Raising the minimum wage is part of the Democrats platform

[TheGrinch]

Doesn't that mean that the people who lose their jobs because of a minimum wage increase will make less money?

I can already see where you're going with tihs, so I'll stop you there....

Do you really think that those who aren't skilled enough to be worthy of minimum wage are a desired marketing demographic? Any marketing major will tell you that they absolutely are not for most companies...

So yes, unemployment hurts the economy, but it doesn't necessarily hurt the ones who see less competition and more control.

 

[erowe1]

I can already see where you're going with tihs, so I'll stop you there....

Do you really think that those who aren't skilled enough to be worthy of minimum wage are a desired marketing demographic? Any marketing major will tell you that they absolutely are not for most companies...

So yes, unemployment hurts the economy, but it doesn't necessarily hurt the ones who see less competition and more control.

This answer looks suspiciously like that of a person trying to avoid saying, "Yes, people who lose their jobs because of a raise in the minimum wage make less money than when they had jobs."

Your last sentence sounds a lot like what I've been saying all along. Raising the minimum wage doesn't affect everyone the same way. It helps some and hurts others. Some see their wages go up. Others see their wages go down. Some prices go up. Others go down.

But when some prices go up and others go down, that's not inflation.

 

[TheGrinch]

This answer looks suspiciously like that of a person trying to avoid saying, "Yes, people who lose their jobs because of a raise in the minimum wage make less money than when they had jobs."

Your answers look suspiciously like someone who refuses to acknwoledge that mroe than jsut inflation is used to manipulate the economy in the financial elite's favor...

Seriously, I'm starting to wonder at this point if you're actually pro-minimum-wage, because you seem to have a gigantic aversion to seeing how it's detrimental to all but a select few.

Again, Friedman and Dr. Paul agree that minimum wage helps no one besides a few privileged folks, and I strongly suspect that they know far more about this than you do.

 

[erowe1]

Your answers look suspiciously like someone who refuses to acknwoledge that mroe than jsut inflation is used to manipulate the economy in the financial elite's favor...

Seriously, I'm starting to wonder at this point if you're actually pro-minimum-wage, because you seem to have a gigantic aversion to seeing how it's detrimental to all but a select few.

Again, Friedman and Dr. Paul agree that minimum wage helps no one besides a few privileged folks, and I strongly suspect that they know far more about this than you do.

I'm not debating whether or not minimum wage is good. I have no aversion at all to seeing how it is detrimental to the economy. I'm debating whether or not it causes inflation. I say it doesn't. Friedman agrees. I assume Paul does too. It looks like you're no longer interested in arguing that it does, but wish to discuss some other aspect of it. Does that mean you've conceded the point?

 

[TheGrinch]

I'm not debating whether or not minimum wage is good. I have no aversion at all to seeing how it is detrimental to the economy. I'm debating whether or not it causes inflation. I say it doesn't. Friedman agrees. I assume Paul does too. It looks like you're no longer interested in arguing that it does, but wish to discuss some other aspect of it. Does that mean you've conceded the point?

Ummm, no...

I'm not debating whether MW laws cause inflation either, and in fact I agreed with you earlier that inflation is often cited as a justification by politicians for minimum wage increases, kind of a chicken and the egg scenario really...

And no, what you're calling inflation here is price changes. By definition the only thing that can cause inflation is putting more money into circulation. However, that is but one component to whether prices within a company, industry or even majority of an economy have to go up to support artificially risen minimum wages.

I never said it was "price inflation" (I use the term loosely so you won't confuse this with actual monetary inflation), nor whether this was the only outcome. It is just as possible that a company looks to lower costs and/or hire more productive and less employees, but it is not the only outcome. When employees/consumers have more money to spend, the prices can just as easily go up when coupled with all of the other important factors. My point is that this isn't just in a vacuum. Your ever-evolving point, however, I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore.

Basically I've spent half this thread with you nitpicking about the effects of MW, whilst you claim that changes in some prices must necessarily correlate negatively to other prices (false), among all of the other wild assumptions you've made about inflation being the only important factor in price hikes.

Seriously, feel free to have the last word, but I really am done wasting my day here to contribute to an increasingly unreadable thread.

