And that’s a completely political statement, one of belief that has nothing to do with actual economics. It’s just you saying all regulation is bad–since all regulations inherently “alter, by force, the behavior of one or both of the parties in the voluntary transaction.”
That’s just a libertarian position, and one that has been debunked by history itself many times. All you need is one example where regulation increased prosperity to show it to be false.
As for your other claim, all I know is that such claims were made about the minimum wage, and yet it has never been shown to be true. Regulations that increase how much people are paid do not inherently drive up the cost of living to match.
People keep talking about actual economics. Lets see it. I have presented a standard approach. You have not contradicted my claims. You have simply made assertions. I have even presented evidence that is not a “political statement”. Logical deductions are political statements in 21st century America, oh boy. I fear for the children.
If A and C choose B scenario over every single other possible scenario, including the regulation scenario, this demonstrates their preference for B scenario over regulation scenario. If you and your boys point a gun at A and C and demand they employ regulation scenario, you have lessened prosperity.
Yes, we are aware you are not able to tell the difference from political philosophizing and economics.
The assertion, however is not economics.
There is much literature around the minimum wage. It is not true it is ‘never shown to be true’. What is fair is to say that the impact of minimum wages on the low wage employment is not as simple as the simpler classic analyses had suggested.
this is empirical learning.
Actual economics do not give you a black and white answer to immediately assert on a message board to support automatically an extreme philosophy.
The actual economics answer based on the broad idea is as I have given in it.
The literature around the minimum wage and the observed empirical effects in different countries does give us confidence that the simplistic black-and-white assertion you insist on is very likely wrong for the US market at this time.
That is not the same thing as saying the regulation is good or not or if the long term effect may have some of the perverse side effects.
That is enough for now, as I already said I have seen the exchanges around the currency concept, it is not fruitful to go beyond this.
Anyone who thinks that low-wage workers have the same power as the employer in hiring “transactions” isn’t paying attention. They whole notion about voluntary associations falls apart when one party has more power and resources than the other.
Broomstick, of course the flat assertion about voluntariness is political philosophizing and it is not economics.
the proper approach to the question is not to make the axiomatic assumption but to study the trade offs. It is very clear already from the empirical studies that the trade offs between the regulation and the non regulation is not Black and White but a range.
Because FLSA only has to do with pay. It is illegal to pay an exempt employee less for a week in which he or she works fewer hours* - but it’s not illegal to require him to work a set schedule and fire him for not doing so. After paying the full salary for the week in which any work was done.
of course it is, it has merely tried to be a disguise of very strong political assertions, of the supposition of the preference and of the nature of the decision.
the proper economics does not assert these relationships as truths.
Remember in an employment arrangement the employer has made an offer to the employee that is better than any other offer anyone else in the world has made. This is demonstrated by the employee’s choice to work for the employer.
What empirical studies? You have not offered any. You also are afraid of answering my simple question because it blows up your naive nonsense. I will restate for the third time, but I feel like there is a language barrier going on here.
As you have admitted, it is plausible the regulation will lower base pay in certain conditions. In the event that these conditions are recognized, will the government cease in its enforcement of this regulation?
Ok. Reliance on empiricism is most certainly a political choice. Economics was never done that way until the rise of your particular flavor of ideology. Ill give you another chance.
Other questions you will not answer: Can empiricism prove that opportunity costs do not exist? Since economics cannot be done through logical deduction, how do we know that there aren’t situations in which there is no opportunity cost?
The preference is demonstrated by action. I made no comment on the nature of the decision. If we can agree that a decision was made, that’s all I need to know to understand that the employee and employer value scenario B in favor of regulation scenario.
If you had a student that empirically found that the sum of the internal angles of triangles was 181deg, would you question his measurement skills? What if every geometry student in the world recorded these results?
it has no relevance to the observation of Broomstick
You mean the body of economic literature around the cost-benefit analysis of the economic impact of regulation?
There is an enormous literature in the standard economics.
This is not new.
No I just do not see it as worth any time. I observed your ‘analyses’ and interactions around the issue of currency, and
Yes of course, you seem to mistake correcting your incorrect political assertions in place of economics for a positive statement about this regulation.
No… that is an exceedingly weird thing to assert.
Empiricism arose from the desire to bring an approach that was not philosophy and rather oriented to the scientific method to bring more rigor and improvement to knowledge building.
it is really the opposite of the political choice.
Economics has been empirical for many, many decades… and I have no idea what you think my “particular flavor of ideology” is.
the only parties rejecting empirical approach to economics are those coming from the extreme fringes - from the Marxist side and from the strange American “austrian” extreme right side. These are both principally philosiphical and political, not economics, and reside in 19c ideologies.
It is hard even to know how to treat such… philosophizing.
Well… since you write “all I need to know” then we can leave it at this point, since it is true, you have your political truths.
You mean you’ve never had the privilege of choosing between offers? I have. Not often, but it has happened occasionally. Frequently, what an employer was offering as “better than any other offer” had more to do with what that employer wanted than what I was seeking.
And no, the prospective employee does not always have a choice. There are several situations I can think of, but one of the most common is the requirement that someone on unemployment benefits must accept the first offer of employment made to them or lose their benefits - meaning take whatever you’re given or have all income cut off. Desperate people, people with their choice constrained - it all demonstrates that your assertion that this scenario is voluntary for both sides is a myth a non-negligible percentage of the time. As you go down the socioeconomic scale such scenarios become ever more common.
But, as Ramia points out, your stance has more to do with ideology than actual reality.
You are missing the point. I’m not speaking anecdotally. Your choice of your current employment situation over all possible offers and situations demonstrates that your current situation is better than the others in your subjective valuation.
I assumed the employer did not use physical violence or the threat of physical violence.
Otherwise, the employee always has a choice of being employed by the employer, or not.
You assume an entitlement to income. Talk about political statements.
Idk, seems to me Ramira is vying for the title of saying nothing in the most words possible so far. I’m holding out hope for the gal, though.
You are just full of assumptions. Where did I say anything about my CURRENT employment? Please, do try to read what I actually write.
Bullcrap. Coercion does not need to take the form of actual physical violence or the threat of it to be real. Quite an interesting world you live in, too bad it isn’t reality.
It’s quite clear to most people that “either accept offer of X or lose all income” is, in fact, a form of coercion. Unless, of course, you’re a wealthy exploiter who never has to worry about such things.
He worked more than 40. He just didn’t work 60. And, as I mentioned, most people didn’t really work after dinner, we just were there to be counted. There really wasn’t much for anyone to do.
When I announced my resignation, I started working 40 hours / week - and got more done than when I was working 60.
Anyhow, the amount of traffic on 880 between 4 - 7 pm shows that someone is quitting then - lots of someones.
Do you deny the possibility of implicit or explicit collusion between employers to keep salaries low - especially in the case of workers for commodity type jobs?
The new regulation, by the way, pretty much adjusts the old value for inflation. Are you opposed to the $23K value also? Any value? Would making everyone be managers and forcing overtime for no additional pay be okay with you?