No.
who go to FrouFrou.
Better.
And I’m not. According to the ‘free’ (which it’s not, of course) market my dad ‘deserved’ to be fired from his job when he got sick. My family ‘deserved’ to never have health insurance. The market is not free, and wages are not some sort of celestially-balanced determination.
Totally missed the point. All these factors apply in urban areas and to jobs that are not high-paying. How can you get a job across town if you don’t have a car and your city lacks public transportation? Language skills, as you say, ‘increase the value of ones labor’, but I can regale you with stories to the contrary.
[/quote]
This seems arrogant. Who are you to know what’s best? If a job deserved higher wages than it would pay higher wages. Do you think you know better than the market? What’s your background that enables you to make such judgements? Are you some kind of labor expert or a scholar who has studied these issues?
[/quote]
When on earth did I claim I had a solution? It’s arrogant to say that there are low-paying jobs that cannot be picked up in the course of a day? In all seriousness, you’re making it really tough to have a discussion when your bias inserts all these ideas into the arguments of others.
One - your idea of a ‘free’ market is an illusion.
Two - you have given this illusion a sort of omniscience; the market will do what is fair, earned and right. Yet there are millions of examples of good, hard-workng people that have gotten the short end of the stick.
Three - Therefore, why is the inviolability of an abstract more important than the day-to-day lives of actual people?
aurelian: What is your alternative? If the market forces are unfair to your dad and so many other people, what would be more fair? How can we make it so that no one gets the short end of the stick, as you say?
You seem to be comparing our existing system to some sort of theoretical perfection that just does not exist. Humans are fallible, imperfect and corrupt. What we should do is pick the system that best harnesses our imperfect abilities to get the most done. That way, ultimately, all the real actual people benefit from the system.
I don’t know; I study Spanish, not economics. 
I believe that our current system, even if it were the best of all currently available options, should still be open to reinterpretation and change. That is, that if you believe (as I understand it, apologies if I misread you) that a free (totally free?) market would be the best solution for everyone, and that our free-ish market is the best option currently available. To that then, not being an economist, I would add that you (and everyone) be open-minded enough to see the failings of our current system. I wish I had an answer.
But don’t you see the inherent contradiction in that position? If a free market is the best possible choice, what is a free market with alterations except one of the choices compared to which the free market is better?
I’m not sure I understand that (rather convoluted sentence, no?). Are there any truly free markets that exist today? I’m under the assumption that there aren’t, so if Debaser (since I was trying to paraphrase him) thinks that a totally free market is the ideal, the closest he can get to that ideal is the ‘free-ish’ market, that has some restrictions and government involvement.
In any case, I don’t believe that totally free market would be a good idea at all; based on my experience, I have no reason to believe that companies and corporations will do what is in my best interest.
[QUOTE=aurelian]
I’m not sure I understand that (rather convoluted sentence, no?).[\QUOTE]Rather convoluted sentence Yes!
It was in response to this from you:I believe that our current system, even if it were the best of all currently available options, should still be open to reinterpretation and change.
What I understood you to say was that even if our current system were the best of all possible choices it should still be open to changes. Perhaps I have misunderstood you. Perhaps your use of current choices and reinterpretation was meant to convey the idea that even if our current system were the best possible choice now, it should be open to change later if the world changes or new choices are discovered. In which case I can agree entirely.
That’s probably another debate. But I can agree with this sentiment.
But the free market does not suggest that corporations will act in your best interest. That’s the beauty of it. It suggests that they will act in their own best interests, you will act in yours, and neither of you will have the right to force the other to act against thier own best interests. That is corporations (and individuals) acting in their own best interests, and with only your agreement to allow them to interact with you, will naturally seek some accomodation between their interests and yours. Its the free part that makes it work. And the part that makes it difficult to achieve. 
Since I fear I’ve already hijacked this thread with the ‘free market’ questions, I started a new one here.
