Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OK, how about $30/hr?
Lowering taxes to 0% would spur the economy. But it would mean there would be money to pay for things that gov't needs to do.
You can (and it has been done) calculate the optimum level of overall taxation--more will decrease production to you get less tax revenue, less will lessen tax revenue without any benefit. And it's been done. Not that anyone in Washington is listening of course.
So why don't you share with us your similar analysis for wages?
$30 is clearly not as absurd as $50, but I still say it's too high. I live on the opposite coast, but around here I'd say $12-15 is number I could live with. And you're right about my analogy, what I was actually thinking about was the argument the lowering taxes increases tax revenue (clearly got my wires crossed on that one). The truth is sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't and there are too many factors to consistently predict which way it will go. As far as the minimum wage goes, we're at an impasse right out of the gate since you don't believe in the concept at all, whereas I do. So to see you making arguments haggling over the level strikes me as a tad disingenuous. No offense.
A number you could live with? Why? You like the pretty shapes?
For a single mom with 4 kids at home, it isn't nearly enough. For a 16yr old getting his first job, it is way too much.
You just threw an arbitrary number out there with no thought whatsoever. That is the gist of my argument with you. there is no rational reason, if you subscribe to the idea gov't should be mandating a min wage, why that wage shouldn't be $50/hr or 30 or even 100. "It seems to high" is not an argument. There are plenty of people who do in fact make 100/hr. Or more.
You'll need to be more persuasive than "I like the pretty numbers".
$30 is clearly not as absurd as $50, but I still say it's too high. I live on the opposite coast, but around here I'd say $12-15 is number I could live with. And you're right about my analogy, what I was actually thinking about was the argument the lowering taxes increases tax revenue (clearly got my wires crossed on that one). The truth is sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't and there are too many factors to consistently predict which way it will go. As far as the minimum wage goes, we're at an impasse right out of the gate since you don't believe in the concept at all, whereas I do. So to see you making arguments haggling over the level strikes me as a tad disingenuous. No offense.
A number you could live with? Why? You like the pretty shapes?
For a single mom with 4 kids at home, it isn't nearly enough. For a 16yr old getting his first job, it is way too much.
You just threw an arbitrary number out there with no thought whatsoever. That is the gist of my argument with you. there is no rational reason, if you subscribe to the idea gov't should be mandating a min wage, why that wage shouldn't be $50/hr or 30 or even 100. "It seems to high" is not an argument. There are plenty of people who do in fact make 100/hr. Or more.
You'll need to be more persuasive than "I like the pretty numbers".
Repeating an appeal to absurdity argument over and over doesn't make it any less absurd.
Like I said, you don't even believe in a minimum wage at all, and that is certainly your prerogative. But if you think your $100/hr argument is actually helping to make your case, you're fooling yourself. It just makes you look stupid.
A number you could live with? Why? You like the pretty shapes?
For a single mom with 4 kids at home, it isn't nearly enough. For a 16yr old getting his first job, it is way too much.
You just threw an arbitrary number out there with no thought whatsoever. That is the gist of my argument with you. there is no rational reason, if you subscribe to the idea gov't should be mandating a min wage, why that wage shouldn't be $50/hr or 30 or even 100. "It seems to high" is not an argument. There are plenty of people who do in fact make 100/hr. Or more.
You'll need to be more persuasive than "I like the pretty numbers".
Repeating an appeal to absurdity argument over and over doesn't make it any less absurd.
Like I said, you don't even believe in a minimum wage at all, and that is certainly your prerogative. But if you think your $100/hr argument is actually helping to make your case, you're fooling yourself. It just makes you look stupid.
Youhave failed to explain why $50/hr or 30/hr or even 15/hr is a reasonable level. Your argument seems to be "that seems right to me."
Since you obviously don't employ min wage workers, nor depend on companies that do, it isn't really your call.
This is what hacks me about libs. They are completely unable to put forth a reasonable argument. And when called on it resort to name calling and other school yard tactics.
Because that would be too high.
So who decides what is too high? And why is it too high? don't you want everyone to become millionaries?
In this case, the voters. And $50/hr is too high because it fails the reasonable person test. That whole argument is an appeal to absurdity fallacy. Just like arguing that if lower taxes improve the economy, then why not 0%.
