Help me understand the impact of a $15 minimum wage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Help me understand why you think we should weep for businesses that failed to compete, but we the same compassion shouldn't apply to their workers? Why is it okay to tell a low wage worker to buck up and work to get a better job, but we can expect a business to buck and do better for their employees?

Businesses are a vehicle for someone to build wealth on the backs of other people. If you're going to do that, can't we at least ask them to pay those people enough to eat!?

Very few people are paid minimum wage. Some people are working for extra cash--like teens. Some are working to supplement other income. Few people remain in the same low level job all their lives. Have you listened to Biden talk about his Dad---"a job is not just about a paycheck, Joey, it's about dignity."

Where is the dignity in working 40 hours a week or more, and still being on food stamps? Where is the dignity in hearing people debate your economic worth, utterly refusing to acknowledge your humanity?

One look at Trump and you know, without a doubt, that dignity is earned and not inherited. Where is the humanity in assuming that someone, though healthy and able-bodied, lacks the basic agency to determine his/her own fate, and must rely on the charity of others?

Dp- nice sentiment as long as you support able bodied people banding together to leverage the worth of their labor.

PP here, I would support that, absolutely. I personally would not willingly engage in collective bargaining but I believe people have the freedom to associate with whomever they please and are also free to make choices based on a variety of considerations regardless of whether it is economically efficient. However, I would just point out that the people who typically support collective bargaining are hypocritical in their stance on anti-trust issues. If you believe individual suppliers of a good/service should be able to work together to artificially restrict supply in order to maximize pricing power, then you must also support businesses working together doing the same for their goods/services that they sell to consumers.

I think you make a good point. But it's not hypocrisy to support practices that benefit people and not corporations. Unions benefit our citizens. Anti-trust laws benefit our citizens. As they should.

For people making this type of argument, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary. Would you mind if two sole proprietor coffee shops in your town struck up an agreement to sell coffee at $2.50 per 16-ounce cup? What about two family businesses operating car repair shops agreeing on $99 for an oil change? What if the repair shops were both franchise members of a regional chain of repair shops? A national one? In each case, the structure of the business is entirely arbitrary and does not at all affect the fundamental nature of price-fixing, which is currently illegal.

No, the difference between people is not entirely arbitrary. People need to eat. Corporations don't. It's pretty simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a troll in here who doesn’t believe in minimum wages at all, and likes to use economic jargon to scare people off. But here’s the truth. Employees in low wage jobs typically do not have adequate bargaining power or leverage to find better wages, particularly in paces without a ton of economic activity, and that’s why we’ve had minimum wage laws in every developed economy. Stop arguing with a stupid people. We are keeping those laws and the wage will go up, because it has to over time. It actually has a perverse effect when it is too low—it’s a drag on everyone else making more than the minimum. It’s a drag on the entire economy. So yes, in an ideal randian utopia, everyone will be able to bargain appropriately for their labor. That doesn’t exist. Go away troll.

LMAO, so you don't understand the technical aspects of something, it is just jargon? Is that how the flat earthers dismiss other people as using "scientific jargon"?

People living in a liberal society have plenty of bargaining power through choices they make. They can choose to look for a job with a different employer, move to a location where their skills are in more demand, or obtain training to increase the value of their labor. The way for people to improve their income is for them to maximize their productivity - the higher pay is the outcome of increased productivity. Just issuing higher pay without increasing productivity will simply lead to inflation - the same good/service now just cost more.

Let me guess, you belong to the party of education and science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a troll in here who doesn’t believe in minimum wages at all, and likes to use economic jargon to scare people off. But here’s the truth. Employees in low wage jobs typically do not have adequate bargaining power or leverage to find better wages, particularly in paces without a ton of economic activity, and that’s why we’ve had minimum wage laws in every developed economy. Stop arguing with a stupid people. We are keeping those laws and the wage will go up, because it has to over time. It actually has a perverse effect when it is too low—it’s a drag on everyone else making more than the minimum. It’s a drag on the entire economy. So yes, in an ideal randian utopia, everyone will be able to bargain appropriately for their labor. That doesn’t exist. Go away troll.

