Child-like reasoning.  To claim that "if minimum wage is fundamentally sound we should be able to increase it without fear of hurting the economy" is completely asinine.  It's the minimum wage, it only sets a baseline which enables employees to have a humane living standard, it isn't in any way intended to make everyone rich. ' Free'-marketeers would have everyone trapped in indentured servitude, where human beings exist only as cattle for employers, drifting between work and sleep until they died._________________ 

juniper wrote:

you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds.  it's in einstein's formulas.  it's not their fault. 

Child-like reasoning.  To claim that "if minimum wage is fundamentally sound we should be able to increase it without fear of hurting the economy" is completely asinine.  It's the minimum wage, it only sets a baseline which enables employees to have a humane living standard, it isn't in any way intended to make everyone rich. ' Free'-marketeers would have everyone trapped in indentured servitude, where human beings exist only as cattle for employers, drifting between work and sleep until they died. 

I don't see a LOT of difference between the model you describe and the model in place using the minimum wage.  Please elaborate._________________ 

Child-like reasoning.  To claim that "if minimum wage is fundamentally sound we should be able to increase it without fear of hurting the economy" is completely asinine.  It's the minimum wage, it only sets a baseline which enables employees to have a humane living standard, it isn't in any way intended to make everyone rich. ' Free'-marketeers would have everyone trapped in indentured servitude, where human beings exist only as cattle for employers, drifting between work and sleep until they died. 

Why isn't anyone enclosing aidanjt's posts in "religious_zealot" tags?  If I can't say something uncontroversial like "I think the benefits of the free market are self-evident" without being called a religious zealot, then I don't see how aidanjt gets away with these rants (and there are many, many examples) without the religious zealot police doing anything about it.  Is it that people are willing to overlook zealotry when it comes from their own side?_________________Your argument is invalid. 

I haven't watched the video.  In the youtube description, he argues that some people simply aren't hired at all because of minimum wage laws, and therefore don't gain the skills and training needed to acquire better-than-minimum-wage jobs.  Sounds like a reasonable point to me._________________Your argument is invalid. 

Why isn't anyone enclosing aidanjt's posts in "religious_zealot" tags?  If I can't say something uncontroversial like "I think the benefits of the free market are self-evident" without being called a religious zealot, then I don't see how aidanjt gets away with these rants (and there are many, many examples) without the religious zealot police doing anything about it.  Is it that people are willing to overlook zealotry when it comes from their own side? 

I didn't use ideological dogma which conflicts with the real world.  On the contrary, I dispelled it._________________ 

juniper wrote:

you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds.  it's in einstein's formulas.  it's not their fault. 

I don't see a LOT of difference between the model you describe and the model in place using the minimum wage.  Please elaborate. 

You can't tell the difference between gainful employment and indentured servitude? 

aidanjt wrote:

where human beings exist only as cattle for employers, drifting between work and sleep until they died. 

This sounds like most of the work I have done, above minimum wage even. 

It was mostly meant as a comedic commentary about business. 

Sure when you make distinct labels about "gainful employment" versus "indentured servitude" I know the classically defined differences.  My tongue in cheek comment was to illustrate that at the end of the day we don't tend to feel they are all that different. 

The only truly significant difference I feel there REALLY is (and it's a huge one) in these modern times is that you don't HAVE to go to your minimum wage job and no one will come after you.  If you are an indentured servant they will come looking for you.  Other than that, the master remains the same if you want to eat, IMO. 

Well, without a gubment to pick up the slack anyway . . . ( but that's another conversation and an entirely huge landslide of other threads)_________________

Why isn't anyone enclosing aidanjt's posts in "religious_zealot" tags?  If I can't say something uncontroversial like "I think the benefits of the free market are self-evident" without being called a religious zealot, then I don't see how aidanjt gets away with these rants (and there are many, many examples) without the religious zealot police doing anything about it.  Is it that people are willing to overlook zealotry when it comes from their own side? 

I think it is evident in human nature that a knee-jerking reaction, and the resulting hate-filled labeling, is only applied to things deemed "foreign" no matter what the origin of the thinker is.  Overcoming such a tendency is admirable, but rare. 

So of course ideas that seem reasonable to you are comfortable, but those same ideas that are "foreign" to others will cause discomfort and labeling.  Yet, when another third party states something that is "foreign" and unpleasant to you it might sit very well with the same "labelers" and so they let it be un-labeled even though you feel it should be labeled. 

There is no fair, and most people are horribly inconsistent.  Some reading that is somewhat related is "the myth of asymmetric thought."_________________ 

Why isn't anyone enclosing aidanjt's posts in "religious_zealot" tags?  If I can't say something uncontroversial like "I think the benefits of the free market are self-evident" without being called a religious zealot, then I don't see how aidanjt gets away with these rants (and there are many, many examples) without the religious zealot police doing anything about it.  Is it that people are willing to overlook zealotry when it comes from their own side? 

because history has already shown that a 'free market' can not exist and whenever you let capitalist run free without supervision it ends in catastrophes._________________Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males

Why aren't all the pro choice people opposed to minimum wage laws?  If we take them at their literal word (my body my choice), shouldn't you also have the choice to accept a wage below some arbitrary level set by politicians?_________________Your argument is invalid. 

Why aren't all the pro choice people opposed to minimum wage laws?  If we take them at their literal word (my body my choice), shouldn't you also have the choice to accept a wage below some arbitrary level set by politicians? 

the law is targeting people who want to accept a below minimum wage job; it is targeting employers who want to employ people for below minimum wage.  subtle diff.  if the feds were to go after someone in such a case, they almost certainly will after the employer. 

like a good free market economist, you have to think of all the effects of having a minimum wage constraint.  some jobs will be wiped out, some jobs will have their wage raised and most will be unaffected.  the video is right that it will raise the price of goods produced at minimum wage. 

Why isn't anyone enclosing aidanjt's posts in "religious_zealot" tags?  If I can't say something uncontroversial like "I think the benefits of the free market are self-evident" without being called a religious zealot, then I don't see how aidanjt gets away with these rants (and there are many, many examples) without the religious zealot police doing anything about it.  Is it that people are willing to overlook zealotry when it comes from their own side? 

because history has already shown that a 'free market' can not exist and whenever you let capitalist run free without supervision it ends in catastrophes. 

energyman76b, using your logic for why the "free market" can not exist we can easily rule out almost every model currently in use.  Thanks for playing!_________________ 

Game theory postulates that both parties seek stronger position, the "optimal judo move" if you will.  If the sane price for mowing a lawn is say 10 dollars, and the guy doing it demands 200, he is at loss, obviously. 

On the other hand, if he has no protection whatsoever, the development would go as follows:

Tom: "I'll mow your lawn for 10 bucks"
The Guy: "10 bucks?  Timmy can do it for 5!" 
Timmy: "awesomeee, move over Tom, you entitelment priviledged commie sissy". 
...
Timmy: "5 bucks, usual rate"
The Guy: "5 bucks?  Pedro can do it for 2 and he'll wash my car as well". 
Pedro looks at Timmy: "Whats up puto!  Jajajaja"
...
Pedro: "2 bucks señor, and I wax your SUV"
The Guy: "2 bucks was last year.  Nowadays I have this gps/solar powered/wireless gizmo that cuts the grass, and at the same time checks for weed, soil composition and humidity and uploads everything to my cell phone, so that I can check status whenever I want.  Made in China too"
Pedro: "oh cmon Sir, I have wife and kid I need a job"
The Guy: "not my problem, evolve". 
...
Timmy realizes that the only way to survive in darwinian capitalism scheme is to become The Guy, which is why he becomes a stock broker and rips it out, regardless of consequences.  Pedro, sadly, cannot do that in his lifetime. 
...
Pedro: "Gimme your wallet, puto!" 
Timmy: "..."
The Guy: "... monkeys"

Until Timmy gets is that he is not The Guy either, cos The Guy is not getting robbed.  He can afford blackwater security.  Question is, what will little Timmy do? 

Firing employees making historical minimum wage would result in shuttering of the business, so firing them would be firing yourself as well.  History also shows that is, at best, rare.  Certainly a restauranteur could choose to shut down and start shlepping truckfood without cooks and waitstaff, etc.. Fine.  But it isn't the same as the original job, and likely earns less money. 

If you raise minimum wage to just below brain surgeon level, then the earning power of a brain surgeon will drop because so few people will be able to pay for their services.  It seems very unlikely peers earning the New Brain Surgeon wage will be sufficient to pay for each others services.  So while raising minimum wage to that level would be a Bad Thing, it would be very different than the Truth(TM) portrayed in the video. 

Free market = win, win, win.  Wow.  People can't truly believe lowly workers will improve their current status if that were the case.  Wonderful, you've gained experience, which earns you a higher wage.  Until you're deemed too expensive and let go. 

Elements of truth are not the same as truth.  This seems much more like a historical event given the Hollywood treatment.  It may make for good entertainment, but it certainly isn't an accurate representation of history._________________The whole system has to go.  The modern criminal justice system is incompatible with Neuroscience.  --Sapolsky

the law is targeting people who want to accept a below minimum wage job; it is targeting employers who want to employ people for below minimum wage.  subtle diff.  if the feds were to go after someone in such a case, they almost certainly will after the employer. 

Yes, but the effective result is the same: legislated unemployment. 

Quote:

like a good free market economist, you have to think of all the effects of having a minimum wage constraint.  some jobs will be wiped out, some jobs will have their wage raised and most will be unaffected.  the video is right that it will raise the price of goods produced at minimum wage. 

That's right.  The irony is that if you think about the kind of people likely to have their jobs wiped out, it is the same group of people the law is supposed to assist.  It's one of these policies that effects everyone equally in principle but in practice harms a specific group._________________Your argument is invalid. 

That's right.  The irony is that if you think about the kind of people likely to have their jobs wiped out, it is the same group of people the law is supposed to assist.  It's one of these policies that effects everyone equally in principle but in practice harms a specific group. 

I think the intended beneficiaries are those who got their wages bumped up.  A smart govt would run adequate training programs for people who don't have skills to get a job above the minimum wage line.  But with minimum wage where it is, how many people are priced out of the market?  I suspect very few.  But the real value is that it prevents large employers who have the labour market cornered in some areas from driving down wages to the ground. 

but you have to admit, the video is a little silly.  No one is suggesting making the minimum wage that of a brain surgeon.  Currently, there is a pretty big gulf between minimum wage and brain surgeon wage. 

I think the intended beneficiaries are those who got their wages bumped up.  A smart govt would run adequate training programs for people who don't have skills to get a job above the minimum wage line.  But with minimum wage where it is, how many people are priced out of the market?  I suspect very few.  But the real value is that it prevents large employers who have the labour market cornered in some areas from driving down wages to the ground. 

I agree with what's in the video: the intended beneficiaries are low skilled workers.  Yes, some of them get a bump, but others get fired.  It doesn't seem right to not include the fired people among the intended beneficiaries.  How many are priced out?  I don't have the figure at hand, but I know the effect has been empirically validated many times.  I don't know quantitatively how large the effect is.  Employers who have the labor market cornered?  It's called monopsony.  As far as I know it's more of a theoretical concern than a real-world market phenomenon (meaning that most examples tend to be created by governments, not the market). 

Quote:

but you have to admit, the video is a little silly.  No one is suggesting making the minimum wage that of a brain surgeon.  Currently, there is a pretty big gulf between minimum wage and brain surgeon wage. 

I took it as an extreme example to make it easy to see the principles involved.  I didn't take it as a policy statement ("We object to raising the minimum wage to brain surgeon levels. ")._________________Your argument is invalid.