Philosophy Now Forum

David Handeye wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:So why do you think these jobs will disappear if a minimum wage was introduced?

The U.S. does have a minimum wage, but the people who want to increase it have absolutely no knowledge of economics. Labor is just like any other commodity or service. If the price goes up, there is a tendency to buy less of it or find a substitute at lower cost. If labor cost goes up, employers will hire fewer people, and restrict their hiring to people who are the most dependable and the most productive at the new minimum wage. This results in people who were hired at a lower minimum wage to be out of a job. Labor economics is so basic and logical that it is really hard to believe there is any controversy at all about the subject.

I think Bob is right. Ten years ago I had 10 people hired, seven years ago 6, four years ago 3, last year 1. Labor costs have become unbearable. At least in Italy. And, my opinion, this was due to the power of labor unions, which have locked down workers rights regardless of employers' borrowing capacity, as national workers contracts are compulsory, and you are forced to hire along with them, as well as you are a little artisan or you have a big industry. The downside of welfare policy.

bobevenson wrote:The U.S. does have a minimum wage, but the people who want to increase it have absolutely no knowledge of economics. Labor is just like any other commodity or service. If the price goes up, there is a tendency to buy less of it or find a substitute at lower cost.

artisticsolution wrote:

bobevenson wrote:The U.S. does have a minimum wage, but the people who want to increase it have absolutely no knowledge of economics. Labor is just like any other commodity or service. If the price goes up, there is a tendency to buy less of it or find a substitute at lower cost.

I am surprised that you are spitting out this old tired bullshit that you you have been taught, Bob 'the prophet'.

raw_thought wrote:Food, clothing, transportation.... are labor intensive. Fabrege eggs, caviar....are less so. The minumum wage increases employment.more then welfare for the rich.

Arising_uk wrote:Stop shouting you loon it adds nothing to your point. I use 125 font bold for legibility, and if you don't like it, that's too fucking bad!

bobevenson wrote:The U.S. does have a minimum wage, but the people who want to increase it have absolutely no knowledge of economics. Labor is just like any other commodity or service. If the price goes up, there is a tendency to buy less of it or find a substitute at lower cost. ...

But this is my point, what do you think could be substitute for a job that qualifies as a minimum wage job?
If you have to pay a higher minimum wage for everybody, then you won't hire somebody who's worth less, and will probably fire those who are already your employees.

If labor cost goes up, employers will hire fewer people, and restrict their hiring to people who are the most dependable and the most productive at the new minimum wage. ...

Er!? You're saying employers employ undependable and unproductive people? Yes, and compensate that by paying a lower wage!

This results in people who were hired at a lower minimum wage to be out of a job. Labor economics is so basic and logical that it is really hard to believe there is any controversy at all about the subject.[/b][/size]

bobevenson wrote: I use 125 font bold for legibility, and if you don't like it, that's too fucking bad!

bobevenson wrote:If you have to pay a higher minimum wage for everybody, then you won't hire somebody who's worth less, and will probably fire those who are already your employees.

Yes, and compensate that by paying a lower wage!

Look, what you're saying is senseless. It's like saying that in some countries 1+1=3.

bobevenson wrote:Why do I keep playing your little ring-around-the-rosie game? Oh, I know, it must be because deep inside, I'm the world's No. 1 masochist!

bobevenson wrote:Why do I keep playing your little ring-around-the-rosie game? Oh, I know, it must be because deep inside, I'm the world's No. 1 masochist! Well, to alleviate the pain that I apparently relish, I'll go over things again. If an employer has to pay an employee $20.00 per hour, he obviously will not hire somebody who's only worth $10.00 per hour. Of course, that's common sense, which apparently is something you have in short supply since you refuse to accept the logical conclusion. So what is the employer going to do? He can expand the duties of other employees who are worth $20.00 per hour, he can possibly eliminate some jobs, he can make employees work longer and harder, or he can try to figure out other ways to get the job done. But I guarantee you he's not going to pay employees more than they're worth. That road only leads to bankruptcy.

Dalek Prime wrote: And who is worth only $10 an hour Bob?

bobevenson wrote:Why do I keep playing your little ring-around-the-rosie game? Oh, I know, it must be because deep inside, I'm the world's No. 1 masochist! Well, to alleviate the pain that I apparently relish, I'll go over things again. If an employer has to pay an employee $20.00 per hour, he obviously will not hire somebody who's only worth $10.00 per hour. Of course, that's common sense, which apparently is something you have in short supply since you refuse to accept the logical conclusion. So what is the employer going to do? He can expand the duties of other employees who are worth $20.00 per hour, he can possibly eliminate some jobs, he can make employees work longer and harder, or he can try to figure out other ways to get the job done. But I guarantee you he's not going to pay employees more than they're worth. That road only leads to bankruptcy.

David Handeye wrote:... The downside of welfare policy.

Arising_uk wrote:

David Handeye wrote:... The downside of welfare policy.

But the unions have nothing to do with welfare policy?