LMAO, so you don't understand the technical aspects of something, it is just jargon? Is that how the flat earthers dismiss other people as using "scientific jargon"?

People living in a liberal society have plenty of bargaining power through choices they make. They can choose to look for a job with a different employer, move to a location where their skills are in more demand, or obtain training to increase the value of their labor. The way for people to improve their income is for them to maximize their productivity - the higher pay is the outcome of increased productivity. Just issuing higher pay without increasing productivity will simply lead to inflation - the same good/service now just cost more.

Let me guess, you belong to the party of education and science.

Right?!?!?!

The hypocrisy here is so thick you need a jackhammer to cut it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Help me understand why you think we should weep for businesses that failed to compete, but we the same compassion shouldn't apply to their workers? Why is it okay to tell a low wage worker to buck up and work to get a better job, but we can expect a business to buck and do better for their employees?

Businesses are a vehicle for someone to build wealth on the backs of other people. If you're going to do that, can't we at least ask them to pay those people enough to eat!?

Very few people are paid minimum wage. Some people are working for extra cash--like teens. Some are working to supplement other income. Few people remain in the same low level job all their lives. Have you listened to Biden talk about his Dad---"a job is not just about a paycheck, Joey, it's about dignity."

Where is the dignity in working 40 hours a week or more, and still being on food stamps? Where is the dignity in hearing people debate your economic worth, utterly refusing to acknowledge your humanity?

One look at Trump and you know, without a doubt, that dignity is earned and not inherited. Where is the humanity in assuming that someone, though healthy and able-bodied, lacks the basic agency to determine his/her own fate, and must rely on the charity of others?

Dp- nice sentiment as long as you support able bodied people banding together to leverage the worth of their labor.

PP here, I would support that, absolutely. I personally would not willingly engage in collective bargaining but I believe people have the freedom to associate with whomever they please and are also free to make choices based on a variety of considerations regardless of whether it is economically efficient. However, I would just point out that the people who typically support collective bargaining are hypocritical in their stance on anti-trust issues. If you believe individual suppliers of a good/service should be able to work together to artificially restrict supply in order to maximize pricing power, then you must also support businesses working together doing the same for their goods/services that they sell to consumers.

I think you make a good point. But it's not hypocrisy to support practices that benefit people and not corporations. Unions benefit our citizens. Anti-trust laws benefit our citizens. As they should.

For people making this type of argument, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary. Would you mind if two sole proprietor coffee shops in your town struck up an agreement to sell coffee at $2.50 per 16-ounce cup? What about two family businesses operating car repair shops agreeing on $99 for an oil change? What if the repair shops were both franchise members of a regional chain of repair shops? A national one? In each case, the structure of the business is entirely arbitrary and does not at all affect the fundamental nature of price-fixing, which is currently illegal.

No, the difference between people is not entirely arbitrary. People need to eat. Corporations don't. It's pretty simple.

The context is economic principles of labor and commodity value, supply, and demand, not physiology. Within this context, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Help me understand why you think we should weep for businesses that failed to compete, but we the same compassion shouldn't apply to their workers? Why is it okay to tell a low wage worker to buck up and work to get a better job, but we can expect a business to buck and do better for their employees?

Businesses are a vehicle for someone to build wealth on the backs of other people. If you're going to do that, can't we at least ask them to pay those people enough to eat!?

Very few people are paid minimum wage. Some people are working for extra cash--like teens. Some are working to supplement other income. Few people remain in the same low level job all their lives. Have you listened to Biden talk about his Dad---"a job is not just about a paycheck, Joey, it's about dignity."

Where is the dignity in working 40 hours a week or more, and still being on food stamps? Where is the dignity in hearing people debate your economic worth, utterly refusing to acknowledge your humanity?

One look at Trump and you know, without a doubt, that dignity is earned and not inherited. Where is the humanity in assuming that someone, though healthy and able-bodied, lacks the basic agency to determine his/her own fate, and must rely on the charity of others?

