Michigan considers $10 minimum wage

[Mavorpen]

Option C does not materialize because businesses are not charities.

Fucking lol'd. I really did. It's almost like you ignored the word "government."

No it isn't. Basic laws of economics are the same, everywhere.

Then why did you specifically single out third world countries?

What makes you think government can introduce those better options? Unicorns?

If you want to call legislation unicorns, go for it.

[Imperiatom]

I'm sure you actually believe that, so, congratulations!

Why wouldn't I?

Do you think I would be GLAD for whites to have the ability to lynch me?
Do you think I would be GLAD for white supremacist organizations to actively organize to murder me?

If so, you know utterly nothing about me.

What the fuck has blank and white bullshit talk about lynchings and freedom got to do with the minimum wage.
I don't care whether you are black or white but if you believe the minimum wage stops you from being hung? maybe you should be hung as a fucking racist.

[Sibirsky]

Nobody wants to work for $7/hour. Nobody wants to work for $2/day in Cambodia either.

Yet people do it. People choose to do it.

No. No, this is not the case.

The 'choice' of whether you eat or not is not really a choice, it's an absolute imperative, and if the only way to do that reliably is to work for shit wages, your genes will scream so hard that you'll do it in the end.

It's a choice. I did not say the choices are good.

In fact, I mentioned some of the horrific choices available.

[Mavorpen]

Why wouldn't I?

Do you think I would be GLAD for whites to have the ability to lynch me?
Do you think I would be GLAD for white supremacist organizations to actively organize to murder me?

If so, you know utterly nothing about me.

What the fuck has blank and white bullshit talk about lynchings and freedom got to do with the minimum wage.
I don't care whether you are black or white but if you believe the minimum wage stops you from being hung? maybe you should be hung as a fucking racist.

And this everyone, is how you completely and utterly fail to engage in basic reading comprehension.

[Imperiatom]

What the fuck has blank and white bullshit talk about lynchings and freedom got to do with the minimum wage.
I don't care whether you are black or white but if you believe the minimum wage stops you from being hung? maybe you should be hung as a fucking racist.

And this everyone, is how you completely and utterly fail to engage in basic reading comprehension.

Racist.

[The Whispers]

No. No, this is not the case.

The 'choice' of whether you eat or not is not really a choice, it's an absolute imperative, and if the only way to do that reliably is to work for shit wages, your genes will scream so hard that you'll do it in the end.

It's a choice.

No, you've created a false choice.

If I could choose to not eat or not feel the cold, guess what, wouldn't ever even be peckish. Would sit about wherever I felt like at night. Waste of time and energy, respectively. But I can't.

[Sibirsky]

Option C does not materialize because businesses are not charities.

Fucking lol'd. I really did. It's almost like you ignored the word "government."

I did not. Government introduces a potential option C, by mandating a higher minimum wage.

That is what we are talking about, after all. Option C is higher than the man's productivity. He does not have option C.

No it isn't. Basic laws of economics are the same, everywhere.

Then why did you specifically single out third world countries?

What makes you think government can introduce those better options? Unicorns?

If you want to call legislation unicorns, go for it.

So you do believe that government can perform magic. Interesting.

Do you have any sources for this?

[Sibirsky]

It's a choice.

No, you've created a false choice.

If I could choose to not eat or not feel the cold, guess what, wouldn't ever even be peckish. Would sit about wherever I felt like at night. Waste of time and energy, respectively. But I can't.

The "job" options are choices.

[Mavorpen]

I did not. Government introduces a potential option C, by mandating a higher minimum wage.

That is what we are talking about, after all. Option C is higher than the man's productivity. He does not have option C.

So you're basically arguing the free market doesn't work?

Because honestly, if a business cannot accommodate this, they quite frankly deserve to go under.

So you do believe that government can perform magic. Interesting.

Do you have any sources for this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/0 ... 59988.html

[NERVUN]

And this everyone, is how you completely and utterly fail to engage in basic reading comprehension.

Racist.

Knock it off.

[New Chalcedon]

And this is bad why...? It's like whining about all of the puppies you COULD have adopted.

I need a job and I was 'cockblocked' from it by some do-gooder minimum wage supporter. I am still unemployed because I lost the job opportunity. $0 an hour is less than $5 an hour. Nobody HAS to give me a minimum wage job, they can just say 'Forget it, I don't need an extra employee after all.'