 

[erowe1]

I'm not debating whether MW laws cause inflation either

OK. Well, that's all I've been talking about this whole time.

Raising the MW does not cause inflation even if you define inflation as rising prices (which would mean all prices rising, not just some rising while others fall).

For those who are interested in understanding this, here's Henry Hazlitt's, "Inflation in One Page."
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/inflation-in-one-page/

Note especially:

3. The causes of inflation are not, as so often said, “multiple and complex,” but simply the result of printing too much money. There is no such thing as “cost-push” inflation. If, without an increase in the stock of money, wage or other costs are forced up, and producers try to pass these costs along by raising their selling prices, most of them will merely sell fewer goods. The result will be reduced output and loss of jobs. Higher costs can only be passed along in higher selling prices when consumers have more money to pay the higher prices.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

I briefly engaged with a Democrat candidate on Twitter a few weeks back. She tweeted something about raising the minimum wage, and I tweeted back that it would raise unemployment. She tweeted back that if that were true, unemployment would be higher in states with higher minimum wages.

I tweeted back 3 links to studies from lib universities that proved just that.

She didn't tweet back again.

Lol nice.

 

[TheGrinch]

OK. Well, that's all I've been talking about this whole time.

Raising the MW does not cause inflation.

No it doesn't. Again, inflation means to print more money. However, price hikes (not necessarily inflation, but can have a similar effect on the consumer) can happen without you printing money.

However that doesn't mean that by raising prices, they necessarily have to be lower anywhere else, like was your original assertion here:

Raising minimum wage does not cause prices to go up overall. It causes some prices to go up, but then other prices have to go down (or not go up as much as they otherwise would have) to make up for it.

That's what I was disagreeing with you about, because it's simply not true that prices correlate negatively with other prices. It's far more likely for there to be positive correlations between price increase in certain areas, especially when coupled with an artificial wage hike to allow for higher prices that the consumer can afford.

Other than that, you seem to think that I'm talking about inflation, when I'm not. I'm referring to the plethora of other factors that can lead to price increases, perhaps even across the board if you manipulate it all enough.

Inflation (printing money) is not the only means to price inflation.

 

[erowe1]

No it doesn't. Again, inflation means to print more money. However, price hikes (not necessarily inflation, but can have a similar effect on the consumer) can happen without you printing money.

However that doesn't mean that by raising prices, they necessarily have to be lower anywhere else, like was your original assertion here:

Correct. It only means that if the money supply stays constant. But if the money supply increases, then all wages and all prices can go up.

That's what I was disagreeing with you about, because it's simply not true that prices correlate negatively with other prices.

Yes it is.

Let's take money out of it and imagine a barter scenario where two parties are trading apples for oranges. If at one point in time the exchange rate is 2 apples for every orange, and then something happens that changes the supply or the demand for one or the other, such that the exchange rate becomes 3 apples for every orange, then another way of saying that is that the price of the apples went down commensurately with the price of the oranges going up. If you add in money as a medium of exchange, that basic result would be the same. If you increase the amount of money, then the prices of apples and oranges would both go up together, but the ratio of the price of one to the price of the other would stay the same. If you enact some price control that increases the price of one relative to the price of the other, then the one will go up in price while the other will go down. If you want to increase the price of the one without the price of the other going down, you have to increase the money supply.

Inflation (printing money) is not the only means to price inflation.

If you're talking about increasing all prices, and not just some, then yes it is. But at no time have I suggested that raising the MW doesn't raise some prices. It certainly at the very least raises the price of unskilled labor. But it raises that price relative to the price of other things. Therefore, if the price of those other things is to stay the same or go up, while the price of unskilled labor goes up relative to them, then there would have to be an increase in the money supply.

 

[The Free Hornet]

OK. Well, that's all I've been talking about this whole time.

Raising the MW does not cause inflation even if you define inflation as rising prices (which would mean all prices rising, not just some rising while others fall).

For those who are interested in understanding this, here's Henry Hazlitt's, "Inflation in One Page."
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/inflation-in-one-page/

Note espectially:

You have moved the goal posts from...

Raising minimum wage does not cause prices to go up overall. It causes some prices to go up, but then other prices have to go down (or not go up as much as they otherwise would have) to make up for it.

And...