Dp- nice sentiment as long as you support able bodied people banding together to leverage the worth of their labor.

PP here, I would support that, absolutely. I personally would not willingly engage in collective bargaining but I believe people have the freedom to associate with whomever they please and are also free to make choices based on a variety of considerations regardless of whether it is economically efficient. However, I would just point out that the people who typically support collective bargaining are hypocritical in their stance on anti-trust issues. If you believe individual suppliers of a good/service should be able to work together to artificially restrict supply in order to maximize pricing power, then you must also support businesses working together doing the same for their goods/services that they sell to consumers.

I think you make a good point. But it's not hypocrisy to support practices that benefit people and not corporations. Unions benefit our citizens. Anti-trust laws benefit our citizens. As they should.

For people making this type of argument, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary. Would you mind if two sole proprietor coffee shops in your town struck up an agreement to sell coffee at $2.50 per 16-ounce cup? What about two family businesses operating car repair shops agreeing on $99 for an oil change? What if the repair shops were both franchise members of a regional chain of repair shops? A national one? In each case, the structure of the business is entirely arbitrary and does not at all affect the fundamental nature of price-fixing, which is currently illegal.

No, the difference between people is not entirely arbitrary. People need to eat. Corporations don't. It's pretty simple.

The context is economic principles of labor and commodity value, supply, and demand, not physiology. Within this context, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary.

Agree. But at the end of the day, I'm not interested in economic principles. I'm interested in generating an economy that works for people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a troll in here who doesn’t believe in minimum wages at all, and likes to use economic jargon to scare people off. But here’s the truth. Employees in low wage jobs typically do not have adequate bargaining power or leverage to find better wages, particularly in paces without a ton of economic activity, and that’s why we’ve had minimum wage laws in every developed economy. Stop arguing with a stupid people. We are keeping those laws and the wage will go up, because it has to over time. It actually has a perverse effect when it is too low—it’s a drag on everyone else making more than the minimum. It’s a drag on the entire economy. So yes, in an ideal randian utopia, everyone will be able to bargain appropriately for their labor. That doesn’t exist. Go away troll.

LMAO, so you don't understand the technical aspects of something, it is just jargon? Is that how the flat earthers dismiss other people as using "scientific jargon"?

People living in a liberal society have plenty of bargaining power through choices they make. They can choose to look for a job with a different employer, move to a location where their skills are in more demand, or obtain training to increase the value of their labor. The way for people to improve their income is for them to maximize their productivity - the higher pay is the outcome of increased productivity. Just issuing higher pay without increasing productivity will simply lead to inflation - the same good/service now just cost more.

Let me guess, you belong to the party of education and science.

Right?!?!?!

The hypocrisy here is so thick you need a jackhammer to cut it.

So I’m not intimidated by jargon and if you’d received a better education you’d see that my argument was not about the jargon the PP uses but his poor reasoning. Anyway, care to respond to the substantive points other than by just saying, “no you’re wrong”? Didn’t think so. People don’t have “plenty of choices” absent certain laws that prevent employers from driving unconscionable bargains. Like the minimum wage, which cannot remain static. So assuming you support setting minimum wages at all, tell me what it should be. Otherwise read something other than Ayn Rand and get back to me when you’ve actually educated yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a troll in here who doesn’t believe in minimum wages at all, and likes to use economic jargon to scare people off. But here’s the truth. Employees in low wage jobs typically do not have adequate bargaining power or leverage to find better wages, particularly in paces without a ton of economic activity, and that’s why we’ve had minimum wage laws in every developed economy. Stop arguing with a stupid people. We are keeping those laws and the wage will go up, because it has to over time. It actually has a perverse effect when it is too low—it’s a drag on everyone else making more than the minimum. It’s a drag on the entire economy. So yes, in an ideal randian utopia, everyone will be able to bargain appropriately for their labor. That doesn’t exist. Go away troll.

LMAO, so you don't understand the technical aspects of something, it is just jargon? Is that how the flat earthers dismiss other people as using "scientific jargon"?

