I have survived my second annual thinning of the herd

[MikeH]

Because the unemployed are people too?

The basic premise behind most (progressive) redistributive policies seems to be that we should help those who are worse off in preference to those who are better off. The minimum wage has the opposite effect.

All Governments have policies that benefit some people to detriment of others. Regardless of whether you think minimum wage is regressive it's up to political preference whether the government chooses a progressive or regressive policy.

Government policy is always more about winning votes than economics. People in jobs are more likely to vote to keep their jobs than to vote a policy that ensures they either take a pay cut or are fired. More voters are in jobs than out of jobs.

Common sense. If what you say is true, minimum wage is a vote winner. And it'd be political suicide to remove it.

[KrazyHorse]

1) HC has no idea what opportunity cost means
2) baldly asserting that production is inelastic and consumption elastic does not make it so

[MRT144]

But they are stupid, so perhaps they deserve it

It seems to me that if you are careful with your money most people who are above entry-level should be able to save a decent amount of their income. Then again, what the hell do I know, I'm still a kid.

This is about the only wise thing you've ever said, ever.

[MRT144]

I've begun to disbelieve that the world exists west of the Hudson. I believe in London though.

[MRT144]

I'd rather get paid a wage at all than no wage simply because people like C0ckney think everyone deserves a larger apartment.

This makes the assumption there is a reason to hire more employees for marginal benefit in low wage positions. It's not entirely clear that there is some untapped productivity in every business that would be unleashed by hiring X amount more employees for less than current wages.

[MRT144]

My group didn't lose anybody. The group next to us lost 4/14. Then again, they are useless.

I knew immediately because one of my processes started throwing an error.

The group next to you wasn't even part of your herd. You're like wildebeests, they're like zebras.

[Hauldren Collider]

1) HC has no idea what opportunity cost means
2) baldly asserting that production is inelastic and consumption elastic does not make it so

What exactly did I get wrong?

[Hauldren Collider]

This is about the only wise thing you've ever said, ever.

This may sound shocking but when I'm not just arguing with folks on the internet for the hell of it I am more respectful and modest.

[N35t0r]

I really feel sorry for you.

My stomach goes crazy when I eat cheese, and considering the vast amount of tastes, types etc, it sometimes make me cry

A couple of months ago, my aunt went to visit relatives in France, and on the way back customs inspectors caught all her cheese and threw it away

[Kuciwalker]

I like how a Republican dominated state does something socialistic.

Uh, no. Guaranteed minimum income is the least possible "socialistic" social welfare program imaginable. Unless your point is "I like how a Republican dominated state hasn't completely eliminated all possible aid to the poor".

[C0ckney]

The other way around, the higher the required wage is the less new jobs are being created by those who hold capital. This is not a "bad thing" or a "good thing" per se, either, as very low wage floor discourages technological applications (and their R&D) which would reduce amount of human work required for a completed product [e.g. there's a consensus that Roman manufacturing technology never got off the ground because they had slavery (near-zero cost of human production) in effect; no sense in inventing steam-powered machines when you have an unlimited supply of zero-waged labour to do the work with their own hands].

maybe this is true, but i would require evidence of this actually happening in order to believe it. the evidence i have seen suggests that (in the UK) that businesses find some other way to absorb the costs, either by a reduction in profits or by innovating to find ways to deal with increased labour costs (much like your roman example, necessity is that greatest motivator, afterall). interestingly there is very little evidence of price increases or job losses.

Artificially creating a very high wage floor (imagine if the UK government one day decided that the minimum wage would be £100 per hour and you get the idea) discourages hiring people and creates a permanent unproductive class of people who will eventually turn to black market (in modern day this would be stuff like drug and weapons trade -- think US' ghettos) in search of jobs.

it's an obvious thing to say that if you set a minimum wage which far exceeds the average wage that this would have an effect on employment and inflation.

however i think the second part is wrong. when you say black market i guess you mean the informal economy i.e. people who work for cash and don't pay (direct) taxes on their earnings. i've worked in the informal economy for years and can tell you it's mostly a lot less exotic then guns and drugs. people work in the informal economy because it's a better option for them than working formally.

here in brasil there is a ridiculously low minimum wage, R$510/month. it's very hard to survive on this, for a single person, i would say impossible in a city like rio, unless you live in a favela and own the house. so what do people do? they either live with their parents until they get a well paying job or until they get married. it's pretty common for middle class brasilians to live with their parents into their 30s. for some this isn't an option, maybe they have moved from elsewhere and don't have family here, or they have a family to support themselves. these people work in the informal sector. they clean houses, sell stuff on the streets, on the beach, on the buses, they become those guys who 'help' you park your car and take a few R$ for their trouble, do some building work and 1001 other jobs for cash. you can make decent money doing this, certainly better than minimum wage, but it comes with some risks. there is no doubt in my mind however that many people would move into formal jobs if the wages were better. low wages create a huge informal sector.

in the UK it's a different situation, because people have the option to simply not work (it's the same in finland, yes?) and they will receive money from the government. this creates different incentives for people. indeed one of the costs of the welfare state is that it creates that underclass of unproductive people that you refer to. one of the positives of the minimum wage is that it raises the wages of the lowest paid and so makes working more attractive for people who otherwise wouldn't. i've been in that situation myself, where it worked out better financially for me to work 0 hours per week and receive benefits than to work for 20 hours week, guess what i did... i see making it pay to work as a good thing. although clearly there are lots of ways of achieving this. research indicates that there are other effects as well, like redistributing wealth from the owners of capital to the lowest paid. i see this as a positive some others may not...

Seriously though, what's with the surge of lefty-populist academic bias in the UK? First Drogue (an economics major from Oxford, no less) starts pushing the retarded 'speaking of economics, CEO wages/bonuses are an important issue and they should be somehow managed by the government' talking point straight out of Time magazine and now this. Do profs in your universities actually spoon-feed this stuff to you?

what does this have to do with the price of tea in china?

if people don't agree with the evidence provided then they are free to post their own. if it doesn't exist, then i guess people will draw their own conclusions about why that is. if you disagree with it, because of 'left wing bias' or some such, then that's pretty weak i'm afraid.

[Hauldren Collider]

Uh, no. Guaranteed minimum income is the least possible "socialistic" social welfare program imaginable. Unless your point is "I like how a Republican dominated state hasn't completely eliminated all possible aid to the poor".

That, plus it is funded with oil taxes, plus it is probably at least partially there to encourage people to actually live in Alaska.

[giblets]

HC condoning redistribution of wealth?

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes, I'm not an idiot. Obviously some small level of redistribution is useful for society as a whole. As I've mentioned in other threads, even the Romans figured that out and they didn't give a **** about their poor.

And if I were an Alaskan politician, I'd probably be trying to think of ways to get people to move to a frostbitten wasteland. Giving out money seems like as good a means as any.

[Egbert]

Yes, I'm not an idiot. Obviously some small level of redistribution is useful for society as a whole. As I've mentioned in other threads, even the Romans figured that out and they didn't give a **** about their poor.

And if I were an Alaskan politician, I'd probably be trying to think of ways to get people to move to a frostbitten wasteland. Giving out money seems like as good a means as any.

bread and circuses

keeps the plebs content