Aaand you've yet again failed to provide a source for your claim. Again, explain to me how you've been "cockblocked" out of a job oppurtunity that doesn't exist.

The opportunity existed because the employer was willing to offer the job at $5 an hour BUT decided he would not offer the job at $7 an hour. The reason is because the extra profit made from hiring a new employee was projected at $6.50 per hour (formulas can be used to estimate extra profits from hiring an additional worker, they vary by industry/company).

Hiring at $5 an hour=good decision
Hiring at $7 an hour=bad decision

The opportunity would have existed at $5 an hour. The employer did a quick check of the minimum wage law and said to himself "Oh, I better not offer this job because it is not worth paying $7 an hour." Job opportunity lost because of minimum wage law. Should be obvious.

If you can't add $7/hour worth of value, then I've got to say...you're not much of a worker.

And if you can add $7/hour worth of value, what's wrong with being paid what you're worth?

[Castille de Italia]

So you do believe that government can perform magic. Interesting.

Do you have any sources for this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/0 ... 59988.html

Yeah, and I can levitate. If you don't believe me, just ask my good friend, global warming...

[The Whispers]

No, you've created a false choice.

If I could choose to not eat or not feel the cold, guess what, wouldn't ever even be peckish. Would sit about wherever I felt like at night. Waste of time and energy, respectively. But I can't.

The "job" options are choices.

Yeah but they're not actually choices, are they, because they're almost always out of one's hands, and the pursuit of whatever job or welfare is always in the interest of an imperative, that being one's own continued existence.

[Mavorpen]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/0 ... 59988.html

Yeah, and I can levitate. If you don't believe me, just ask my good friend, global warming...

That's the spirit.

[Sibirsky]

I did not. Government introduces a potential option C, by mandating a higher minimum wage.

That is what we are talking about, after all. Option C is higher than the man's productivity. He does not have option C.

So you're basically arguing the free market doesn't work?

How do you get that, from what I wrote?

Because honestly, if a business cannot accommodate this, they quite frankly deserve to go under.

They might, yes. But we don't really know, based on this alone.

So you do believe that government can perform magic. Interesting.

Do you have any sources for this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/0 ... 59988.html

Alright!

I'm gonna call up Kim Jon-un on my invisible cell phone, and see these things in action.

[Sibirsky]

The "job" options are choices.

Yeah but they're not actually choices, are they, because they're almost always out of one's hands, and the pursuit of whatever job or welfare is always in the interest of an imperative, that being one's own continued existence.

I had 3 job offers, last time I was looking for work.

3 choices. I picked one. The one I thought was best, overall.

[Mavorpen]

How do you get that, from what I wrote?

If every single damn business cannot accommodate the wage increase, then you're basically stating the free market doesn't work. Otherwise businesses WOULD be able to adjust to it, and the ones who do not will go under and be replaced by those who can.

They might, yes. But we don't really know, based on this alone.

It's a good damn start though.

Alright!

I'm gonna call up Kim Jon-un on my invisible cell phone, and see these things in action.

Didn't you read the title? It's a SECRET lair.

[The Whispers]

Yeah but they're not actually choices, are they, because they're almost always out of one's hands, and the pursuit of whatever job or welfare is always in the interest of an imperative, that being one's own continued existence.

I had 3 job offers, last time I was looking for work.

3 choices. I picked one. The one I thought was best, overall.

That's super. Why did you pick any of them?

[Freiheit Reich]

I need a job and I was 'cockblocked' from it by some do-gooder minimum wage supporter. I am still unemployed because I lost the job opportunity. $0 an hour is less than $5 an hour. Nobody HAS to give me a minimum wage job, they can just say 'Forget it, I don't need an extra employee after all.'

The opportunity existed because the employer was willing to offer the job at $5 an hour BUT decided he would not offer the job at $7 an hour. The reason is because the extra profit made from hiring a new employee was projected at $6.50 per hour (formulas can be used to estimate extra profits from hiring an additional worker, they vary by industry/company).

Hiring at $5 an hour=good decision
Hiring at $7 an hour=bad decision

The opportunity would have existed at $5 an hour. The employer did a quick check of the minimum wage law and said to himself "Oh, I better not offer this job because it is not worth paying $7 an hour." Job opportunity lost because of minimum wage law. Should be obvious.

If you can't add $7/hour worth of value, then I've got to say...you're not much of a worker.

And if you can add $7/hour worth of value, what's wrong with being paid what you're worth?