People living in a liberal society have plenty of bargaining power through choices they make. They can choose to look for a job with a different employer, move to a location where their skills are in more demand, or obtain training to increase the value of their labor. The way for people to improve their income is for them to maximize their productivity - the higher pay is the outcome of increased productivity. Just issuing higher pay without increasing productivity will simply lead to inflation - the same good/service now just cost more.

Let me guess, you belong to the party of education and science.

Right?!?!?!

The hypocrisy here is so thick you need a jackhammer to cut it.

So I’m not intimidated by jargon and if you’d received a better education you’d see that my argument was not about the jargon the PP uses but his poor reasoning. Anyway, care to respond to the substantive points other than by just saying, “no you’re wrong”? Didn’t think so. People don’t have “plenty of choices” absent certain laws that prevent employers from driving unconscionable bargains. Like the minimum wage, which cannot remain static. So assuming you support setting minimum wages at all, tell me what it should be. Otherwise read something other than Ayn Rand and get back to me when you’ve actually educated yourself.

Substance

You don’t haz it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Help me understand why you think we should weep for businesses that failed to compete, but we the same compassion shouldn't apply to their workers? Why is it okay to tell a low wage worker to buck up and work to get a better job, but we can expect a business to buck and do better for their employees?

Businesses are a vehicle for someone to build wealth on the backs of other people. If you're going to do that, can't we at least ask them to pay those people enough to eat!?

Very few people are paid minimum wage. Some people are working for extra cash--like teens. Some are working to supplement other income. Few people remain in the same low level job all their lives. Have you listened to Biden talk about his Dad---"a job is not just about a paycheck, Joey, it's about dignity."

Where is the dignity in working 40 hours a week or more, and still being on food stamps? Where is the dignity in hearing people debate your economic worth, utterly refusing to acknowledge your humanity?

One look at Trump and you know, without a doubt, that dignity is earned and not inherited. Where is the humanity in assuming that someone, though healthy and able-bodied, lacks the basic agency to determine his/her own fate, and must rely on the charity of others?

Dp- nice sentiment as long as you support able bodied people banding together to leverage the worth of their labor.

PP here, I would support that, absolutely. I personally would not willingly engage in collective bargaining but I believe people have the freedom to associate with whomever they please and are also free to make choices based on a variety of considerations regardless of whether it is economically efficient. However, I would just point out that the people who typically support collective bargaining are hypocritical in their stance on anti-trust issues. If you believe individual suppliers of a good/service should be able to work together to artificially restrict supply in order to maximize pricing power, then you must also support businesses working together doing the same for their goods/services that they sell to consumers.

I think you make a good point. But it's not hypocrisy to support practices that benefit people and not corporations. Unions benefit our citizens. Anti-trust laws benefit our citizens. As they should.

For people making this type of argument, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary. Would you mind if two sole proprietor coffee shops in your town struck up an agreement to sell coffee at $2.50 per 16-ounce cup? What about two family businesses operating car repair shops agreeing on $99 for an oil change? What if the repair shops were both franchise members of a regional chain of repair shops? A national one? In each case, the structure of the business is entirely arbitrary and does not at all affect the fundamental nature of price-fixing, which is currently illegal.

No, the difference between people is not entirely arbitrary. People need to eat. Corporations don't. It's pretty simple.

The context is economic principles of labor and commodity value, supply, and demand, not physiology. Within this context, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary.

Agree. But at the end of the day, I'm not interested in economic principles. I'm interested in generating an economy that works for people.

Wow, discussing the economy without any interest in economic principles. This about sums it up for your side of the argument. Bravo! I could not have illustrated it any better myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Help me understand why you think we should weep for businesses that failed to compete, but we the same compassion shouldn't apply to their workers? Why is it okay to tell a low wage worker to buck up and work to get a better job, but we can expect a business to buck and do better for their employees?

Businesses are a vehicle for someone to build wealth on the backs of other people. If you're going to do that, can't we at least ask them to pay those people enough to eat!?