It’s bad when “as little as they can get away with paying” becomes $1/hour or some unreasonably low amount. That’s what the minimum-wage cures, without interfering in the ability of highly-trained or specialized workers to command higher salaries. It’s win-win. Minimum-wage laws do not prevent things from working the way they “should” work; they merely prevent employers from taking unfair advantage of those at the bottom of the totem-pole.
We’re obviously not going to settle this. There’s a very fundamental difference of philosophy here. Everyone has opportunity in theory, but in reality those who are born into a disadvantaged situation are much less likely to climb out of it. Some people don’t have the luxury of going to school because they have to work full-time at a minimum-wage job to support their family. And the lower the minimum wage is, the less their chances become of ever going to school.
Trying to live off minimum-wage is already pretty bad. Does it really need to be worse? I just find your position to be utterly callous. “Hey, you have to work full time for shit wages and don’t have the opportunity to better yourself - are you motivated yet?” Maybe we could whip them too - that would really be motivating.
I don’t see that at all. Not all businesses are successful, but that doesn’t prove that the minimum-wage is messing up the economy. What do you want, a 100% guarantee that your business will be solvent?
What’s wrong with that? I abhor the “every man for himself” mentality that many of you Libertarians seem to espouse. Part of the function of a society is to help those who can’t help themselves. I want to live in a society where I’m free from someone hitting me over the head and taking all my stuff just because he’s bigger than me. That’s why we have societies. Yes, I want the weak to be protected. I disagree with your labeling that as “emotional” and dismissing it.
You KNOW I didn’t say that. Please stop with the strawman arguments.
Strawman.
That’s just Libertarian dogma. It’s not true. We’ve never had 100% employment. In the real world, there are always more people in need of work than there are jobs, so businesses do not necessarily have to raise wages, because there won’t be a shortage of workers. The market does NOT take care of that.
That’s nothing but a bald assertion. I think it’s absolutely false.
O.K., if you’re not saying we must either lift all workers out of poverty, or we can’t have a minimum-wage law at all, then what do you mean by:
I mean, it makes no sense. Who says the MW law lifts all workers out of poverty?
I didn’t say we’d become a 3rd world country, but I do believe that certain businesses would pay extremely low wages if they could get away with it. The evidence abounds: Look at all the companies that are outsourcing their customer service to other countries that pay their workers extremely low wages. Do you think for a second that if they could get American workers for the same price, and not have to pay to route phone calls to India or wherever, that they wouldn’t? If you think the “market” would just magically keep this from happening, I severely disagree.
You’re a liar. Show me exactly where I said this.
Nope. Very unreasonable.
Sigh. We were having an interesting debate until you just started lying.
Sigh. You really want to drag this out, huh?
My argument: If [abolish minimum-wage] then [sweatshop conditions]
YOUR argument: If [ENACT minimum-wage] then [NO sweatshop conditions] and [end all poverty].
You have incorrectly argued that the CONVERSE of my antecedent implies the CONVERSE of my conclusion. That’s invalid. Not only that, but you added another completely different conclusion as well.
Um, I did that. You’re just not getting it.
There might be, but believe me, you don’t want to live in them. :eek:
That much is clear. 
We live in a society with more wealth, opportunity, and freedom than has ever existed in the history of the world. (In the USA, IMHO.) If this isn’t good enough for you I don’t know what would be. It always strikes me as odd how many people are so willing to whine about the lack of opportunities in our society. As I pointed out to another poster, it’s as if some like to hold things up to a perfect ideal for comparison. If you actually compare our society to other real options that are out there, both past and present, I think you’d find that there isn’t so much to complain about.
It’s not callous. I want what’s best for everyone, just like you do. We just have different ideas about how to do it.
Oh, and what’s up with the whip people idea? C’mon, lets try and not degenerate into foolish strawmen.
It’s funny that you keep pointing out (wrongly) logical fallacies of mine, and meanwhile you post stuff like this. How does a 100% guarantee about business solvency have anything to do with this discussion? This is a strawman.
