Jauronimo Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 my point is the same as it was initially. that underpaid internship was likely subsidized by someone, most likely the gov't. so his cheap employer benefits while he and nearly everyone else loses. Likely? Based on what? Another of your bull **** preconceptions and gut feelings? Likelihood certainly could not be gleaned from any of the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 21, 2013 Author Share Posted August 21, 2013 "The real minimum wage is zero. Making it illegal to pay less than a given amount does not make a worker’s productivity worth that amount—and, if it is not, that worker is unlikely to be employed.” -- Thomas Sowell "We cannot legislate prosperity. When we increase minimum wages by legislative fiat, we kill jobs. Government creates nothing but what it has first taken away" -- John Stossell From Milton Friedman: The fact is, the programs labeled as being “for the poor,” or “for the needy,” [by politicians like President Obama] almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have. Let me give you a very simple example – take the minimum wage law. Its well-meaning sponsors [like President Obama]– there are always in these cases two groups of sponsors – there are the well-meaning sponsors and there are the special interests, who are using the well-meaning sponsors as front men. You almost always when you have bad programs have an unholy coalition of the do-gooders on the one hand, and the special interest on the other. The minimum wage law is as clear a case as you could want. The special interests are of course the trade unions – the monopolistic trade craft unions. The do-gooders believe that by passing a law saying that nobody shall get less than $9 per hour (adjusted for today) or whatever the minimum wage is, you are helping poor people who need the money. You are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is to assure, that people whose skills, are not sufficient to justify that kind of a wage will be unemployed. The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That’s what the law says. The law says that here’s a man who has a skill that would justify a wage of $5 or $6 per hour (adjusted for today), but you may not employ him, it’s illegal, because if you employ him you must pay him $9 per hour. So what’s the result? To employ him at $9 per hour is to engage in charity. There’s nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in the position to engage in that kind of charity. Thus, the consequences of minimum wage laws have been almost wholly bad. We have increased unemployment and increased poverty. Moreover, the effects have been concentrated on the groups that the do-gooders would most like to help. The people who have been hurt most by the minimum wage laws are the blacks. I have often said that the most anti-black law on the books of this land is the minimum wage law. There is absolutely no positive objective achieved by the minimum wage law. Its real purpose is to reduce competition for the trade unions and make it easier for them to maintain the higher wages of their privileged members. . "The real minimum wage is zero. Making it illegal to pay less than a given amount does not make a worker’s productivity worth that amount—and, if it is not, that worker is unlikely to be employed.” -- Thomas Sowell "We cannot legislate prosperity. When we increase minimum wages by legislative fiat, we kill jobs. Government creates nothing but what it has first taken away" -- John Stossell From Milton Friedman: The fact is, the programs labeled as being “for the poor,” or “for the needy,” [by politicians like President Obama] almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have. Let me give you a very simple example – take the minimum wage law. Its well-meaning sponsors [like President Obama]– there are always in these cases two groups of sponsors – there are the well-meaning sponsors and there are the special interests, who are using the well-meaning sponsors as front men. You almost always when you have bad programs have an unholy coalition of the do-gooders on the one hand, and the special interest on the other. The minimum wage law is as clear a case as you could want. The special interests are of course the trade unions – the monopolistic trade craft unions. The do-gooders believe that by passing a law saying that nobody shall get less than $9 per hour (adjusted for today) or whatever the minimum wage is, you are helping poor people who need the money. You are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is to assure, that people whose skills, are not sufficient to justify that kind of a wage will be unemployed. The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That’s what the law says. The law says that here’s a man who has a skill that would justify a wage of $5 or $6 per hour (adjusted for today), but you may not employ him, it’s illegal, because if you employ him you must pay him $9 per hour. So what’s the result? To employ him at $9 per hour is to engage in charity. There’s nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in the position to engage in that kind of charity. Thus, the consequences of minimum wage laws have been almost wholly bad. We have increased unemployment and increased poverty. Moreover, the effects have been concentrated on the groups that the do-gooders would most like to help. The people who have been hurt most by the minimum wage laws are the blacks. I have often said that the most anti-black law on the books of this land is the minimum wage law. There is absolutely no positive objective achieved by the minimum wage law. Its real purpose is to reduce competition for the trade unions and make it easier for them to maintain the higher wages of their privileged members. . i'm shocked. milton friedman opposes minimum wage laws. stop