Very few people are paid minimum wage. Some people are working for extra cash--like teens. Some are working to supplement other income. Few people remain in the same low level job all their lives. Have you listened to Biden talk about his Dad---"a job is not just about a paycheck, Joey, it's about dignity."

Where is the dignity in working 40 hours a week or more, and still being on food stamps? Where is the dignity in hearing people debate your economic worth, utterly refusing to acknowledge your humanity?

One look at Trump and you know, without a doubt, that dignity is earned and not inherited. Where is the humanity in assuming that someone, though healthy and able-bodied, lacks the basic agency to determine his/her own fate, and must rely on the charity of others?

Dp- nice sentiment as long as you support able bodied people banding together to leverage the worth of their labor.

PP here, I would support that, absolutely. I personally would not willingly engage in collective bargaining but I believe people have the freedom to associate with whomever they please and are also free to make choices based on a variety of considerations regardless of whether it is economically efficient. However, I would just point out that the people who typically support collective bargaining are hypocritical in their stance on anti-trust issues. If you believe individual suppliers of a good/service should be able to work together to artificially restrict supply in order to maximize pricing power, then you must also support businesses working together doing the same for their goods/services that they sell to consumers.

I think you make a good point. But it's not hypocrisy to support practices that benefit people and not corporations. Unions benefit our citizens. Anti-trust laws benefit our citizens. As they should.

For people making this type of argument, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary. Would you mind if two sole proprietor coffee shops in your town struck up an agreement to sell coffee at $2.50 per 16-ounce cup? What about two family businesses operating car repair shops agreeing on $99 for an oil change? What if the repair shops were both franchise members of a regional chain of repair shops? A national one? In each case, the structure of the business is entirely arbitrary and does not at all affect the fundamental nature of price-fixing, which is currently illegal.

No, the difference between people is not entirely arbitrary. People need to eat. Corporations don't. It's pretty simple.

The context is economic principles of labor and commodity value, supply, and demand, not physiology. Within this context, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary.

Agree. But at the end of the day, I'm not interested in economic principles. I'm interested in generating an economy that works for people.

Wow, discussing the economy without any interest in economic principles. This about sums it up for your side of the argument. Bravo! I could not have illustrated it any better myself.

Dp- and I guess the other side can be summed up with
“ the difference between corporations and people is arbitrary”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Help me understand why you think we should weep for businesses that failed to compete, but we the same compassion shouldn't apply to their workers? Why is it okay to tell a low wage worker to buck up and work to get a better job, but we can expect a business to buck and do better for their employees?

Businesses are a vehicle for someone to build wealth on the backs of other people. If you're going to do that, can't we at least ask them to pay those people enough to eat!?

Very few people are paid minimum wage. Some people are working for extra cash--like teens. Some are working to supplement other income. Few people remain in the same low level job all their lives. Have you listened to Biden talk about his Dad---"a job is not just about a paycheck, Joey, it's about dignity."

Where is the dignity in working 40 hours a week or more, and still being on food stamps? Where is the dignity in hearing people debate your economic worth, utterly refusing to acknowledge your humanity?

One look at Trump and you know, without a doubt, that dignity is earned and not inherited. Where is the humanity in assuming that someone, though healthy and able-bodied, lacks the basic agency to determine his/her own fate, and must rely on the charity of others?

Dp- nice sentiment as long as you support able bodied people banding together to leverage the worth of their labor.

PP here, I would support that, absolutely. I personally would not willingly engage in collective bargaining but I believe people have the freedom to associate with whomever they please and are also free to make choices based on a variety of considerations regardless of whether it is economically efficient. However, I would just point out that the people who typically support collective bargaining are hypocritical in their stance on anti-trust issues. If you believe individual suppliers of a good/service should be able to work together to artificially restrict supply in order to maximize pricing power, then you must also support businesses working together doing the same for their goods/services that they sell to consumers.

I think you make a good point. But it's not hypocrisy to support practices that benefit people and not corporations. Unions benefit our citizens. Anti-trust laws benefit our citizens. As they should.