It’s good you are at least aware that your position is grounded in emotion, not logic. I thought you would at least attempt to deny this.
Who says they don’t want the weak protected from thieves? This is the third strawman in this post. I don’t know if you are deliberately trying to be ironic by using all these silly strawmen, but please cut it out.
Obviously I don’t want to live in a society where someone bigger than you can hit you over the head. :rolleyes:
You pointed out (in all capital letters) that “We NEED people to do the minimum-wage jobs; they’re just as important as the high-paying jobs.”
If you admit that we’d still have people to do them without a minimum wage, then why point this out at all? If this is just a futher justification of your emotional argument that you feel bad for poor people, then fine. However, that’s not the way it sounded to me. You were claiming that I’m naive about economics because of the NEED for MW workers. I understandably responded that the market will take care of this need and asked if you really think that there wouldn’t be anyone to flip burgers without MW laws.
You see, just because I ask you a question, doesn’t make me guilty of setting up stawmen. It seemed like that was what you were saying, but it’s a bit crazy, so I asked you if that was what you meant so that we could be clear. All you need to do is answer. Crying strawman is really a rather weak way of handling it.
Whoa. You’ve really given yourself away here. If you are in denial about my simple statement above it’s clear that you have no fundamental understanding about how economics works.
So what? I haven’t said there has been. No system is perfect.
Yes, it does. Your statement that there is always more people in need of work than there are jobs is simply false. The tech boom of the 90’s had a huge demand for high tech jobs that hadn’t existed previously. A huge amount of workers needed to be trained for job skills that were new to the market. As a result of this lack of supply, the demand for workers produced salaries that were very high. This attracted workers to the new fields and now we’ve got cubicles filled with highly skilled techies.
It’s completely impossible to prove. It’s theoretical. You point out that its just an assertion like that’s a bad thing.
That’s nothing but a bald assertion.
Kimstu seems to:
“can we find a balance point for a legally mandated “wage floor” that is neither so low that it keeps workers in grinding poverty, nor so high that it makes low-wage employment economically unfeasible?”
even sven does:
“Of course we can legislate away poverty! It’s basically our only only hope in the matter.”
That’s just from the first quarter page of this thread.
You don’t just disagree. You severely disagree. Hmm. It’s still just another bald assertion.
If you can’t understand what makes American workers get higher wages than Indian workers, then I can’t help you. Actually, I don’t know why I’m surprised by this. It’s clear you have no understanding of the most basic concepts of economics.
sigh
I spelled this out in the bottom of post #104. It’s not a lie, it’s a question. I specifically ask for you to tell me where I’m going wrong.
It is reasonable for me to equate “all sweatshops” and all “starvation wages” to “global poverty”. However, since that obviously wasn’t what you mean, I’ve backed off on it. It’s odd how you keep insisting that I’m putting words in your mouth, when clearly I’m not.
No, that’s not what happened at all.
I specifically stated that “If your opinion were correct, then could all third world countries that have sweatshops and starvation wages simply end this practice by creating a minimum wage?”
To which you responded “No, you can’t just create a minimum wage; you have to enforce it as well.”
I didn’t make the argument that If [ENACT minimum-wage] then [NO sweatshop conditions]. I asked you if this is what you believed and you said yes. I didn’t make it up. It’s right there in your post. I’ve quoted it now three times. Actually, to be exact, it’s more like: If [ENACT and ENFORCE minimum-wage] then [NO sweatshop conditions].
You could retract, or say that you misunderstood me or something, but you haven’t. You seem to be denying that you said it at all which is odd since we can all read your posts.
The and [end all poverty] part was rewording of your statement by me that was reasonable, but has since been corrected by you.
Why does that make a difference? Are you positing that decisions rooted in emotion are somehow less sophisticated than those based in rationality?