Can Rabbi explain how being against higher min wages creates more jobs?
Not increasing the minimum wage doesn't create more jobs. It prevents us from losing jobs that already exist. It's called common sense. You increase the cost of something and less people can purchase it.
Artificially increasing the cost of labor decreases the amount of labor that will be purchased.
Letting the market dictate prices will increase people working. Market forces can determine what the minimum wage is much better than the government can. It also prevents government from inflating the currency. Which is the real problem.
I think you already know this and are just going to pretend as though nothing I said matters. Feel free.
Heres the thing. If a business is successful they will hire people. If not, they wont.
We've let the market dictate for decades and now we're here. How long does it take to come to the conclusion that the market has its finger on the scale?
Just like the Katy Texas football stadium, it's a local matter decided by a vote.
Pretty amusing the different reactions from some of the same players.
Not increasing the minimum wage doesn't create more jobs. It prevents us from losing jobs that already exist. It's called common sense. You increase the cost of something and less people can purchase it.
Artificially increasing the cost of labor decreases the amount of labor that will be purchased.
Letting the market dictate prices will increase people working. Market forces can determine what the minimum wage is much better than the government can. It also prevents government from inflating the currency. Which is the real problem.
I think you already know this and are just going to pretend as though nothing I said matters. Feel free.
You are forgetting that those that receive the higher income now have more disposable income which does create more jobs. Henry Ford increased the pay of his workers and ended up selling more vehicles because the rising tide of incomes created more affluence.
If the pay of everyone making under $70k pa was increased by $10/hr that would result in a booming economy within a year. Corporations would take it as tax deductions because it is an expense and individuals would have an additional $2k pa in their paychecks. Since it is conservative dogma to state that individuals know better how to spend their money than government does the 130 million people with that extra $2k are going to put it to good use.
The math works, the conservative principles are sound and while the corporations and shareholders might see an initial dip but it will be more than offset by the subsequent benefits that come from a booming economy.
Ford increased wages to attract workers from machine shops. They didnt want to work in factory conditions, which were difficult and dehumanizing. Once Ford shut down the machine shops, he lowered everyone's wages.
"Tax deduction" does not equal free. Just saying.
The math does not work. The only way companies could continue to earn profit would be by raising their prices, wiping out any gains to wage earners.
Oops.
The sillyness of throwing your own statement under the bus and then claiming to stand beside it nothwithstanding,
I think we both agree that predicting an officially recorded unemployment rate of 70% is absurd, so I won't try to hold you to that. But surely some of the adverse impact would have to show up on recorded unemployment statistics. Right now it's 6%, two years ago it was 11.9%. Where do you see it twelve months from now?
Repeating an appeal to absurdity argument over and over doesn't make it any less absurd.
Like I said, you don't even believe in a minimum wage at all, and that is certainly your prerogative. But if you think your $100/hr argument is actually helping to make your case, you're fooling yourself. It just makes you look stupid.
Youhave failed to explain why $50/hr or 30/hr or even 15/hr is a reasonable level. Your argument seems to be "that seems right to me."
Since you obviously don't employ min wage workers, nor depend on companies that do, it isn't really your call.
This is what hacks me about libs. They are completely unable to put forth a reasonable argument. And when called on it resort to name calling and other school yard tactics.
In other words, you actually cannot construct a reasoned argument against minimum wage laws that doesn't require an appeal to absurdity.
That's pretty much what I've been saying all along yo.
In other words, you actually cannot construct a reasoned argument against minimum wage laws that doesn't require an appeal to absurdity.
That's pretty much what I've been saying all along yo.
You are forgetting that those that receive the higher income now have more disposable income which does create more jobs. Henry Ford increased the pay of his workers and ended up selling more vehicles because the rising tide of incomes created more affluence.
If the pay of everyone making under $70k pa was increased by $10/hr that would result in a booming economy within a year. Corporations would take it as tax deductions because it is an expense and individuals would have an additional $2k pa in their paychecks. Since it is conservative dogma to state that individuals know better how to spend their money than government does the 130 million people with that extra $2k are going to put it to good use.
The math works, the conservative principles are sound and while the corporations and shareholders might see an initial dip but it will be more than offset by the subsequent benefits that come from a booming economy.