For people making this type of argument, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary. Would you mind if two sole proprietor coffee shops in your town struck up an agreement to sell coffee at $2.50 per 16-ounce cup? What about two family businesses operating car repair shops agreeing on $99 for an oil change? What if the repair shops were both franchise members of a regional chain of repair shops? A national one? In each case, the structure of the business is entirely arbitrary and does not at all affect the fundamental nature of price-fixing, which is currently illegal.

No, the difference between people is not entirely arbitrary. People need to eat. Corporations don't. It's pretty simple.

The context is economic principles of labor and commodity value, supply, and demand, not physiology. Within this context, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary.

Agree. But at the end of the day, I'm not interested in economic principles. I'm interested in generating an economy that works for people.

Wow, discussing the economy without any interest in economic principles. This about sums it up for your side of the argument. Bravo! I could not have illustrated it any better myself.

Dp- and I guess the other side can be summed up with
“ the difference between corporations and people is arbitrary”

Yea, if you ignore the economic context and are uninterested in economic principles. Which is par for the course for the willfully ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Help me understand why you think we should weep for businesses that failed to compete, but we the same compassion shouldn't apply to their workers? Why is it okay to tell a low wage worker to buck up and work to get a better job, but we can expect a business to buck and do better for their employees?

Businesses are a vehicle for someone to build wealth on the backs of other people. If you're going to do that, can't we at least ask them to pay those people enough to eat!?

Very few people are paid minimum wage. Some people are working for extra cash--like teens. Some are working to supplement other income. Few people remain in the same low level job all their lives. Have you listened to Biden talk about his Dad---"a job is not just about a paycheck, Joey, it's about dignity."

Where is the dignity in working 40 hours a week or more, and still being on food stamps? Where is the dignity in hearing people debate your economic worth, utterly refusing to acknowledge your humanity?

One look at Trump and you know, without a doubt, that dignity is earned and not inherited. Where is the humanity in assuming that someone, though healthy and able-bodied, lacks the basic agency to determine his/her own fate, and must rely on the charity of others?

Dp- nice sentiment as long as you support able bodied people banding together to leverage the worth of their labor.

PP here, I would support that, absolutely. I personally would not willingly engage in collective bargaining but I believe people have the freedom to associate with whomever they please and are also free to make choices based on a variety of considerations regardless of whether it is economically efficient. However, I would just point out that the people who typically support collective bargaining are hypocritical in their stance on anti-trust issues. If you believe individual suppliers of a good/service should be able to work together to artificially restrict supply in order to maximize pricing power, then you must also support businesses working together doing the same for their goods/services that they sell to consumers.

I think you make a good point. But it's not hypocrisy to support practices that benefit people and not corporations. Unions benefit our citizens. Anti-trust laws benefit our citizens. As they should.

For people making this type of argument, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary. Would you mind if two sole proprietor coffee shops in your town struck up an agreement to sell coffee at $2.50 per 16-ounce cup? What about two family businesses operating car repair shops agreeing on $99 for an oil change? What if the repair shops were both franchise members of a regional chain of repair shops? A national one? In each case, the structure of the business is entirely arbitrary and does not at all affect the fundamental nature of price-fixing, which is currently illegal.

No, the difference between people is not entirely arbitrary. People need to eat. Corporations don't. It's pretty simple.

The context is economic principles of labor and commodity value, supply, and demand, not physiology. Within this context, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary.

Agree. But at the end of the day, I'm not interested in economic principles. I'm interested in generating an economy that works for people.

Wow, discussing the economy without any interest in economic principles. This about sums it up for your side of the argument. Bravo! I could not have illustrated it any better myself.

Economic principles are interesting as a thought exercise, such as your comparison between labor unions and price fixing. But the principle that should be considered is the human condition. You are trying to twist my words to make me sound dumb. But do you really want to oppose "generating an economy that works for people"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Help me understand why you think we should weep for businesses that failed to compete, but we the same compassion shouldn't apply to their workers? Why is it okay to tell a low wage worker to buck up and work to get a better job, but we can expect a business to buck and do better for their employees?

