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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is it the one where the collective bargaining power of people is morally equivalent to the collective bargaining power of corporations?

[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.

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.

^This is the full thread. The thread that asserts labor unions and corporate price fixing are morally equivalent. Context matters. These are the "economic principles" that I reject: that the actions of people and corporations are morally equal. Corporations aren't people. I stand by this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



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.

You can ask the PP who made the bolded statement above indicating that he/she is not interested in economic principles.

You must be basing your "corporations are people" reference on the free speech issue, which is a completely different context than the economic one at hand. No one said that corporations are people in the economic context, just that any distinctions you try to draw are arbitrary since it doesn't affect the underlying economic mechanisms or principles. And I have never made any moral arguments about labor unions, I merely pointed out that the actions of unions with regards to wages are in fact price-fixing. You don't have to believe me, you can see what others have published on this topic:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/collective-bargaining-is-_b_2293210#:~:text=When%20a%20group%20of%20workers,the%20price%20for%20their%20labor.&text=We%20call%20this%20%E2%80%9Ccollective%20bargaining,otherwise%20pay%2C%20the%20market%20price.

https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2405&context=jalc

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3454&context=uclrev

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9045&context=ylj

Clearly, I'm not breaking any new ground here by pointing out that collective bargaining is simply legalized price-fixing. I even clearly stated that while I won't engage in it, I support other people's ability to engage in collective bargaining. I am merely pointing out that someone who on the one hand supports unions but on the other hand supports anti-trust laws, is a hypocrite. And yes, our current legal framework surrounding unions and anti-trust is hypocritical.

[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.

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.

^This is the full thread. The thread that asserts labor unions and corporate price fixing are morally equivalent. Context matters. These are the "economic principles" that I reject: that the actions of people and corporations are morally equal. Corporations aren't people. I stand by this.

You have reading comprehension issues. The word "moral" or "morally" does not appear in the thread you quoted. Seek remedial reading lessons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



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.

You can ask the PP who made the bolded statement above indicating that he/she is not interested in economic principles.

You must be basing your "corporations are people" reference on the free speech issue, which is a completely different context than the economic one at hand. No one said that corporations are people in the economic context, just that any distinctions you try to draw are arbitrary since it doesn't affect the underlying economic mechanisms or principles. And I have never made any moral arguments about labor unions, I merely pointed out that the actions of unions with regards to wages are in fact price-fixing. You don't have to believe me, you can see what others have published on this topic:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/collective-bargaining-is-_b_2293210#:~:text=When%20a%20group%20of%20workers,the%20price%20for%20their%20labor.&text=We%20call%20this%20%E2%80%9Ccollective%20bargaining,otherwise%20pay%2C%20the%20market%20price.

https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2405&context=jalc

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3454&context=uclrev

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9045&context=ylj

Clearly, I'm not breaking any new ground here by pointing out that collective bargaining is simply legalized price-fixing. I even clearly stated that while I won't engage in it, I support other people's ability to engage in collective bargaining. I am merely pointing out that someone who on the one hand supports unions but on the other hand supports anti-trust laws, is a hypocrite. And yes, our current legal framework surrounding unions and anti-trust is hypocritical.

As I pointed out earlier today, it isn't hypocrisy to believe that it should be legal for PEOPLE to engage in collective bargaining, but not CORPORATIONS.

[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:

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"?

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.

^This is the full thread. The thread that asserts labor unions and corporate price fixing are morally equivalent. Context matters. These are the "economic principles" that I reject: that the actions of people and corporations are morally equal. Corporations aren't people. I stand by this.

You have reading comprehension issues. The word "moral" or "morally" does not appear in the thread you quoted. Seek remedial reading lessons.

Why would I want to unlearn how to read between the lines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



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.

You can ask the PP who made the bolded statement above indicating that he/she is not interested in economic principles.

You must be basing your "corporations are people" reference on the free speech issue, which is a completely different context than the economic one at hand. No one said that corporations are people in the economic context, just that any distinctions you try to draw are arbitrary since it doesn't affect the underlying economic mechanisms or principles. And I have never made any moral arguments about labor unions, I merely pointed out that the actions of unions with regards to wages are in fact price-fixing. You don't have to believe me, you can see what others have published on this topic:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/collective-bargaining-is-_b_2293210#:~:text=When%20a%20group%20of%20workers,the%20price%20for%20their%20labor.&text=We%20call%20this%20%E2%80%9Ccollective%20bargaining,otherwise%20pay%2C%20the%20market%20price.

https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2405&context=jalc

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3454&context=uclrev

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9045&context=ylj

Clearly, I'm not breaking any new ground here by pointing out that collective bargaining is simply legalized price-fixing. I even clearly stated that while I won't engage in it, I support other people's ability to engage in collective bargaining. I am merely pointing out that someone who on the one hand supports unions but on the other hand supports anti-trust laws, is a hypocrite. And yes, our current legal framework surrounding unions and anti-trust is hypocritical.

As I pointed out earlier today, it isn't hypocrisy to believe that it should be legal for PEOPLE to engage in collective bargaining, but not CORPORATIONS.

Well, clearly, the quoted sources disagree with you. Just because you make a point, doesn't mean it is a valid point.

[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:

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"?

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.

