Quote from: Supposn on January 26, 2014, 07:23:23 PM
Consequences of eliminating the minimum wage

The consequence of eliminating the minimum wage is that then people not worth the minimum wage will be able to get jobs.  The minimum wage is one of the most singularly evil government actions perpetrated by our government on it's own people, it directly harms the lowest end people who need work and experience the most so liberals can sit back and feel smug and superior.

Quote from: Kaz on March 30, 2014, 07:41:42 AM
The consequence of eliminating the minimum wage is that then people not worth the minimum wage will be able to get jobs.  The minimum wage is one of the most singularly evil government actions perpetrated by our government on it's own people, it directly harms the lowest end people who need work and experience the most so liberals can sit back and feel smug and superior.

Exactly. However liberals are not familiar with unintended consequences. They do not understand that business entities do not absorb cost increases. They either pass the costs along to the consumer or make expense adjustments in other areas.

Quote from: Supposn on March 27, 2014, 11:38:59 PMAlthough the minimum wage does not proportionally affect all wage scales equally, its effect is always positive.

So let's think about this for a second.  It drives up all wages, that's true.  Then employers raise prices to pay for those wages.  Then things cost more.  Then the low end workers can't afford them again.  Then politicians propose, an increase in the minimum wage...

Quote from: Supposn on March 27, 2014, 11:38:59 PMThe minimum rate does not in any manner reduce or induce "leveling down" of any wage scales or for any tasks.

You're right, they don't.  People who are worth more have to be paid proportionally more.  Things like working hard, intelligence, caring about the job, education are assets, and you have to compensate employees who have them more or they won't work harder, get education, ...  So when you raise minimum wage, you raise everyone else's wage.  Not only does the minimum wage not level down wages, it actually increases the dollar wage disparity.  If someone is twice as valuable as a minimum wage worker and you increase the minimum wage by 50 cents, the better worker will get a buck.  Not immediately, but not far down the road.  And that does ripple up the chain, your professional worker's wages raise even more.

Quote from: supsalemgr on March 30, 2014, 07:47:29 AM
Exactly. However liberals are not familiar with unintended consequences. They do not understand that business entities do not absorb cost increases. They either pass the costs along to the consumer or make expense adjustments in other areas.

I was trying to keep it simple, but you're exactly right.  Employers will consolidate, automate and upgrade and it reduces the jobs available to low end workers.   I am an employer.  We will also cut hours and lay off our worst workers and upgrade since we need to pay more.  The one thing you can take to the bank that we won't do is just pay more and eat the cost.

Quote from: Kaz on March 30, 2014, 07:51:35 AM
So let's think about this for a second.  It drives up all wages, that's true.  Then employers raise prices to pay for those wages.  Then things cost more.  Then the low end workers can't afford them again.  Then politicians propose, an increase in the minimum wage...
...  So when you raise minimum wage, you raise everyone else's wage.  Not only does the minimum wage not level down wages, it actually increases the dollar wage disparity.  If someone is twice as valuable as a minimum wage worker and you increase the minimum wage by 50 cents, the better worker will get a buck.  Not immediately, but not far down the road.  And that does ripple up the chain, your professional worker's wages raise even more.

Kaz, you're incorrect.

The aggregate increases of prices due to increases of the federal minimum wage rate are ALWAYS proportionally less than the increases of the rate itself.
Generally a price includes other than direct and indirect labor expenses that are much less affected by the cost of labor.  With regard to increases of the minimum wage this is true to a greater extent for prices of products that are lesser dependent upon lesser wage earners' pay scales.

Our increases of the federal minimum wage have generally been too little and too late but despite that they've ALWAYS been a (more than otherwise) improvement of our economy.  I'm a proponent of the minimum wage pegged to the cost-price index.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 01, 2014, 08:38:35 AM
Kaz, you're incorrect.

The aggregate increases of prices due to increases of the federal minimum wage rate are ALWAYS proportionally less than the increases of the rate itself.
Generally a price includes other than direct and indirect labor expenses that are much less affected by the cost of labor.  With regard to increases of the minimum wage this is true to a greater extent for prices of products that are lesser dependent upon lesser wage earners' pay scales.

