the current levels. In theory, it should. However, it doesn't in reality. The most likely explanation is that the increase raises the purchasing power of those most likely to spend the money, creating a multiplier effect which stimulates demand.

Have you not been reading the papers? Do you not see the unemployment rate among black teenagers? Of course it results in higher unemployment. It already has!
Taking money from one person and giving it to another will not raise the overall purchasing power, nor will it create a multiplier effect. That is just misinformation.

Correlation does not imply causation. Add in the fact that these variable don't correlation in general, and your argument is very, very weak.

Of course it implies causation. It may not be a one to one causation. But it is borne out by both theory and history, if you bothered to read any of the three links I posted.

Let me ask you, why would increasing the price of something not result in less of it sold? And again, where is the cut off point? If 7.50 is good, why not 15? 25? 100?

 

[Polk]

Have you not been reading the papers? Do you not see the unemployment rate among black teenagers? Of course it results in higher unemployment. It already has!
Taking money from one person and giving it to another will not raise the overall purchasing power, nor will it create a multiplier effect. That is just misinformation.

Correlation does not imply causation. Add in the fact that these variable don't correlation in general, and your argument is very, very weak.

Of course it implies causation. It may not be a one to one causation. But it is borne out by both theory and history, if you bothered to read any of the three links I posted.

Let me ask you, why would increasing the price of something not result in less of it sold? And again, where is the cut off point? If 7.50 is good, why not 15? 25? 100?

Correlation does not imply causation. That's basic social science. People think of them as the same thing, but they're not. The argument is not "borne out by both theory and history" as you claim. Two of the articles you posted where from a conservative lobbying group and they make a series of outlandish claims about the nature of the labor force. Of course, these claims mirror the claims they make about taxation (namely, that companies would rather make decisions that would reduce their profits than to pay a tax).

 

[The Rabbi]

Correlation does not imply causation. Add in the fact that these variable don't correlation in general, and your argument is very, very weak.

Of course it implies causation. It may not be a one to one causation. But it is borne out by both theory and history, if you bothered to read any of the three links I posted.

Let me ask you, why would increasing the price of something not result in less of it sold? And again, where is the cut off point? If 7.50 is good, why not 15? 25? 100?

Correlation does not imply causation. That's basic social science. People think of them as the same thing, but they're not. The argument is not "borne out by both theory and history" as you claim. Two of the articles you posted where from a conservative lobbying group and they make a series of outlandish claims about the nature of the labor force. Of course, these claims mirror the claims they make about taxation (namely, that companies would rather make decisions that would reduce their profits than to pay a tax).

Fortunately this isn't social science.
Why are you not answering the questions?

 

[Polk]

Of course it implies causation. It may not be a one to one causation. But it is borne out by both theory and history, if you bothered to read any of the three links I posted.

Let me ask you, why would increasing the price of something not result in less of it sold? And again, where is the cut off point? If 7.50 is good, why not 15? 25? 100?

Correlation does not imply causation. That's basic social science. People think of them as the same thing, but they're not. The argument is not "borne out by both theory and history" as you claim. Two of the articles you posted where from a conservative lobbying group and they make a series of outlandish claims about the nature of the labor force. Of course, these claims mirror the claims they make about taxation (namely, that companies would rather make decisions that would reduce their profits than to pay a tax).

Fortunately this isn't social science.
Why are you not answering the questions?

Economics is a social science.

As for your questions, they've been addressed earlier in the thread. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I suggest you go back and read what has been written by myself and others.

 

[rightwinger]

Have you not been reading the papers? Do you not see the unemployment rate among black teenagers? Of course it results in higher unemployment. It already has!
Taking money from one person and giving it to another will not raise the overall purchasing power, nor will it create a multiplier effect. That is just misinformation.

Correlation does not imply causation. Add in the fact that these variable don't correlation in general, and your argument is very, very weak.

Of course it implies causation. It may not be a one to one causation. But it is borne out by both theory and history, if you bothered to read any of the three links I posted.

Let me ask you, why would increasing the price of something not result in less of it sold? And again, where is the cut off point? If 7.50 is good, why not 15? 25? 100?

Let me use some Rabbi logic here..

If raising the minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25 didn't drive employers out of business, then raising it to $100 will not drive them out of business

It all comes down to causation. If you look at the extreme it justifies your point

Right rabbi??

 

[The Rabbi]

Correlation does not imply causation. Add in the fact that these variable don't correlation in general, and your argument is very, very weak.

Of course it implies causation. It may not be a one to one causation. But it is borne out by both theory and history, if you bothered to read any of the three links I posted.

Let me ask you, why would increasing the price of something not result in less of it sold? And again, where is the cut off point? If 7.50 is good, why not 15? 25? 100?

Let me use some Rabbi logic here..

If raising the minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25 didn't drive employers out of business, then raising it to $100 will not drive them out of business

It all comes down to causation. If you look at the extreme it justifies your point

Right rabbi??

Wow are you dumb, too dumb to write coherently.
How do you know the rise from 6.55 to 7.25 didnt drive some employers out of business? What evidence do you have?
Of course it has. Raising it to $25 would drive even more out. $100 would pretty much drive all of them out. So you might have one guy making $100 at min wage. And about 10k completely unemployed.
That is the choice: people working at a market wage or a lot of people not working at a higher wage.

 

[The Rabbi]

Correlation does not imply causation. That's basic social science. People think of them as the same thing, but they're not. The argument is not "borne out by both theory and history" as you claim. Two of the articles you posted where from a conservative lobbying group and they make a series of outlandish claims about the nature of the labor force. Of course, these claims mirror the claims they make about taxation (namely, that companies would rather make decisions that would reduce their profits than to pay a tax).

Fortunately this isn't social science.
Why are you not answering the questions?

Economics is a social science.

As for your questions, they've been addressed earlier in the thread. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I suggest you go back and read what has been written by myself and others.

No, they were not addressed. They were scoffed at and ridiculed but not answered. Now you are trying to do the same thing.