There are low skilled workers that can't add much value. Yes, they are below average workers but they should have the chance to work as well right?

Do you think only highly skilled workers should be able to work?

The free market should determine your worth. If you are worth $10 an hour and a company is paying you $5 an hour, chances are another company will happily pay you $7 an hour or more. You can change jobs. Most people make more than minimum wage based on this logic.

[Alien Space Bats]

That 3 dollar extra will just be added to whatever they produce meaning that they make 3 dollars more, and cost inflates to match it.

TRANSLATION: "I know nothing about economics".

[New England and The Maritimes]

That 3 dollar extra will just be added to whatever they produce meaning that they make 3 dollars more, and cost inflates to match it.

TRANSLATION: "I know nothing about economics".

How the hell did we as a society get to a point where almost everyone you meet on the street thinks like this? They say these things and we say "Well they're just willfully ignorant" but then it hits me... "Most of them can vote." Ugh.

[New Chalcedon]

TRANSLATION: "I know nothing about economics".

How the hell did we as a society get to a point where almost everyone you meet on the street thinks like this? They say these things and we say "Well they're just willfully ignorant" but then it hits me... "Most of them can vote." Ugh.

That's democracy for you - especially in the age of mass-media. The voice of the village idiot is worth as much at the ballot-box (and if frequently given more airtime) than the voice of the philosopher.

[New Chalcedon]

Fucking lol'd. I really did. It's almost like you ignored the word "government."

I did not. Government introduces a potential option C, by mandating a higher minimum wage.

That is what we are talking about, after all. Option C is higher than the man's productivity. He does not have option C.

Sibirsky, if you seriously, truly believe that a significant fraction of the American workforce are incapable of producing $10/hour worth of goods or services - that their productivity is less than the proposed minimum wage in Michigan (which I might remind everyone is the topic at hand, not the Federal Budget or racism or other such tangents) - then one of two things must be true.

Either you have a very low opinion of huge chunks of the American workforce, or you've lost acquaintance with reality.

Because the US economy produced as of 2009 $59.00 of goods and services per hour worked - and while a lot of that is due to machinery etc. (ie capital, with the rewards rightly flowing to the owners thereof), I find it hard to believe that less than half is due to labor. In fact, I find that extrapolating from this (Table 1, near the end - it only goes to 2001), at least 65% of GDP is due to labor, yet the total compensation for labor is about 55%. Which means that instead of being a partner with labor in the production of goods and services as is the case in a functional economy, capital - in the USA - is instead taking the part of the rent-extractor, seizing virtually all of the production surplus instead of splitting it equitably, or at least partially, with labor.

*snips doomsaying about unsustainable socio-economic situations*

It's not lack of productivity that holds the average US worker back - it's corporate greed and determination to rake in every bit of the labor-added value that they possibly can, by any means within their grasp. And I'm frankly quite OK with the idea of forcing them to disgorge just a bit of their excessive profits.

Speaking of which, you responded to my earlier proof that corporate profits are at record highs by claiming that your concern is for the smaller, mom-and-pop businesses which will be "hurt" by this, and for the minimum-wage workers that they'll have to lay off due to increased costs. Well and well enough - I believe you given your history of honesty with me.

However, the largest minimum-wage (and in some cases, sub-minimum wage) employer in the USA is Wal-Mart, which pays its workers so little that they constitute the largest single bloc of food stamp and Medicaid recipients in many States (notably, a partial bill for this was $86 million per year in California alone in extra costs paid by the state government, money that effectively subsidises the lavish lifestyle of the Walton family). This despite being one of the most profitable corporations worldwide - and it's far from the only large company that pays rock-bottom wages. In fact, I'd hazard that most minimum-wage employees either work for a large corporation (say, with at least 2,500 FTE positions total) or for a franchise of one (such as most fast-food chain stores).

[Alien Space Bats]

Yes, you can live on wages of $4 per hour (after taxes) fairly well. Especially if you use a bike or walk instead of driving and have shared housing.

In Michigan, or in one of the old slave states?

Obviously not in this State.

I mean, you try walking to work or riding a bike in the winter.

[Caninope]

That 3 dollar extra will just be added to whatever they produce meaning that they make 3 dollars more, and cost inflates to match it.

No.

There will likely be increased costs, but it's not necessary for all of these costs to be passed on the consumer. It depends on the elasticity of demand.