Our increases of the federal minimum wage have generally been too little and too late but despite that they've ALWAYS been a (more than otherwise) improvement of our economy.  I'm a proponent of the minimum wage pegged to the cost-price index.

Respectfully, Supposn

I said that if you increase wages then prices overall go up, they do.  I never said the prices go up proportionally with the wage, that was an incorrect assumption on your part.

However, keep in mind that it's not just the percent of wages in your product, the price of all the products and services you buy also go up because their wages do also.

As an employer, I can tell you that's not the worst part of increasing the minimum wage.   Your belief that our goal is to minimize wages is wrong, it's to maximize profits.  The difference is that we pay people more when keeping them positively impacts the business because it makes them happier and more productive.

If we're paying someone minimum wage, they are pretty useless as employees for whatever reason.  They are either lazy or have virtually no experience, are unreliable and have few skills that require training.  They are easily replaceable and we don't care if they leave.  So they are the first to go when we cut back and automate and streamline jobs to compensate for the higher wages we have to pay.  That you increased the cost of our wages doesn't give us better employees, it just increases our cost.

You can have whatever opinion you want of that.  I'm a capitalist, you're a socialist.  But the fact that it is what happens is undeniable.   And you do the same thing in your life.  When prices go up for what you want, you cut back or consider smaller or used items or keep your old ones longer.  Why exactly do you think we business owners aren't smart enough to do the same thing?  Actually, we're more experienced at it and we have a lot more expenses.

The idea that we'll spend our money to serve the interests of politicians is just flat out naive and baseless in reality. We won't, any more than you will.

Quote from: Supposn on April 01, 2014, 08:38:35 AM
Kaz, you're incorrect.

The aggregate increases of prices due to increases of the federal minimum wage rate are ALWAYS proportionally less than the increases of the rate itself.
Generally a price includes other than direct and indirect labor expenses that are much less affected by the cost of labor.  With regard to increases of the minimum wage this is true to a greater extent for prices of products that are lesser dependent upon lesser wage earners' pay scales.

Our increases of the federal minimum wage have generally been too little and too late but despite that they've ALWAYS been a (more than otherwise) improvement of our economy.  I'm a proponent of the minimum wage pegged to the cost-price index.

Respectfully, Supposn

Supposn, you didn't address my last reply:

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/consequences-of-eliminating-the-minimum-wage/msg175480/#msg175480

Kaz, we (, you and I) wrote and/or implied that if our nation increases the minimum wage, USA's aggregate labor costs, (wages) will increase.

We wrote and/or implied that disregarding other factors not directly germane to the relationship of labor to product prices, due to increasing aggregate labor costs, prices of our products would increase.

Increasing the minimum wage has a greater proportional impact upon the prices of products that reflect lower rather than higher wage products.
Direct and indirect labor costs are the entire components of no goods and few if any services.

The proportional increase of both goods and service products are in aggregate significantly less that the increase of the minim rate that induced those price increases.

Katz, you wrote:
"It[, increasing the minimum wage] drives up all wages, that's true.  Then employers raise prices to pay for those wages.  Then things cost more.  Then the low end workers can't afford them again".

You have implied due to increases of the minimum wage rate, employees' wages purchasing powers will decrease; you further implied that this aggregate reduction of wages' purchasing power will be of greater detriment to lower rather than higher earning employees.

I contend due to increases of the minimum wage rate, employees' wages purchasing powers aggregately increase; I further contend the benefits of aggregate increased purchasing powers of wages will be proportionally greater for lower earners and lesser for higher earners but they all somewhat benefit from the minimum's increased rate.

We agree increasing the minimum rate will increases the disparity between many differing wage scale amounts.
I contend that in aggregate it also PROPORTIONALLY decreases the disparity between purchasing powers of those same wage scales.

We agree that the function of commercial enterprises is not social work.

I contend the economic benefits of increasing the minimum wage do not equally benefit all.
The increase of the minimum rate is of greater benefit to lower rather than higher earning employees;
The increase of the minimum rate is of greater benefit to employees rather than employers;
The increase of the minimum rate' benefit to our nation's economy is of aggregate benefit to both employees and employers.