^This is the full thread. The thread that asserts labor unions and corporate price fixing are morally equivalent. Context matters. These are the "economic principles" that I reject: that the actions of people and corporations are morally equal. Corporations aren't people. I stand by this.

You have reading comprehension issues. The word "moral" or "morally" does not appear in the thread you quoted. Seek remedial reading lessons.

What is hypocrisy if not a moral condition? If you aren't interested in morality, why did you accuse others of hypocrisy?

[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:

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"?

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.

^This is the full thread. The thread that asserts labor unions and corporate price fixing are morally equivalent. Context matters. These are the "economic principles" that I reject: that the actions of people and corporations are morally equal. Corporations aren't people. I stand by this.

You have reading comprehension issues. The word "moral" or "morally" does not appear in the thread you quoted. Seek remedial reading lessons.

Why would I want to unlearn how to read between the lines?

LOL. So in addition to not caring about economic principles in a discussion about economic principles, you also are imagining what others are saying. Again, seek help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



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.

You can ask the PP who made the bolded statement above indicating that he/she is not interested in economic principles.

You must be basing your "corporations are people" reference on the free speech issue, which is a completely different context than the economic one at hand. No one said that corporations are people in the economic context, just that any distinctions you try to draw are arbitrary since it doesn't affect the underlying economic mechanisms or principles. And I have never made any moral arguments about labor unions, I merely pointed out that the actions of unions with regards to wages are in fact price-fixing. You don't have to believe me, you can see what others have published on this topic:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/collective-bargaining-is-_b_2293210#:~:text=When%20a%20group%20of%20workers,the%20price%20for%20their%20labor.&text=We%20call%20this%20%E2%80%9Ccollective%20bargaining,otherwise%20pay%2C%20the%20market%20price.

https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2405&context=jalc

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3454&context=uclrev

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9045&context=ylj

Clearly, I'm not breaking any new ground here by pointing out that collective bargaining is simply legalized price-fixing. I even clearly stated that while I won't engage in it, I support other people's ability to engage in collective bargaining. I am merely pointing out that someone who on the one hand supports unions but on the other hand supports anti-trust laws, is a hypocrite. And yes, our current legal framework surrounding unions and anti-trust is hypocritical.

As I pointed out earlier today, it isn't hypocrisy to believe that it should be legal for PEOPLE to engage in collective bargaining, but not CORPORATIONS.

Well, clearly, the quoted sources disagree with you. Just because you make a point, doesn't mean it is a valid point.

And from a purely economic standpoint the quoted source is correct. But I'm not interested in a purely economic perspective.

[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:

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"?

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.

^This is the full thread. The thread that asserts labor unions and corporate price fixing are morally equivalent. Context matters. These are the "economic principles" that I reject: that the actions of people and corporations are morally equal. Corporations aren't people. I stand by this.

You have reading comprehension issues. The word "moral" or "morally" does not appear in the thread you quoted. Seek remedial reading lessons.

Why would I want to unlearn how to read between the lines?

LOL. So in addition to not caring about economic principles in a discussion about economic principles, you also are imagining what others are saying. Again, seek help.

If this is a discussion about economic principles, why are urging me to seek help? What economic principle is this?

[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:

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"?

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.

^This is the full thread. The thread that asserts labor unions and corporate price fixing are morally equivalent. Context matters. These are the "economic principles" that I reject: that the actions of people and corporations are morally equal. Corporations aren't people. I stand by this.

You have reading comprehension issues. The word "moral" or "morally" does not appear in the thread you quoted. Seek remedial reading lessons.

What is hypocrisy if not a moral condition? If you aren't interested in morality, why did you accuse others of hypocrisy?

Definition of Hypocricy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

I bolded the word "or" for you. Do you need help finding the definition of "or"?

[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:

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"?

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.

^This is the full thread. The thread that asserts labor unions and corporate price fixing are morally equivalent. Context matters. These are the "economic principles" that I reject: that the actions of people and corporations are morally equal. Corporations aren't people. I stand by this.

You have reading comprehension issues. The word "moral" or "morally" does not appear in the thread you quoted. Seek remedial reading lessons.

Why would I want to unlearn how to read between the lines?

LOL. So in addition to not caring about economic principles in a discussion about economic principles, you also are imagining what others are saying. Again, seek help.

If this is a discussion about economic principles, why are urging me to seek help? What economic principle is this?

If you improve your reading comprehension skills, you will then be more economically productive.

[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:

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"?

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.

^This is the full thread. The thread that asserts labor unions and corporate price fixing are morally equivalent. Context matters. These are the "economic principles" that I reject: that the actions of people and corporations are morally equal. Corporations aren't people. I stand by this.

You have reading comprehension issues. The word "moral" or "morally" does not appear in the thread you quoted. Seek remedial reading lessons.

What is hypocrisy if not a moral condition? If you aren't interested in morality, why did you accuse others of hypocrisy?

Definition of Hypocricy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

I bolded the word "or" for you. Do you need help finding the definition of "or"?

You misspelled "hypocrisy." Try to be more careful when you are being pretentious.

What do beliefs have to do with economic principles? You believe one thing. I believe another. Where is the hypocrisy in that?

[Anonymous]

People who work 40 hours a week would make a livable wage!