the presses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 what's a 1 bedroom apt go for in sf? even divided by 3, it's not gonna leave much on minimum wage. and before you say they should live away from the city, how do they get to work? btw, your example doesn'tr help your case. a guy making 200k with nthat living standard makes it even more likely that $7.25 is inadequate to survive. Question. If they can't afford to live or work in SF why are they living and working in SF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 i'm shocked. milton friedman opposes minimum wage laws. stop the presses... Birddog has little to know understanding of markets and basic economics? He thinks the world should be governed by his own definition of fairness as judged by outcomes? He refuses to explore the origin of his core beliefs and evaluate whether or not they really make sense? Stop the presses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 i'm shocked. milton friedman opposes minimum wage laws. stop the presses... The more cynical amongst us would call that a non-response...................................I'm shocked. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 http://dailycaller.c...in-most-states/ this article clearly concludes that welfare payments are too high in the states mentioned. might it be that minimum wage is too low? a compromise opinion would be that both are true. if you accept that minimum wage is too low, aren't taxpayers paying more for their "cheap" burgers and wal mart goods, indirectly via taxes and welfare? aren't we subsidizing low paying industries? Was it you or lybob that paid his office workers $10/hr with no benefits? I don't remember... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 21, 2013 Author Share Posted August 21, 2013 Likely? Based on what? Another of your bull **** preconceptions and gut feelings? Likelihood certainly could not be gleaned from any of the text. he made 10k or about 800/mo. even in rural va, rents are $500-600 for trailers. lets say he had a roomate. so lets say $300 for him. how much you wanna allocate for food and transport, clothes and hygeine? it's gonna be pretty tight if ends meet at all. so that's where the likelihood of subsidy comes from. if you think i meant that the pay for the internship from his cheap employer was directly subsidized, you misunderstood. Was it you or lybob that paid his office workers $10/hr with no benefits? I don't remember... have always provided full benefits including low deductible health insurance.. $10 was the lowest starting pay which usually rapidly increased and that was several years ago before i became an employee myself. even now, 25% above, min wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 he made 10k or about 800/mo. even in rural va, rents are $500-600 for trailers. lets say he had a roomate. so lets say $300 for him. how much you wanna allocate for food and transport, clothes and hygeine? it's gonna be pretty tight if ends meet at all. so that's where the likelihood of subsidy comes from. if you think i meant that the pay for the internship from his cheap employer was directly subsidized, you misunderstood. I'm honestly not trying to bust your balls here, but how is the person in your example not responsible for his situation? if this person is able-bodied, he may need to get a second job. that sucks....I know because I've had to do that three times in my life. but I did it because I had to. so does the person in your example. I'm not saying it's easy, but I am saying that he needs to do something more, or something different, than what he's doing now. if this person gets supplemental income from the government to make up for his financial shortfall, where is his incentive for him to improve his situation? I don't see compassion in that kind of assistance......I see enabling of substandard achievement. how does anyone, other than a politician who is trying to buy votes, stand to gain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 21, 2013 Author Share Posted August 21, 2013 Question. If they can't afford to live or work in SF why are they living and working in SF? answer: because many are being subsidized by taxpayers through various gov't programs to compensate for their low pay. I'm honestly not trying to bust your balls here, but how is the person in your example not responsible for his situation? if this person is able-bodied, he may need to get a second job. that sucks....I know because I've had to do that three times in my life. but I did it because I had to. so does the person in your example. I'm not saying it's easy, but I am saying that he needs to do something more, or something different, than what he's doing now. if this person gets supplemental income from the government to make up for his financial shortfall, where is his incentive for him to improve his situation? I don't see compassion in that kind of assistance......I see enabling of substandard achievement. how does anyone, other than a politician who is trying to buy votes, stand to gain? firstly, there aren't near enough jobs right now for many folks to be able to work 80 hours. if a significant portion of the population did this, the unemployment rate would be even higher. secondly, they already are subsidized for subsistence. raising the minimum wage will shift that cost from gov't to employer. therefore, i don't think mandating or incentivizing working 80 hours is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 answer: because many are being subsidized by taxpayers through various gov't programs to compensate for their low pay. Nope. Most are being subsidized by patrons that are paying a lot more for a burger in the city than in with East Bay because the restaurants pay a higher wage to attract quality employees. See how that works. No need for taxpay