Businesses are a vehicle for someone to build wealth on the backs of other people. If you're going to do that, can't we at least ask them to pay those people enough to eat!?

Very few people are paid minimum wage. Some people are working for extra cash--like teens. Some are working to supplement other income. Few people remain in the same low level job all their lives. Have you listened to Biden talk about his Dad---"a job is not just about a paycheck, Joey, it's about dignity."

Where is the dignity in working 40 hours a week or more, and still being on food stamps? Where is the dignity in hearing people debate your economic worth, utterly refusing to acknowledge your humanity?

One look at Trump and you know, without a doubt, that dignity is earned and not inherited. Where is the humanity in assuming that someone, though healthy and able-bodied, lacks the basic agency to determine his/her own fate, and must rely on the charity of others?

Dp- nice sentiment as long as you support able bodied people banding together to leverage the worth of their labor.

PP here, I would support that, absolutely. I personally would not willingly engage in collective bargaining but I believe people have the freedom to associate with whomever they please and are also free to make choices based on a variety of considerations regardless of whether it is economically efficient. However, I would just point out that the people who typically support collective bargaining are hypocritical in their stance on anti-trust issues. If you believe individual suppliers of a good/service should be able to work together to artificially restrict supply in order to maximize pricing power, then you must also support businesses working together doing the same for their goods/services that they sell to consumers.

I think you make a good point. But it's not hypocrisy to support practices that benefit people and not corporations. Unions benefit our citizens. Anti-trust laws benefit our citizens. As they should.

For people making this type of argument, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary. Would you mind if two sole proprietor coffee shops in your town struck up an agreement to sell coffee at $2.50 per 16-ounce cup? What about two family businesses operating car repair shops agreeing on $99 for an oil change? What if the repair shops were both franchise members of a regional chain of repair shops? A national one? In each case, the structure of the business is entirely arbitrary and does not at all affect the fundamental nature of price-fixing, which is currently illegal.

No, the difference between people is not entirely arbitrary. People need to eat. Corporations don't. It's pretty simple.

The context is economic principles of labor and commodity value, supply, and demand, not physiology. Within this context, the difference between people and corporations is entirely arbitrary.

Agree. But at the end of the day, I'm not interested in economic principles. I'm interested in generating an economy that works for people.

Wow, discussing the economy without any interest in economic principles. This about sums it up for your side of the argument. Bravo! I could not have illustrated it any better myself.

Dp- and I guess the other side can be summed up with
“ the difference between corporations and people is arbitrary”

Yea, if you ignore the economic context and are uninterested in economic principles. Which is par for the course for the willfully ignorant.

Which economic principles are we ignoring? For me personally, the only "economic principle" I stand against is that corporations are people and that labor unions are morally equivalent to price fixing.

[Anonymous]

A little known piece of the bill.......

The provision to index further increases to median wage growth aims to ensure the country will not go another decade without a higher minimum wage.

So, it will increase every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A little known piece of the bill.......

The provision to index further increases to median wage growth aims to ensure the country will not go another decade without a higher minimum wage.

So, it will increase every year.

Good

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Agree. But at the end of the day, I'm not interested in economic principles. I'm interested in generating an economy that works for people.

Wow, discussing the economy without any interest in economic principles. This about sums it up for your side of the argument. Bravo! I could not have illustrated it any better myself.

Economic principles are interesting as a thought exercise, such as your comparison between labor unions and price fixing. But the principle that should be considered is the human condition. You are trying to twist my words to make me sound dumb. But do you really want to oppose "generating an economy that works for people"?

We are in a thread talking about the economic impact of $15 minimum wage. Economic principles are at the core of the stated topic of discussion. If you want to discuss the human condition, which is a perfectly fine thing to do, then perhaps go start such a thread about it. I'm not trying to twist your words, it's quoted above for all to see. If you really cared about an economy that works for people, you should study history and make some effort to learn which economic system has been the most successful at improving people's quality of life and lifting them out of poverty conditions.