Oh yay, it’s Kohlberg again. :rolleyes:
Except that this is simply not true. Not according to the numbers, anyway. Those born into the highest income groups are, certainly, more likely to staty there, but only slightly more likely than those born into the lowest income groups are to move up a notch or 2. The fact is that most people who work hard are reasonably frugal succeed economically.
That was really long, Debaser. I’m gonna try to pare this down.
Aha!!! But this great society we have that your are touting is the one WITH a minimum-wage. YOU are the one advocating not having a minimum wage. YOU are the one who would change the status quo, were it politically expedient. So the question flies right back in your face: Why are you whining about our society? Why isn’t it good enough for you? It’s good enough for me; YOU are the one who doesn’t think it’s good enough.
It’s only a little hyperbole. I mean, obviously I didn’t literally mean that people should be whipped. It’s sarcasm.
Well, as you once said, you need to do more than just say the name of a fallacy off a website. You need to state your case as to why it’s a strawman.
You said:
You haven’t proved that MW is the cause of small business failures, yet you cite small business failures as being proof that MW is bad for the economy. If you’re not saying that you want 100% small business solvency, then what are you saying?
No it’s not. I didn’t SAY you don’t want the weak protected from theives. I said I DO want them protected. And, in my opinion, the philosophy that you espouse is not conducive to that. If it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth, I apologize.
And YOU said, “without the MW laws we would have no one to flip burgers?”
Do you really think those two are the same? Seriously? Give me a break, here.
But I didn’t SAY there wouldn’t be anyone to flip burgers. How many times do I have to tell you that? I don’t believe I ever made the argument that you are naive to think that people would be willing to work for a lower MW. I’m quite sure they would be willing to do so; in fact, that’s the crux of my argument. I think you misconstrued what I said.
Is that why you keep doing it?
No, YOU’VE given YOURSELF away. You haven’t provided a scintilla of evidence to prove that “The market takes care of such things.” I’ll agree that it’s a simple statement, but it’s not true just because you say so.
That’s not a valid argument.
You have to read the whole paragraph. I didn’t say you said there was 100% employment. I pointed it out as part of the argument I was making. Sheesh.
Apples and oranges. I’m not talking about high-tech jobs, and you know it. I’ve pointed that out several times. You’re not keeping up with the argument.
You must be new to Great Debates. Bald assertions don’t fly here.
Don’t be a parrot.
I’m sorry, am I Kimstu or even sven?
You don’t just disagree. You severely disagree. Hmm. It’s still just another bald assertion.
That bogus argument isn’t going to get more valid by sheer repetition.
You were wrong at the bottom of post #104.
No, the lie was when you said I implied something that I never implied. This occured in a later post of yours.
I will say this one more time, and I pray that this will end:
"If A, then B" does NOT imply "If not A, then not B"
Please stop using this illogical argument.
False. Besides which, I don’t believe I used the word “all” in my argument.
Another lie. I did not say “yes”. Please stop misconstruing what I say. It’s really getting annoying now.
I think I see where you’re going astray, though. I did NOT say “Enacting MW will end all sweatshop conditions”. I did say you have to enforce the MW, but I STILL did not ever say that would “end all sweatshop conditions”.
You are MISreading my posts. Please stop.
No, it was not reasonable.
Sorry, I wasn’t able to pare this down much at all.
Actually, I thought of an analogy that might drive home the mistake you’re making, Debaser. Imagine we’re discussing engine repair.
Fictional Blowero: If your carburetor fails, your car won’t run.
Fictional Debaser: So you’re saying that replacing the carburetor will fix ANY car that doesn’t run?
Blowero: No, I’m not saying that. You’d also have to check the fuel pump and plug wires.
Debaser: Aha! You clearly implied that replacing the carburetor and checking the fuel pump and plug wires will fix ALL cars that don’t run.