Your limiting discussion to only employees earning the precise minimum rate is evading discussion of the minimum rate's purpose and its aggregate effect upon our ENTIRE economy.
The minimum wage rate significantly increases the purchasing powers of no less than the lowest quarter of our working population and their families.
The minimum rate increase of a wage scale's purchasing power is positive and proportionally related to the wage scale's amount.

Your conclusion that I'm a socialist is nonsense.

I've been barred from few political forums.  I appreciate that it less occurs in conservative rather than liberal forums.  For all of their liberality, they're less tolerant of different opinions or logical conclusions. 

If I were to label myself, I'd use "populist".  I do not object to liberal and I'm still not sure what people mean when they describe themselves as "progressive".  I keep nodding in agreement when libertarians begin to write or speak; then they continue until I conclude they're really anarchists that do not believe in any governing.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on April 01, 2014, 08:58:25 PM

Increasing the minimum wage has a greater proportional impact upon the prices of products that reflect lower rather than higher wage products.
Direct and indirect labor costs are the entire components of no goods and few if any services.

Do you ever proof read your crap? That made no sense whatsoever!

Quote
The proportional increase of both goods and service products are in aggregate significantly less that the increase of the minim rate that induced those price increases.

What is a service product? It's known as goods and services, period. It has no qualifier attached, that's basic English, to add a qualifier to an obvious point is simply too wordy and makes the readers eyes gloss over out of pure boredom and confuse them as well.
English is not your first language, is it?
And why repeat "Aggregate" over and over, as a multipurpose descriptor?

QuoteI contend due to increases of the minimum wage rate, employees' wages purchasing powers aggregately increase; I further contend the benefits of aggregate increased purchasing powers of wages will be proportionally greater for lower earners and lesser for higher earners but they all somewhat benefit from the minimum's increased rate.

Supposn, you once asked for an example of your writing that would explain why people get confused as to your point, well, that paragraph right there, says it all.
First off, there is no such word as "aggregately", but that's aside the point, let me try and decipher this paragraph, so as to make it.... (make sense?)

Here's how it should have been written, so as to be understood.

"My point is, if min wages increase for the lowest level employee', their purchasing powers combined increases."
Yes, that is what you said by butchering the English language, and your statement made no sense, it was merely an opinion with no basis in reality.
How could the lowest level employee have any effect on anything, unless his value is falsely increased?

Lets assume for a moment we raise their hourly wage by $5.00 an hour, the employer needs to make that increase up, an increase effecting his bottom line/purchasing power.
He has two options, fire enough low level employees to offset the increase of the new tax, or raise the price of his product/service.
This across the board increase has a direct affect on products and services in the US, and a damaging effect on the lowest paid employee, because the very basics of goods, as in food will increase.

QuoteWe agree increasing the minimum rate will increases the disparity between many differing wage scale amounts.
I contend that in aggregate it also PROPORTIONALLY decreases the disparity between purchasing powers of those same wage scales.

Again, do uou even proof read, or do you just throw this crap out hoping it sticks on a wall somewhere?
We agree that the function of commercial enterprises is not social work.

Quote
The increase of the minimum rate' benefit to our nation's economy is of aggregate benefit to both employees and employers.

Saying it doesn't make it so.
Prove it!

QuoteYour limiting discussion to only employees earning the precise minimum rate is evading discussion of the minimum rate's purpose and its aggregate effect upon our ENTIRE economy.

That is the subject isn't it?

QuoteThe minimum wage rate significantly increases the purchasing powers of no less than the lowest quarter of our working population and their families.
The minimum rate increase of a wage scale's purchasing power is positive and proportionally related to the wage scale's amount.

Again, prove it! All you do is throw together a bunch of nonsensical paragraphs in hopes that someone will move on and not challenge you.

QuoteYour conclusion that I'm a socialist is nonsense.

I've been barred from few political forums.  I appreciate that it less occurs in conservative rather than liberal forums.  For all of their liberality, they're less tolerant of different opinions or logical conclusions. 

