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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

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

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

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

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. [/quote]

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

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

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. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics