Since no one reads 49:

Hunt

Quote :

"For those proponents of minimum wage, why do you favor it over an EITC?"

7/13/2009 6:08:30 PM

Quote :

"Either way, it means that businesses are going to be able buy less labor with the same amount of money"

Yeah, its a good thing a part of my argument had nothing about getting extra money coming in from the increased money they are paying out in wages.

7/13/2009 6:41:00 PM

Quote :

"yes, the powerful camp counselor and fast food unions. do you live in an Ayn Rand book? "

It's worth noting that almost no fast food jobs actually start at minimum wage (or they didn't when it was $5.15, I haven't looked recently).

Quote :

"Yeah, its a good thing a part of my argument had nothing about getting extra money coming in from the increased money they are paying out in wages. "

But at the same time, they will lose money in that the costs of the goods and services they purchase go up as well. In fact, I would wager that one of the reasons we don't see more drastic effects from minimum wage hikes is due to the fact that so much of the cheap crap that makes up the bottom part of our consumer culture is made in countries where the wages are significantly lower than here.

7/13/2009 7:05:43 PM

Quote :

"It's worth noting that almost no fast food jobs actually start at minimum wage"

Well that depends on if you speak English or not

7/13/2009 7:38:33 PM

Quote :

"Folks feel more wealthy, thus spending more, thus creating more money velocity, creating more profits for companies, so that they can pay more to their workers?"

No new wealth has been created, thus this is simply reallocation. In the long run, the higher costs would be passed on to consumers, so you are essentially reallocating wealth from consumers to the smaller number of employees who benefit.

7/13/2009 7:59:50 PM

Quote :

"It's worth noting that almost no fast food jobs actually start at minimum wage "

they do in rural areas.

7/13/2009 9:20:00 PM

Quote :

"But at the same time, they will lose money in that the costs of the goods and services they purchase go up as well. "

Nope, the same extra money put in the pockets of so many minimum wagers will cycle back into all producers as they have more disposable income, their profit margins stay the same, no need to raise prices.

I think it's laughable as hell that you guys keep clinging to these arguments you know with absolutely certainty to be true even though Shadowrunner has ended this discussion. Hunt begrudgingly admitted the debate is still raging yet quickly fell back into econ 101 and challenged TSB to delve into some long treatise on why "the classic argument against minimum wage" as if it has gone beyond theory into practice.

Quote :

" No new wealth has been created, thus this is simply reallocation. In the long run, the higher costs would be passed on to consumers, so you are essentially reallocating wealth from consumers to the smaller number of employees who benefit."

How is new wealth not created? You're doing what Lonesnark has been doing for years, treating every economic idea that crosses TSB as some single variable event, slapping your narrow view of what you learned in undergrad on what the "classic" response is to whatever topic du jour is, and then sitting back and smiling like you just won another econ argument when the rest of the crowd, that isn't half as interested in it doesn't care to follow you down your logical rabbit hole.

I'll ask you again, why are you so steadfast on this argument when Shadowrunner already absolutely won the thread by saying the jury is still out? Are you that pigheaded?

7/13/2009 10:54:35 PM

Quote :

"I'll ask you again, why are you so steadfast on this argument when Shadowrunner already absolutely won the thread by saying the jury is still out?"

In case you missed it on pg 1, I acknowledged Shadowrunner's empirical evidence, noting it's questionability. However, even if we are to give equal weight to both sides of the argument, how is that at all in favor of a minimum wage over an EITC? You, and others, continue to be steadfast on your argument for mimimum wage without ever providing tenable arguments against it outside of "how dare you use basic, econ 101 concepts."

I will pose the question again: Assuming we are entirely uncertain how distoritionary minimum wage laws are, why on earth do we favor it over other, less-distortionary means that achieve the same ends? Why are you, and others, so in love with minimum wage that you do not wish to even acknowledge an EITC?

[Edited on July 14, 2009 at 6:44 AM. Reason : ,]

7/14/2009 6:41:40 AM

Quote :

"thus spending more, thus creating more money velocity"

Quote :

"No new wealth has been created, thus this is simply reallocation. In the long run, the higher costs would be passed on to consumers, so you are essentially reallocating wealth from consumers to the smaller number of employees who benefit. "

The money velocity bit does hold a lot of value but contrary to the poster's idea there is better ways of increasing money velocity
which i think is more important to maintaining wealth than the mere physical "who has the money"

7/14/2009 8:31:45 AM

Quote :

"Nope, the same extra money put in the pockets of so many minimum wagers will cycle back into all producers as they have more disposable income, their profit margins stay the same, no need to raise prices"

As the cost of production of goods increases at the beginning of the supply chain, cost of retail of goods and services will increase.

7/14/2009 9:06:51 AM

^ not in liberal hippie fantasyland

7/14/2009 9:10:48 AM

The only people making minimum wage in this country are Wal-Mart employees and food-service staff. Even the immigrant maids at the Days Inn make $9 an hour.

7/14/2009 9:31:36 AM

Im not sure if someone has brought this up but it should be. And even if this is from getrichslowly.org im still posting it.

Quote :

"While 2.2% of all hourly workers earn minimum wage or less, just 1.4% of workers over the age of 25 are paid at or below the Federal minimum wage. More than half (51.2%) of minimum wage workers are between 16 and 24 years old. Another 21.2% are between 25 and 34."

http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/10/09/who-earns-the-minimum-wage/

so right now we are talking about 2.2% of the work force in America making the minimum.

7/14/2009 9:44:10 AM

As it has been said before, many Labor Unions base their wages as a multiplier of the minimum wage, so you are giving these people raises too and increasing the cost of the work they do. It is not only the people that earn minimum wage, but the people who are paid based on the minimum wage rate.

This is a cause-effect argument. People can debate for years and years which is the cause and the effect.

Many people think inflation is the necessity for a minimum wage hike, while others think minimum wage hikes cause inflation (among other things). I would align myself in the latter category. Until we can figure out a way to make the dollar stronger and more valuable, this will remain a cause-effect argument with no true winner.

7/14/2009 9:49:32 AM

i'm not sure how a labor union choosing to base their wages on a multiple of the minimum makes a higher minimum the bad guy

i mean

pretty sure the union could easily adjust its figure to compensate in the interest of sustainability

WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PAY OUR EMPLOYEES THREE TIMES THE NUMBER LEGISLATED

it just don't cut ice

7/14/2009 9:58:05 AM

Quote :

"adjust its figure to compensate in the interest of sustainability"

Google General Motors

7/14/2009 10:02:28 AM

Quote :

"Why are you, and others, so in love with minimum wage that you do not wish to even acknowledge an EITC?"

You need to take my name out of this. The only thing I am steadfast on is how hilarious it is that you think you're an economist.

7/14/2009 10:05:08 AM

businesses that make dumb decisions deserve to fail, etc.

7/14/2009 10:05:35 AM

so is this a union issue or an increased unemployment issue?

because if only 1.4 percent of people over 25 make minimum wage then increasing minimum wage should only increase unemployment but a fraction of a percent if that.

7/14/2009 12:38:13 PM

Quote :

"Nope, the same extra money put in the pockets of so many minimum wagers will cycle back into all producers as they have more disposable income, their profit margins stay the same, no need to raise prices."

This assumes that all workers making minimum wage will continue to be employed, and that they will continue to work the same number of hours, and that they will consume more of your product, which is a pretty significant assumption.

Let's say you have a business, and you have 10 employees working at $6 / hour each working 30 hours/week

So this costs you $1,800 per week (ignoring the taxes you have to pay).

Congress comes along and says you have to pay your workers $7 / hour now. For everyone to keep their job and hours your costs are now $2,100 / week again, again ignoring your taxes (which just went up too).

That's 1 less employee that you could have hired, plus an additional 15 hours that you could have distributed around. Or that's a cut of almost 5 hours from each employee. So each employee makes $1 more per hour but they lost $30 / week in the hours cut to meet your budget, and so they come out making $5 less per week than they made before the minimum wage increase.

[Edited on July 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM. Reason : asdf]

[Edited on July 14, 2009 at 1:43 PM. Reason : zxcv]

7/14/2009 1:40:32 PM

Can I just say that if 300 dollars is going to make or break your little business than your business is on the edge of tanking regardless.

7/14/2009 2:00:20 PM

Hmm...take a $5/week paycut while working 5 hours less...

7/14/2009 2:01:35 PM

^^^i don't think i follow your math.

if a manager has some fixed employee pay budget, how would the employees be losing money per week after a pay raise with no change in the size of the work force even if they had lost hours?

7/14/2009 2:10:31 PM

I think what he was getting at was that it would take $1200 a month more to get the same amount of work done.

7/14/2009 2:57:58 PM

that's not how i read it:

Quote :

"and so they come out making $5 less per week than they made before the minimum wage increase."

that's just not true unless he's making some other assumptions.

7/14/2009 3:00:27 PM

i don't think that (^*6) made any sense once I try to decode it, other than the same amount of work costs more, or you get less production for the money. bottom line is that it hurts the business by getting less work done for the same money (given that employee output remains the same), so they [the business owners] have to raise prices to cover their expenditures and maintain the same production. This, in turn, raises the cost of living --> inflation.

the worker wont be hurt except by the cost of living, unless the boss decides their job isn't worth the minimum wage (i.e. non-critical). Those that do get to keep their jobs will actually see more $$$ in their checks, but everything will cost more.

[Edited on July 14, 2009 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

7/14/2009 3:21:25 PM

Quote :

"Nope, the same extra money put in the pockets of so many minimum wagers will cycle back into all producers as they have more disposable income, their profit margins stay the same, no need to raise prices."

The vast majority of producers do not pay minimum wage. Also, a large chunk of the retail price does not go to paying wages, but to rents of various kinds (land owners, capital owners, franchise owners, etc). As such, imagine a locally owned fast food joint catering to the poor in detroit and paying minimum wage. When you jack up the minimum wage, it pays out (let us say) an extra $100 to its employees. Those employees may eat out more, or they may spend every penny buying a fat car stereo from China, but let us assume they spend every penny eating out more and they only eat at their employer. Well, the government took 10% as income tax, so their employer has $90 more revenue, but as with all businesses, most of that new revenue is going to go towards costs: sales taxes to the state, the ingredients to make the food was not free, neither was the energy used to cook the food, it was produced in factories elsewhere that do not pay minimum wage. As such, even in this absurdly optimistic example, of the $100 cost imposed on the employer, he recouped $20.

Which means, in a competitive fast food market, a higher minimum wage is going to drive some employer somewhere to do one of two things they would not have otherwise done: shutdown the business for lack of profitability, or shift production along the capital/labor productivity space.

And as Shadowrunner himself pointed out, the only studies showing a possitive association have their detractors, which I found very compelling. The papers in question only had the employment data from franchises in the target areas, no data from unaffiliated mom&pop food joints. The suggestion is that franchises tend to be more capital and organizational intensive in order to minimize labor usage, compared to their unaffiliated competitors. As such, when the price for labor was artificially increased, franchises were able to use the advantage to run their independent competitors out of business, taking the fast food market all to themselves. As such, employment certainly did increase at the regions McDonalds, Burger Kings etc, the only businesses reporting, but those increases were likely dwarfed by the losses at the regions bankrupted BBQ pits, which were not reporting.

Quote :

"It doesn't amaze me, it amuses me. I don't deny that minimum wage increases unemployment. What I deny is the implication that we would be better off without the minimum wage. Economic theory is one thing, but realities of politics and public policy are another. All I'm saying is that arguing against the minimum wage by saying it hurts workers is a political smoke screen."

You do not mind increasing unemployment as long as most workers are helped? You recognize that you are canibalizing the minority so that a larger minority can eat slightly better? Sure, they will not starve, we are a very charitable society, but what about their right to feel some worth? Making it illegal to employ them is a devastating blow to them as human beings, making them entirely beholden to the nation's charity workers. That just seems immoral to me, but I guess your sense of justice does not include the least employable among us.

7/14/2009 4:10:32 PM

Quote :

"Congress comes along and says you have to pay your workers $7 / hour now. For everyone to keep their job and hours your costs are now $2,100 / week again, again ignoring your taxes (which just went up too). "

you are assuming that your labor requirements are flexible and prices are inelastic.
While this could make the difference of hiring one more runner to carry the hamburgers from the grill to the cashier
for say an manufacturing operation with discrete segments of operation you may already be on a 'barebones' crew
and can not run production if you were to lose a worker. In this case assuming the company has a big enough profit cushion
or growth opportunity the cost will be eaten from say the Senior Vice President's yacht club membership paid by through his bonus.

I'm not arguing for the new $7.25 min wage but your logic is flawed and oversimplified.

Really what it comes down to is that certain industries and certain regions of our country will be impacted significantly at the bottom line while others will not so as much.

-For say the fast food or landscapping industry this may mean job cuts.

-For say a sub-contracting with a high volume of business; this may mean squeezing more output or motivating a change in procedure to be more efficient to maximize output/(labor $).

