Scott Walker's crusade continues

[giblets]

Your model is incoherent. The efficiency wage hypothesis predicts that the private (to the employer) returns to the higher wages is greater than or equal to the actual wage costs. If they weren't than the employer wouldn't be paying those wages.

This whole thing is a massive distraction; efficiency wage theory is very much not an argument for the minimum wage.

No, that makes McDonald's employment MORE elastic. You are suggesting that they can cheaply substitute above-min-wage labor for min-wage labor because the former costs less to supervise. The people who are employable at the (former) minimum wage but not at the higher wage are the ones who lose out.

Are you suggesting that extra productivity from paying higher wages can ONLY exist if it is sufficiently large to make paying a higher wage profitable?

[Kuciwalker]

It exists in healthcare in other western countries.

This is true.

[Kuciwalker]

Are you suggesting that extra productivity from paying higher wages can ONLY exist if it is sufficiently large to make paying a higher wage profitable?

No, I am suggesting that it will only be observed in that case.

[giblets]

No, I am suggesting that it will only be observed in that case.

Employers will only do it voluntarily in that case. It can still eat a large part of the costs of imposing a minimum wage.

[Kuciwalker]

No, because the non-substitution explanations for efficiency wages imply that the higher wages are compensation for additional effort that the employees find unpleasant. If the employees didn't find the low-productivity labor preferable (without compensation) then they wouldn't do it.

[MrFun]

You start at the bottom. Then instead of blowing your paycheck on beer and cigarettes, you do things like look for trade or vocational training programs, community college, self-teaching, and meanwhile, at your suck-ass bottom end job, you show talent and ambition and look for something better. You spend your time at the library. You work a second or third suck-ass job if you need to save money for your edumacation. I went to college without a dime of scholarship money or student loans. Above all else, you show drive and initiative and don't expect anything to be handed to you, because although it might be, you're best off relying on what you can control.

'kay

[giblets]

No, because the non-substitution explanations for efficiency wages imply that the higher wages are compensation for additional effort that the employees find unpleasant. If the employees didn't find the low-productivity labor preferable (without compensation) then they wouldn't do it.

People who shirk at their low wage job probably have poor self control and time inconsistent preferences anyway so why should I care?

[Fake Boris]

That's an interesting (i.e. wrong) claim. We've seen firsthand the differential welfare effects of capitalism and communism, and the benefits actually are on the same order as those provided by technology over the same time periods.

Wrong interpretation.

There was also significant economic growth in communist regimes.

[Guynemer]

It's a classic case of Fox being an Agent Provocateur.

Bit of a tangent here, but that was the best embedded advertising link ever, Google Chrome. Thank you ever so much.

[Aeson]

No, you just misunderstood what I said. I'll happily accept it wasn't an intentional strawman, just a lack of reading comprehension.

I apologize for reading "all" as "all" instead of "some of", if you will recognize that you have dropped every substantial point of discussion to focus on what you now are ready to admit was not a strawman.

[Kuciwalker]

Wrong interpretation.

There was also significant economic growth in communist regimes.

I have no idea why you think this is a response to my claim.

(technology + capitalism) - (technology + communism) ~ technology

~ meaning "is of roughly the same magnitude as"

[Felch]

That's exactly the kind of thinking I mentioned before. Unions don't want their members to get better conditions than other workers, they want all workers to receive better conditions.

So they should be okay with free riders, right?

[MichaeltheGreat]

So they should be okay with free riders, right?

No. Wanting people to have something better doesn't mean wanting to have something better for free or at another's cost. Another fine product of No Child Left Behind, I see.

[DinoDoc]

No. Wanting people to have something better doesn't mean wanting to have something better for free or at another's cost. Another fine product of No Child Left Behind, I see.

Then they should provide something the worker is willing to pay for rather than depend on the State forcing them to do so.

[DinoDoc]

Seriously though, is there any other private membership based organization the State can mandate private citizens pay money to?