See, Fictional Blowero didn’t say he was giving an exhaustive list of things that would be guaranteed to fix all cars in the universe. He was only correcting the incorrect statement that Fictional Debaser made. If you can extrapolate the analogy to this debate, you’ll see where you went wrong.
Your example would be helpful for someone who was having trouble understanding the fallacy in question. I am having no such trouble. I understand the fallacy perfectly.
The problem is that you did agree with my statement. You didn’t literally use the word “yes”, true. You said “no” in response to my phrasing of the question in the negative:
(here it is again)
Debaser:
If your opinion were correct, then could all third world countries that have sweatshops and starvation wages simply end this practice by creating a minimum wage? Obviously they would not.
Blowero:
No, you can’t just create a minimum wage; you have to enforce it as well.
[/quote]
By saying “no” here, you are agreeing with the question in bold (although you are adding the modifier that the MW must be enforced as well). I think anybody who would read that would agree with me.
I’m not a victim of a logical fallacy. I’m was pointing out what you seemed to be agreeing with. It’s really not that complicated. Instead of calling me a liar and getting upset, you could just clear this up by saying that you misspoke or didn’t mean it.
I’ll respond to the rest of your other post in a bit.
You’re wrong. I’m sorry you misinterpreted my statement, but that’s not what I said, and I don’t think anybody who would read it would agree with you. If you still think that’s what I said, I’m telling you NOW that it’s not. So please stop acting as though it is. I consider this matter finished now.
Oops, not quite finished, because I noticed one more thing that I think is the reason you misinterpreted what I said.
When I said “no”, I meant “No, it wouldn’t end all poverty”, rather than “No, I disagree with you.” Hope that clears it up for you.
False. You want to change the status quo, not me. My position is that we should leave the MW right where it is. Eventually we will grow out of it, we don’t need to get rid of it.
I know you’re just being silly here, but I’ll respond anyway: It’s clear that I’m not whining and you are. You were complaining about how tough it is for some people to succeed in our society and bemoaning how unfair it is. I’m the one who has a positive outlook about how great our system is.
I’ll respond to this quickly: I have not said I want 100% small business solvency. I haven’t hinted that that would be a reasonable goal. I haven’t said anything remotely like it. I don’t know why you are repeatedly trying to get that phrase into my mouth.
Apology accepted.
It seemed to be what you were saying. I asked you to clarify, and you have. That’s it. You should spend less time attacking me for such things. I honestly do not mean ill will by it.
Here is my statement that you disagreed with again: **If the supply of workers dropped because of low wages, then the employers demand for them would result in higher wages. The market takes care of such things. **
Any economics professor in the country would agree with this. We’ll just have to drop it at a disagreement, because I don’t have the time or skills to explain economics to you.
I knew no such thing. Perhaps you should be more clear when you type. Our conversation has touched on subjects larger than simply MW workers. You stated “In the real world, there are always more people in need of work than there are jobs, so businesses do not necessarily have to raise wages, because there won’t be a shortage of workers. The market does NOT take care of that.”
This statement was false. It is still false. My tech worker example blows it out of the water. If you want to revise it to something that is true, then go ahead. But, don’t take it out on me that your statement isn’t true. It’s not my fault, you said it.
I’ve got a good point and you know it. It’s silly to point out every time a person makes a bald assertion. Everybody does it in their posts.
No, you are not. You asked “Who says the MW law lifts all workers out of poverty?” I gave you an answer.
I’ve been ignoring this because things got a little heated and I don’t want that. However, I would appreciate it if you stopped calling me a liar. I consider this an insult. It’s not true.
I think I managed to par it down a little bit!
Yes, I know.
I’m not still focusing on this because I want to clear it up. We both know what your position is. I’m not still focusing on this because I want to try and force you into some position that you don’t really agree with. I did feel that I had to keep focusing on it because you are attacking me regarding it and accusing me of:
A.) using a logical fallacy which I have not
and
B.) being a liar.
I keep explaining how I interpreted your statement to clear up A and B above, not for any other reason.