Ford increased wages to attract workers from machine shops. They didnt want to work in factory conditions, which were difficult and dehumanizing. Once Ford shut down the machine shops, he lowered everyone's wages.
"Tax deduction" does not equal free. Just saying.
The math does not work. The only way companies could continue to earn profit would be by raising their prices, wiping out any gains to wage earners.
Oops.
History says otherwise.
[MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]
The government imposes many regulations on business that drive up costs, and it's always debatable whether the overall benefits of the regulation outweigh the increased costs of doing business. If you believe there is never any benefit to a minimum wage at any level, and therefore it's never a good idea, then just say so. And maybe we can explore that idea.
But repeating the $50/hr argument over and over serves only to convince me that you're not actually interested in an open discussion about your alleged ideals.
[MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]
The government imposes many regulations on business that drive up costs, and it's always debatable whether the overall benefits of the regulation outweigh the increased costs of doing business. If you believe there is never any benefit to a minimum wage at any level, and therefore it's never a good idea, then just say so. And maybe we can explore that idea.
But repeating the $50/hr argument over and over serves only to convince me that you're not actually interested in an open discussion about your alleged ideals.
The more and more I think about, the more I think we should require certain education milestones before we allow someone to vote. If nothing else, we should require Intro to Macro & Microeconomics.
[MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]
The government imposes many regulations on business that drive up costs, and it's always debatable whether the overall benefits of the regulation outweigh the increased costs of doing business. If you believe there is never any benefit to a minimum wage at any level, and therefore it's never a good idea, then just say so. And maybe we can explore that idea.
But repeating the $50/hr argument over and over serves only to convince me that you're not actually interested in an open discussion about your alleged ideals.
I am concerned with your argument that $50 is too much but 12 or 15 (which is it, btw?) is just right. Why don't we start with you explaining why that is the right level for a min wage and then we can go on to my argument why we dont need one at all.
[MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]
The government imposes many regulations on business that drive up costs, and it's always debatable whether the overall benefits of the regulation outweigh the increased costs of doing business. If you believe there is never any benefit to a minimum wage at any level, and therefore it's never a good idea, then just say so. And maybe we can explore that idea.
But repeating the $50/hr argument over and over serves only to convince me that you're not actually interested in an open discussion about your alleged ideals.
The fact that you want to just dismiss the argument tells me you can't actually argue it. Why is $15/hr alright and $50/hr not? That's easy. One you can sell emotionally the other you can't.
The rational between both is the same though. Both are going to have the same consequences IE Artificially raising labor costs, increasing unemployment, and inflating the currency. The only difference is in degrees.
[MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]
The government imposes many regulations on business that drive up costs, and it's always debatable whether the overall benefits of the regulation outweigh the increased costs of doing business. If you believe there is never any benefit to a minimum wage at any level, and therefore it's never a good idea, then just say so. And maybe we can explore that idea.
But repeating the $50/hr argument over and over serves only to convince me that you're not actually interested in an open discussion about your alleged ideals.
The fact that you want to just dismiss the argument tells me you can't actually argue it. Why is $15/hr alright and $50/hr not? That's easy. One you can sell emotionally the other you can't.
The rational between both is the same though. Both are going to have the same consequences IE Artificially raising labor costs, increasing unemployment, and inflating the currency. The only difference is in degrees.
[MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]
The government imposes many regulations on business that drive up costs, and it's always debatable whether the overall benefits of the regulation outweigh the increased costs of doing business. If you believe there is never any benefit to a minimum wage at any level, and therefore it's never a good idea, then just say so. And maybe we can explore that idea.
But repeating the $50/hr argument over and over serves only to convince me that you're not actually interested in an open discussion about your alleged ideals.
I am concerned with your argument that $50 is too much but 12 or 15 (which is it, btw?) is just right. Why don't we start with you explaining why that is the right level for a min wage and then we can go on to my argument why we dont need one at all.
"need" is a strong word.
But regardless, I'm more interested in why you think we'd be better off without one at any level. I don't see any point in haggling over the level until we've dealt with that. So in the interests of moving this debate along, I hereby rescind my previous comment and say that a level of $3/hour seems like a reasonable floor. An hour of man's time should certainly be worth at least that much, right?