-While for say specialized industrial company or say a jointly own LLP lawyer firm where they need the janitor lady to clean the office the owners may just eat the cost if they are competing in a highly competitive market.

7/14/2009 5:23:59 PM

^ Oh absolutely some businesses will be able to eat the costs (of course, all costs are passed on to the customer in the end) but as you point out, others wont without either reducing their employee count, the hours for the employees or implementing a hiring freeze. Also, to the point of the janitor lady, a lot of businesses contract that out, so while the lawyer can surely afford the extra money, it really won't come out of his pay because he just pays his contract rate. The janitorial company on the other hand, will have to pay, and though I can't speak from experience, I imagine they are closer to the fast food end of the employer type rather than the law firm end.

But yes, it was a simplified example, but people seem to have this idea that businesses hire by the body count, not by the numbers and that's just not true. Yes, body count matters, but if the costs of hiring more bodies goes up, the business will either raise prices to compensate, or make do with less bodies, either way imposing more on the very people the wage hike is trying to help.

Quote :

"Can I just say that if 300 dollars is going to make or break your little business than your business is on the edge of tanking regardless."

$300 / week is 15K/year. Now that may not be a lot for some businesses, but I imagine there are quite a few small businesses out there where 15k isn't petty cash either.

Quote :

"if a manager has some fixed employee pay budget, how would the employees be losing money per week after a pay raise with no change in the size of the work force even if they had lost hours?"

If the business has 10 employees at $6/hr 30hrs/week you get a weekly cost of 6*30*10 or $1800. Each employee takes home (before taxes) $180/week.

If the business has a fixed budget to pay their employees, and wants to keep every employee at $7 to keep the same hours, that's $2100 a week. In order to keep all of their employees, the have to cut hours.

At 25 hours / week that comes in at $1750/week ($1820 if it gets bumped to 26 hours, which I imagine the business could scrounge up)

At 25 hours, they would each take home $175 / week, or $5 less than they made before the wage hike and 5 less hours of work. If the business keeps them at 26 hours / week they make an additional $2 more than they made before the wage hike, but lose 4 hours of work each week

7/14/2009 5:56:41 PM

so they lose money because you've fashioned a rounding error that works in your argument's favor? got it. there's nothing saying that hours worked has to be a whole number. here's the straight math:

average min wage employee weekly pay = (mw employee budget)/(number of min wage employees)

if the number of employees doesn't change and the weekly mw budget doesn't change, how again will the average mw wage employee's wage change?

[Edited on July 14, 2009 at 6:05 PM. Reason : .]

7/14/2009 6:05:06 PM

^^ Your parameters and constraints aren't all that realistic. The majority of the stores in the mall don't have 10 people working 30 hours a week... that is pretty large staffing for a "small business."

In any case, the historical statistics don't bare out a plummeting or even noticeable reduction in low-wage unemployment that would be attributable to a rise in the minimum wage.

You could spend all day concocting a multitude of contrived scenarios to show one point, or another, but there is not evidence i've seen that past raises in minimum wage did anything except increase the wages of the few minimum wage workers.

7/14/2009 6:15:45 PM

Because most of the time employers don't hire you for 25.7 hours a week. They usually hire you for blocks that are either on the hour or on the half hour. But even assuming they did work them 25.7 hours a week and thus each employee took home the exact same before tax pay, what the hell was the point of raising the minimum wage? So that they can each get .86 more hours each day to work their second job who will also cut their hours? If we're trying to raise the standard of living, increasing costs substantially relative to the increase in benefits is not the way to do it.

7/14/2009 6:19:27 PM

that's not how i think it works in the first place. i was just saying that your math in the first post is dubious.

most likely the minimum wage people are there to do a specific job and that job will need to get done regardless of the cost (which is often minimal compared to other costs of the business). so likely the hours won't change much at all.

7/14/2009 6:22:06 PM

just curious, what classical economic element is at work when there is a minimum wage and yet the unemployment rate is <5% as it was until last year.

7/14/2009 7:02:46 PM

Quote :

"In any case, the historical statistics don't bare out a plummeting or even noticeable reduction in low-wage unemployment that would be attributable to a rise in the minimum wage."

This is just the tip of the iceburg as far as research on this subject, but perhaps the following from economists David Neumark of the University of California–Irvine, Mark Schweitzer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, and Will­iam Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board will suffice:

http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/workpaper/1999/Wp9919.pdf

On a related note, part of their findings seem to vindicate 1337 b4k4:

Quote :

"Although wages of low-wage workers increase, their hours and employment decline, and the combined effect of these changes is a decline in earned income."

7/14/2009 8:54:24 PM

so what percentage of those affected aren't supported by someone else (like teenagers)?

7/14/2009 11:14:25 PM

Quote :

"just curious, what classical economic element is at work when there is a minimum wage and yet the unemployment rate is <5% as it was until last year."

Minimum wage only affects occupations where the equilibrium wage is below the minimum wage, thus the national unemployment rate is too broad a measure since most occupations pay well above minimum wage. The 14-16% unemployment rate among teenagers during this time (24% now; 38% for black teens) is somewhat more accurate, but still doesn't paint the whole picture given many full-time, adult workers are often forced into part-time jobs.

This was the point of the cartoon on pg 1:



[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 7:09 AM. Reason : .]

7/15/2009 7:04:44 AM

More data on the economic effects of minimum wage (and similar wage policies tried during the New Deal)

http://blogsandwikis.bentley.edu/themoneyillusion/?p=48

7/17/2009 7:15:01 AM

I dunno if I would call an economic professor's blog "data".

7/17/2009 8:33:59 AM

^ That's why you actually read the blog to find the data I am referring to.

7/17/2009 8:52:50 AM

How do you think I divined the blogger's identity?

7/17/2009 9:37:18 AM

Quote :

"This is just the tip of the iceburg as far as research on this subject, but perhaps the following from economists David Neumark of the University of California–Irvine, Mark Schweitzer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, and Will­iam Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board will suffice: http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/workpaper/1999/Wp9919.pdf"

That is a very interesting study actually, and I think their reasoning is sound. Except, they didn't indicate whether they compensated for inflation, but their data was from 1979-1997. They also used their own method from a previous study that calculated a decrease in wages after about a year, and applied this method to the current data to determine the lagging effect. And most critically, they didn't do the calculations for non-wage workers, and they didn't explain why workers making wages that were 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 times the minimum wage also went down. To me, this would represent a flaw in their choice of data or algorithm if ALL the workers are making less money. How can they attribute the decrease solely to minimum wage? THere are other factors in the economy, which I didn't see them address in any meaningful way.

I would have also liked to see them apply their methodology to known values, and show a comparison of how accurate it is.

I was intrigued though how they matched CPS data. It seems that the CPS doesn't inherently contain unique identification, and they had to infer this. I think the process was valid, and it would have been interesting to see their results.



^^^^ That's a weak sauce argument. Let's take a look at industrial output (per capita) why don't we?


min wage was raised in 1945, 50, 68, 89, and 1997. In most of those cases except for 1997, it was in response to a slow economy, and in none of those cases was the trend of industrial output diminished, which means those workers after the minimum wage increases were making real amounts of money more than their predecessors (but <5% of wage earners even make near minimum wage).

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 11:23 AM. Reason : ]

7/17/2009 11:09:27 AM

Quote :

" Except, they didn't indicate whether they compensated for inflation, but their data was from 1979-1997. "

This is almost always a given. It would not have made it to the Fed's website if such an elementary mistake were made.

Quote :

"They also used their own method from a previous study that calculated a decrease in wages after about a year, and applied this method to the current data to determine the lagging effect. "

Can you expand on this? I don’t see how it is a problem.

Quote :

" And most critically, they didn't do the calculations for non-wage workers, and they didn't explain why workers making wages that were 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 times the minimum wage also went down. To me, this would represent a flaw in their choice of data or algorithm if ALL the workers are making less money. How can they attribute the decrease solely to minimum wage? "

They touch on this:

“However, it seems inappropriate to assume a priori that higher-wage workers are not affected by minimum wage increases; supply shifts or relative demand shifts could affect these workers, even though their wages are not directly affected by minimum wage laws. Nonetheless, in most of the results we report below, the effects of minimum wages in the upper cell of the wage distribution we use (6-8 times the minimum) are relatively small, so the estimates for low-wage workers to a large extent mirror what we would obtain if outcomes were defined relative to this cell.16”
(16: We verified this empirically; results are available upon request)”

Quote :

" THere are other factors in the economy, which I didn't see them address in any meaningful way. "

Any economic study will have noise that is impossible to parse out. In the above study, they use dummy variables in their regression to control for outside effects.