If I were to label myself, I'd use "populist".  I do not object to liberal and I'm still not sure what people mean when they describe themselves as "progressive".  I keep nodding in agreement when libertarians begin to write or speak; then they continue until I conclude they're really anarchists that do not believe in any governing.

Respectfully, Supposn

There are many labels one could place on you, and socialist is the closest that comes to describing someone of you caliber.
The amount of faith you place on the govt central control over an economy, is closest to socialism, without advocating Nationalism.
So yes, you advocate socialist policy, hence making you a socialist.

And in defense of those liberal boards that booted you, they grew tired of your inability make sense, and for abusing the English language.
We here at CPF however, use you as a teaching tool for others to understand why FREE mkt principles work over those of Marxism, and yes, we win every time.

Quote from: Solar on April 02, 2014, 06:34:12 AM
Do you ever proof read your crap? That made no sense whatsoever!What is a service product? It's known as goods and services, period. It has no qualifier attached, that's basic English, to add a qualifier to an obvious point is simply too wordy and makes the readers eyes gloss over out of pure boredom and confuse them as well. ...

Quote from: Supposn:
Increasing the minimum wage has a greater proportional impact upon the prices of products that reflect lower rather than higher wage products.
Direct and indirect labor costs are the entire components of no goods and few if any services.

Quote from: Supposn:
The proportional increase of both goods and service products are in aggregate significantly less that the increase of the minim rate that induced those price increases.
/////////////////////////////////////////

Solar, I do not consider myself as more than an adequate writer of English prose.  Although English is my native and primary language, some persons may find incidences of fault regarding my choices of words or my grammar.  When they're incorrect I tolerate their inadvertent errors or their ignorance of some specific facts or concepts.
We usually continue loving some others despite our awareness of their "shortcomings".  I try to continue tolerating others in a similar manner.

You're not fully familiar with all uses of the English words "product" or "products"?
All goods or services produced or distributed or otherwise handled by enterprises have in some manner passed through that enterprises' 'processing of the product; (i.e. they are the products those enterprises).
Products of enterprises may be goods and/or service products.

I suspect that your inability to understand the meaning of my writing may to some extent not be due to my choice of words or my grammar.  It may to a greater extent be attributable to your not fully considering what you have described as confusing qualifiers.  I try to be explicit.
Your suggested rewrite of my paragraph changes its meaning.  Those that consider the qualifiers in text are more apt to comprehend what they read.

Your lengthy post refers to a number of different items.  At now lack the time to respond to your entire post.

Respectfully, Supposn

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/products
prod-uct
noun \ˈprä-(ˌ)dəkt\
: something that is made or grown to be sold or used
: something that is the result of a process
: someone or something that is produced or influenced by a particular environment or experience.

Quote from: Supposn on April 03, 2014, 02:45:42 AM
Quote from: Supposn:

You're not fully familiar with all uses of the English words "product" or "products"?
All goods or services produced or distributed or otherwise handled by enterprises have in some manner passed through that enterprises' 'processing of the product; (i.e. they are the products those enterprises).
Products of enterprises may be goods and/or service products.

Yes, I know it's meaning, but your syntax is not what would be found in everyday conversation, rather it's the attempt of someone that hasn't a full grasp of the topic they address.
You would be much better served speaking in simple/plain English.
Believe me when I say this, some of your statements are not only redundant, but circular while failing to convey an idea or meaning, much of it could be completely eliminated from your posts altogether for redundancy, whichh only confuses the reader as to the actual point you're attempting to convey.

Case and point:

Quotegoods and service products

The above is why I contend English your second language.
In regular conversation, that would have read "Goods and Services", no qualifier needed, someone hoping to convey a point wouldn't over use the English language, as in your case a redundant statement, though technically not wrong, just absolutely not necessary.
As in my point your abuse of the word aggregate, or expanding the word to the plural, which does not exist.

Quote
I suspect that your inability to understand the meaning of my writing may to some extent not be due to my choice of words or my grammar.  It may to a greater extent be attributable to your not fully considering what you have described as confusing qualifiers.  I try to be explicit.
Your suggested rewrite of my paragraph changes its meaning.  Those that consider the qualifiers in text are more apt to comprehend what they read.