subsidies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 he made 10k or about 800/mo. even in rural va, rents are $500-600 for trailers. lets say he had a roomate. so lets say $300 for him. how much you wanna allocate for food and transport, clothes and hygeine? it's gonna be pretty tight if ends meet at all. so that's where the likelihood of subsidy comes from. if you think i meant that the pay for the internship from his cheap employer was directly subsidized, you misunderstood. Lets say you picked an example that isn't retarded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 the premise of all this "anti-minimum wage" stuff is that companies will do the right thing and wages will reflect value of work, and worker. of course they will do the right thing - for themselves. if there was no floor on wages, and they could get away with paying $.75 an hour, they would. because they're in business to make money - for themselves, and their shareholder. obviously a wage that low is ridiculous, but the point is that companies do not have the welfare of their workers primarily in mind (except Costco). there are unfortunates who don't have many options, for whatever reason. and there are leeches. i pay taxes without complaint because i receive services that benefit me, and i don't mind sharing. it's irritating that leeches take some of it, but as Jesus said "love them all and let God sort them out in the end". it's rather sad how so many people stew over stuff like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 21, 2013 Author Share Posted August 21, 2013 Nope. Most are being subsidized by patrons that are paying a lot more for a burger in the city than in with East Bay because the restaurants pay a higher wage to attract quality employees. See how that works. No need for taxpay subsidies. how many fast food workers live in subsidized housing (eg "projects") would you estimate? it wouldn't surprise me if sf was a bit ahead of the curve on this but it's far from a generalized phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Speaking of welfare, I presume that farm subsidies pay the farmer (or agribusiness) more than they'd make growing and selling their products. Right? It's kind of a pervasive concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 21, 2013 Author Share Posted August 21, 2013 the premise of all this "anti-minimum wage" stuff is that companies will do the right thing and wages will reflect value of work, and worker. of course they will do the right thing - for themselves. if there was no floor on wages, and they could get away with paying $.75 an hour, they would. because they're in business to make money - for themselves, and their shareholder. obviously a wage that low is ridiculous, but the point is that companies do not have the welfare of their workers primarily in mind (except Costco). there are unfortunates who don't have many options, for whatever reason. and there are leeches. i pay taxes without complaint because i receive services that benefit me, and i don't mind sharing. it's irritating that leeches take some of it, but as Jesus said "love them all and let God sort them out in the end". it's rather sad how so many people stew over stuff like this. absolutely true. sweatshops and peasant labor still are quite prevelant in places where they've not been made illegal.if by "stewing", you mean complaining about employers exploiting workers and consequently taxpayers, then i disagree. but i don't think that's what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 the premise of all this "anti-minimum wage" stuff is that companies will do the right thing and wages will reflect value of work, and worker. of course they will do the right thing - for themselves. if there was no floor on wages, and they could get away with paying $.75 an hour, they would. because they're in business to make money - for themselves, and their shareholder. obviously a wage that low is ridiculous, but the point is that companies do not have the welfare of their workers primarily in mind (except Costco). there are unfortunates who don't have many options, for whatever reason. and there are leeches. i pay taxes without complaint because i receive services that benefit me, and i don't mind sharing. it's irritating that leeches take some of it, but as Jesus said "love them all and let God sort them out in the end". it's rather sad how so many people stew over stuff like this. In an age where ease of transport and flow of information has pretty much eradicated any form of natural monopoly do you think getting rid of the minimum wage would result in a sweeping and drastic decrease in the typical unskilled wage? If so, please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 how many fast food workers live in subsidized housing (eg "projects") would you estimate? it wouldn't surprise me if sf was a bit ahead of the curve on this but it's far from a generalized phenomenon. I would say very few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 a little lesson in contraception: even tubal ligations can fail. A little lesson in having a discussion with you; you're a phucking idiot. I mean, you are so incapable of making a case for any of the idiotic stuff you type, that you casually stroll down a totally unrelated road in hopes that people will tire of chasing your pathetically mind-bogglingly stupid logic. Hard to believe, I find myself searching out gatorman posts just to shake the cobwebs that grow from following your idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 21, 2013 Author Share Posted August 21, 2013 i'd diasgram the logical sequence of this argument but i doubt it would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Was it you or lybob that paid his office workers $10/hr with no benefits? I don't remember... You disappoint me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts