So you fucking think fry cooks don't deserve a higher minimum wage?

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Ok, the US department of labor says that the studies they've reviewed indicate that increases to the minimum wage are not correlated with layoffs, so I was wrong about that. It also says that raising it is not in general bad for the economy. The idea that it may speed up inflation however is conspicuously absent from their list of common myths about the minimum wage

[Reginald Ret]

Ok, the US department of labor says that the studies they've reviewed indicate that increases to the minimum wage are not correlated with layoffs, so I was wrong about that. It also says that raising it is not in general bad for the economy. The idea that it may speed up inflation however is conspicuously absent from their list of common myths about the minimum wage

That is because it is completely retarded.

Allow me to explain:
Value of money is the total value of stuff divided by amount of money. (V_m=V_stuff/M_tot)
There are two ways to decrease it: lower the total value of stuff or increase the amount of money.
Neither is done by raising the minimum wage.

[Rev Thwack]

Ok, the US department of labor says that the studies they've reviewed indicate that increases to the minimum wage are not correlated with layoffs, so I was wrong about that. It also says that raising it is not in general bad for the economy. The idea that it may speed up inflation however is conspicuously absent from their list of common myths about the minimum wage

That is because it is completely retarded.

Allow me to explain:
Value of money is the total value of stuff divided by amount of money. (V_m=V_stuff/M_tot)
There are two ways to decrease it: lower the total value of stuff or increase the amount of money.
Neither is done by raising the minimum wage.

Well, raising the minimum wage does increase the value of stuff side of the equation, as labor is indeed considered to be stuff in our economy, and increasing the lowest amount paid for such stuff increases its value overall, but not to a point that has any real or lasting effect. Of course, inflation to a point is a good thing and something economists and the fed like to see... Lately it's been low, we'll have to see where it goes. In the end, there are way too many ways to correct for changes in inflation for that to be a meaningful argument against raising the minimum wage... That's like arguing against going out to dinner because your windshield will get dirty and make it hard to see through.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, the "service jobs aren't a career, therefore people working those jobs shouldn't expect to be able to survive on them" fallacy.

In 2008, more than three out of four jobs (77.2 percent) in the U.S. economy were in the service sector. By 2018, this dominance is expected to increase, with 78.8 percent of total employment being in the service sector.[6]

http://dpeaflcio.org/programs-publications/issue-fact-sheets/the-service-sector-projections-and-current-stats/

So more than 3 out of 4 Americans apparently have no business expecting to be able to pay bills with wages from full-time work? OK then.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ok, the US department of labor says that the studies they've reviewed indicate that increases to the minimum wage are not correlated with layoffs, so I was wrong about that. It also says that raising it is not in general bad for the economy. The idea that it may speed up inflation however is conspicuously absent from their list of common myths about the minimum wage

That is because it is completely retarded.

Allow me to explain:
Value of money is the total value of stuff divided by amount of money. (V_m=V_stuff/M_tot)
There are two ways to decrease it: lower the total value of stuff or increase the amount of money.
Neither is done by raising the minimum wage.

Well, raising the minimum wage does increase the value of stuff side of the equation, as labor is indeed considered to be stuff in our economy, and increasing the lowest amount paid for such stuff increases its value overall, but not to a point that has any real or lasting effect. Of course, inflation to a point is a good thing and something economists and the fed like to see... Lately it's been low, we'll have to see where it goes. In the end, there are way too many ways to correct for changes in inflation for that to be a meaningful argument against raising the minimum wage... That's like arguing against going out to dinner because your windshield will get dirty and make it hard to see through.

That's still not inflation.

[Demolition Squid]

The main thing I hate is the idea that there are jobs where it is okay to be paid next to nothing and be treated in a degrading fashion because 'it isn't a career'.

Guess what, jackwad, people have to do that work - or you won't get your 'meal', and it is never okay to treat people like they are worthless, regardless of how much value you place on their job.

I think a good part of this is misplaced aggression because there's a lot of people out there who feel like what they do 9-5 every day doesn't actually produce anything meaningful and they like to push other people down to make themselves feel better by comparison. 'Sure, all I accomplished today was to send a few dozen emails, but at least I'm not flipping burgers!'

[Reginald Ret]

Ok, the US department of labor says that the studies they've reviewed indicate that increases to the minimum wage are not correlated with layoffs, so I was wrong about that. It also says that raising it is not in general bad for the economy. The idea that it may speed up inflation however is conspicuously absent from their list of common myths about the minimum wage

That is because it is completely retarded.

Allow me to explain:
Value of money is the total value of stuff divided by amount of money. (V_m=V_stuff/M_tot)
There are two ways to decrease it: lower the total value of stuff or increase the amount of money.
Neither is done by raising the minimum wage.

Well, raising the minimum wage does increase the value of stuff side of the equation, as labor is indeed considered to be stuff in our economy, and increasing the lowest amount paid for such stuff increases its value overall, but not to a point that has any real or lasting effect. Of course, inflation to a point is a good thing and something economists and the fed like to see... Lately it's been low, we'll have to see where it goes. In the end, there are way too many ways to correct for changes in inflation for that to be a meaningful argument against raising the minimum wage... That's like arguing against going out to dinner because your windshield will get dirty and make it hard to see through.

That's still not inflation.

I assumed he meant amount instead of value, in that case it kinda makes sense in an Economist's sense.

But this shit here? That is the reason economists should be shot on graduation. Labour is what you do to increase the amount of stuff. The moment you start thinking labor is the same as stuff you start thinking that inefficiency is only good for complex (read: interesting) jobs, because in simple(read: boring) jobs the result of doing a simple job more efficiently means that the value won by getting more stuff is completely lost to the lost value of taking less hours to do the labour. While fun and interesting jobs are streamlined away because they benefit the most from reducing workhours.

Fukken economists. They should be drawn, quartered, hung from a tree, shot until they fall down, and run over by a Buick.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.

[Reginald Ret]

I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.

Economists lack the feedback required to make it a form of science.
They project and project but they never review.
They never even try to estimate the accuracy of their past projections.
And then, having bolstered their ego by ignoring reality, they project some more.
I stand by my point. Fuck 'em all with pointy sticks.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.

Economists lack the feedback required to make it a form of science.
They project and project but they never review.
They never even try to estimate the accuracy of their past projections.
And then, having bolstered their ego by ignoring reality, they project some more.
I stand by my point. Fuck 'em all with pointy sticks.

That seems... sweeping, shallow, and inaccurate. I don't have a tremendous amount of respect for the field of economics, particularly pop economics, but as an academic field it is still developing.

Can you cite some sources for those statements? If not, I'm going to just assume you're going through one of your all-hyperbole phases again and are (hopefully) temporarily incapable of contributing meaningfully to conversations.

[The Johnny]

Ok, the US department of labor says that the studies they've reviewed indicate that increases to the minimum wage are not correlated with layoffs, so I was wrong about that. It also says that raising it is not in general bad for the economy. The idea that it may speed up inflation however is conspicuously absent from their list of common myths about the minimum wage

There's a billion excuses to lay off people, one of them has been the machinization of production, which isnt necesarrily a matter of cost-efficiency most of the time, but rather to break the power of unions and make factory workers/employeees a malleable mass that can be subdued.

How many cases are there where a working hand is replaced with a bot that requires a huge investment and it also requires specialized maintenance by a specially trained engineer that ends up costing more than the original working hand?

But im sure you are pre-rich, so does it even matter?

[The Johnny]

I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.

Economists lack the feedback required to make it a form of science.
They project and project but they never review.
They never even try to estimate the accuracy of their past projections.
And then, having bolstered their ego by ignoring reality, they project some more.
I stand by my point. Fuck 'em all with pointy sticks.

That seems... sweeping, shallow, and inaccurate. I don't have a tremendous amount of respect for the field of economics, particularly pop economics, but as an academic field it is still developing.

Can you cite some sources for those statements? If not, I'm going to just assume you're going through one of your all-hyperbole phases again and are (hopefully) temporarily incapable of contributing meaningfully to conversations.

He mad, sis.

I'd only like to offer the distinction between the more vocally wrong economists, which are the ones that are paid or lobbied to hold such opinions, like most if not all of the think-tank assholes, and the good economists no one has heard of because the powers that be arent interested in promoting them.

[Reginald Ret]

I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.

Economists lack the feedback required to make it a form of science.
They project and project but they never review.
They never even try to estimate the accuracy of their past projections.
And then, having bolstered their ego by ignoring reality, they project some more.
I stand by my point. Fuck 'em all with pointy sticks.

That seems... sweeping, shallow, and inaccurate. I don't have a tremendous amount of respect for the field of economics, particularly pop economics, but as an academic field it is still developing.

Can you cite some sources for those statements? If not, I'm going to just assume you're going through one of your all-hyperbole phases again and are (hopefully) temporarily incapable of contributing meaningfully to conversations.

I'm reading up on economics just to prove you wrong.
As you can see, my initial statements lack foundation.
It is very likely that it is  one of my all-hyperbole phases (i like that phrase btw), but i will not rest until i have read more economics or have gotten distracted by something.
Well, except for now. now is bed time.

PS Your assumption would be well grounded, if I start making sense you will probably notice.

Other than that, I still think Carthage needs to be burned to the ground Economics sucks.

[Doktor Howl]

As soon as they raise the minumum wage the corporations will raise prices and/or lay people off in order to recoup the increased personnel expenses (unless it passes in conjunction with other laws specifically forbidding the corporations from doing that), quickly returning the overall levels of poverty and human misery back to where they were before. It is acceptable as a temporary stopgap fix but will likely be useless for effecting lasting change.

Historically-speaking, this has NEVER happened with an increase in the minimum wage.

You are a dumbfuck.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Ok, the US department of labor says that the studies they've reviewed indicate that increases to the minimum wage are not correlated with layoffs, so I was wrong about that. It also says that raising it is not in general bad for the economy. The idea that it may speed up inflation however is conspicuously absent from their list of common myths about the minimum wage

There's a billion excuses to lay off people, one of them has been the machinization of production, which isnt necesarrily a matter of cost-efficiency most of the time, but rather to break the power of unions and make factory workers/employeees a malleable mass that can be subdued.

How many cases are there where a working hand is replaced with a bot that requires a huge investment and it also requires specialized maintenance by a specially trained engineer that ends up costing more than the original working hand?

But im sure you are pre-rich, so does it even matter?

Wait, are you saying that raising the minimum wage will or won't lead to layoffs?

Also, mechanization is necessary for the eventual advent of a post-scarcity society. People get screwed over by it now, but that's because society hasn't caught up with the technology and the technology isn't yet quite to where it needs to be. It hurts people now, but in a rather short time on a historical timescale (still rather long subjectively though, as compared to a human lifespan, I'll admit) things will be better than they ever were. Eventually it will seem absurd to expect people to work because there will quite visibly be only a tiny handful of things that need doing. Change should hopefully cascade upwards once there's nobody left for managers to manage.

Also regardless of which side is winning the conflict between capitalists/management and workers/proletariat has the primary effect of screwing over the consumer. A plague on both their houses.