Your lengthy post refers to a number of different items.  At now lack the time to respond to your entire post.

Respectfully, Supposn

Again, being redundant is not considered a qualifier, rather the inability of the writer to convey ones point.
I believe many of your qualifiers to be redundant, which also leads to confusion.

Remember, sometimes saying less, is saying more.

Quotehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/products
prod-uct
noun \ˈprä-(ˌ)dəkt\
: something that is made or grown to be sold or used
: something that is the result of a process
: someone or something that is produced or influenced by a particular environment or experience.

Yep, and saying simply "Goods and services" would have sufficed, instead you for whatever reason, added the qualifier of product,, we all know it's an end product, that's a given.
I believe your need to express your point is getting lost with your need to be overly thorough in your conveyance.

Please give simple English a shot, you might be surprised at the responses you receive.
I'm not looking for perfection, because God knows I sometimes abuse the English language, so just keep it as simple conversation, just as you would as if you were talking to a stranger on the street.

But that was only one point, I'll be waiting for you to address the rest of my post.

Quote from: Supposn on April 01, 2014, 08:58:25 PMYou have implied due to increases of the minimum wage rate, employees' wages purchasing powers will decrease; you further implied that this aggregate reduction of wages' purchasing power will be of greater detriment to lower rather than higher earning employees.

I've been slammed this week, but I'll get back to your other points.  As for this, at least in a quick read I saw is as the central point to your argument.  On the two points, wrong and wrong.

"You have implied due to increases of the minimum wage rate, employees' wages purchasing powers will decrease." 

- No, I said it will make prices of products and services higher and then they'll need another increase.  That is not the strawman you said I said.

"you further implied that this aggregate reduction of wages' purchasing power will be of greater detriment to lower rather than higher earning employees."

- No, another strawman.  It is the lower end workers that will cause you to come back next year asking for another minimum wage increase.  That higher end workers won't cause you to do that says actually nothing about the comparison of the impact between higher and lower end workers.

Your post is pretty consistently off target like that, but I'll address more of your points when I have a bit of breathing time.

Quote from: Kaz on April 03, 2014, 07:16:12 AM
I've been slammed this week, but I'll get back to your other points.  As for this, at least in a quick read I saw is as the central point to your argument.  On the two points, wrong and wrong.

"You have implied due to increases of the minimum wage rate, employees' wages purchasing powers will decrease." 

- No, I said it will make prices of products and services higher and then they'll need another increase.  That is not the strawman you said I said.

"you further implied that this aggregate reduction of wages' purchasing power will be of greater detriment to lower rather than higher earning employees."

- No, another strawman.  It is the lower end workers that will cause you to come back next year asking for another minimum wage increase.  That higher end workers won't cause you to do that says actually nothing about the comparison of the impact between higher and lower end workers.

Your post is pretty consistently off target like that, but I'll address more of your points when I have a bit of breathing time.

Like talking to a rock, he ignores the reality of evidence and hangs on to the emotional aspect that the poor deserve, regardless of skill or drive.
I gave him solid proof that it does hurt the economy by posting an article from Sweden. The bastion of socialism failing, the one libs always point to as a success, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Check my post.
Reply #20

Quote from: Solar on April 03, 2014, 10:51:44 AM
Like talking to a rock, he ignores the reality of evidence and hangs on to the emotional aspect that the poor deserve, regardless of skill or drive.
I gave him solid proof that it does hurt the economy by posting an article from Sweden. The bastion of socialism failing, the one libs always point to as a success, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Check my post.
Reply #20

I have concluded he has no life. He is obsessed with raising the minimum wage which is nothing more than a political gimmick by the left to placate the LIV crowd.

Quote from: supsalemgr on April 03, 2014, 12:34:37 PM
I have concluded he has no life. He is obsessed with raising the minimum wage which is nothing more than a political gimmick by the left to placate the LIV crowd.

Yep, that's why I say it's an emotional issue with these people, they know it'd not their money they advocate giving away, "redistribution of wealth".