Quote :

"min wage was raised in 1945, 50, 68, 89, and 1997. In most of those cases except for 1997, it was in response to a slow economy, and in none of those cases was the trend of industrial output diminished, which means those workers after the minimum wage increases were making real amounts of money more than their predecessors (but <5% of wage earners even make near minimum wage). "

Most of the wage hikes in the IP data professor Sumner cited were hikes in overall wages, not just those at the minimum. The effects, however, are what you would expect for any increase in minimum wage where the wage is above equilibrium. Hikes in the minimum wage will not always have noticeable effects on IP given the vast majority of wages in occupational labor markets are above the minimum wage.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 1:04 PM. Reason : ,]

7/17/2009 1:03:39 PM

Unemployment doesn't have to go up when we raise the minimum wage.

The employer could just cut his pay to pay his employees more.

And I understand there are plenty of small business owners who can't afford to do this.

But if I meet one more rich kid in a luxury car who tells me his dad owns and operates a string of fucking dry cleaners, I swear to goodness I'm gonna have to murder somebody. These small business owners seem to have plenty of money when they buy their kids the douchiest fineries...but mention raising the minimum wage and all of the sudden they're fucking broke. And I wouldn't care if they had done something valuable, but they usually haven't. They inherit some money, buy a dry cleaner, hire some employees and pay them nothing (and we're supposed to thank them for creating jobs), and then they sit on the profits until they get enough to buy another. There's nothing about this practice that says, "WOW! You should be rewarded with a half a million dollar home and a boat!" For some reason though, they're still walking around in half million dollar homes with boats out front, claiming they can't afford to raise the wages of their employees.

But you guys point to the bizarre hobby shop owner who is truly broke and try to act like all small business owners are failing.

And you should have to do more than just employ people to get your dick sucked by the government. We don't just need jobs. We need good jobs with good pay.

7/17/2009 1:35:59 PM

7/17/2009 1:56:34 PM

god bless ruben bolling



lucky ducky should read atlas shrugged

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 2:31 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2009 2:29:56 PM

Quote :

"The employer could just cut his pay to pay his employees more...These small business owners seem to have plenty of money when they buy their kids the douchiest fineries...but mention raising the minimum wage and all of the sudden they're fucking broke."

Bridget, it has nothing to do with them. Sure, if we raise the gasoline tax, you can afford to pay the higher price. An extra fourty dollars a year is not going to bankrupt you, you can just spend less at the store or stop saving so much. However, when the price of gasoline goes up all of us are going to act differently. Maybe not today, maybe not next week, but over time everyone responds to higher prices, and we probably have no idea we are doing it.

The same goes for employers. Of course the vast majority of them can afford it, and very few of them will believe they are changing their behavior because of the higher minimum wage. But they will act differently, even if they do not understand how.

While I'm sure some firm somewhere will be driven out of business by higher labor costs, that is not the main mechanism by which the market responds to small price signals. When it is a subtle change, it is the growth system that changes the business mix, not concious planning on the part of business owners. For example, you own a McDonalds and I own a Smithfield BBQ. You have a larger franchise which invests heavily in capital and organizational intensive practices, I just employ more workers (labor intensive). Both of us want growing business, such as building a second joint, but as with the vast majority of all business expansion, we must self finance. Well, when the price of labor increases I will accumulate finance just a little slower than I otherwise would have, so you will open your second McDonalds faster than I will my second Smithfield. As this process continues over time, with neither you nor me not anyone else understanding how, the restaurant industry will have shifted to be, on average, more capital and organizationally intensive, employing fewer workers. It was not greed on anyones part, but the invisible hand of the market, punishing with unemployment those that (through no fault of their own) overpriced their labor.

7/17/2009 5:14:51 PM

Quote :

"lucky ducky should read atlas shrugged"

The cartoon guy is claiming the poor don't use many gov't services. OK. But what about direct welfare?

Is it moral to forcibly take money, the fruit of a man's labor, away from him and give it to someone else who didn't earn it..based on the justification that the recepient is poor?

Maybe the cartoon guy can draw something up addressing that.

7/17/2009 10:37:15 PM

Quote :

"Is it moral to forcibly take money, the fruit of a man's labor, away from him and give it to someone else who didn't earn it..based on the justification that the recepient is poor?"

In my opinion, Yes. What is unjustified is the other 90% of the money that is forcibly taken to give to rich people.

[Edited on July 17, 2009 at 11:33 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/17/2009 11:33:36 PM

7/17/2009 11:44:27 PM