Either that or the employer spends less money on other things, causing the demand curve for them, and thus their price, to go down. In actuality, over the whole economy, both of those things would be happening.

And...

No it doesn't. Certainly it causes some prices to go up. But in order for that to happen, other prices will have to go down.

Hazlitt says ...

4. Price controls cannot stop or slow down inflation. They always do harm. Price controls simply squeeze or wipe out profit margins, disrupt production, and lead to bottlenecks and shortages. All government price and wage control, or even “monitoring,” is merely an attempt by the politicians to shift the blame for inflation on to producers and sellers instead of their own monetary policies.

www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/inflation-in-one-page/

The price control is described as an unequivocal harm ("They always do harm."). There is no evening out of 'some goes up/some goes down'.

I think the sticking point here is you have co-opted the wider economic perspective to support this up/down theory you invented. The reason that inflation remains, on average and in most cases, a monetary phenomenon is the ability to substitute goods, to import, outsource, et cetera. The economy adapts to minimum wage increases just as certainly as cemetaries adapt to an increase in corpses.

On some scales, minimum wages increase prices which is sufficient to say they cause inflation. It may not be the type of inflation you mean (e.g., price of gold or oil or food in dollars). On larger scales, there is enough CPI distoration that I doubt all but a few know what the hell is going on. Some economists will see deflation even as the monetary supply increases (!). From their limited perspective they are correct. In the long wrong, Keynes already admitted that they are wrong.

Regardless, I think you have retreated into a safe position that is seperate from where you started. There is no need for some prices to go down to balance the minimum wage going up. If some prices go down - blank time/punch cards go down in demand and price due to unemployment - it is temporary whereas the minimum wage remains long term.

 

[erowe1]

You have moved the goal posts from...

I haven't moved the goalposts. At no time have I suggested that price controls ever fail to do harm. None of the things you bolded say that.

The things you bolded are saying the same thing Hazlitt says when he says, "1. Inflation is an increase in the quantity of money and credit. Its chief consequence is soaring prices. Therefore inflation—if we misuse the term to mean the rising prices themselves—is caused solely by printing more money. For this the government’s monetary policies are entirely responsible." and "3. The causes of inflation are not, as so often said, 'multiple and complex,' but simply the result of printing too much money. There is no such thing as 'cost-push' inflation. If, without an increase in the stock of money, wage or other costs are forced up, and producers try to pass these costs along by raising their selling prices, most of them will merely sell fewer goods. The result will be reduced output and loss of jobs. Higher costs can only be passed along in higher selling prices when consumers have more money to pay the higher prices."

Absent an increase in the money supply, there cannot be an increase in all prices. There can be an increase in some prices relative to others. But in order for that to happen without inflation, it must be the case that some prices go down while some go up. The only way for all to go up is, like Hazlitt says, by increasing the money supply.

I think the sticking point here is you have co-opted the wider economic perspective to support this up/down theory you invented.

You are too kind. I didn't invent this. I'm just repeating the standard free market economics explanation. I learned it from Sowell, or Friedman, or Williams, or Hazlitt, or someone else like that, who knows when.

 

[The Free Hornet]

You are too kind. I didn't invent this. I'm just repeating the standard free market economics explanation. I learned it from Sowell, or Friedman, or Williams, or Hazlitt, or someone else like that, who knows when.

No, you cannot source this bullshit (in bold) to any of those names:

Raising minimum wage does not cause prices to go up overall. It causes some prices to go up, but then other prices have to go down (or not go up as much as they otherwise would have) to make up for it.

It does unequivocal harm that may not be nearly as bad as monetary inflation (e.g., in magnitude). It does not have zero affect on prices (you claim and insist that some prices go up and some prices go down in equal measure to compensate). Prove that prices go down and source it to one of those names.

As you have stated and agreed repeated that the prices go up, the burden is on you to prove that prices go down in equal measure despite the unequivocal harm done (and both Hazlitt and Friedman were anti-minimum wage, especially to the extent in influences behavior as opposed to describing a prevailing wage for unskilled, inexperienced, entry-level work).

 

[erowe1]

No, you cannot source this bullshit (in bold) to any of those names:

I already did Hazlitt and Friedman in this thread.

Here's Williams.
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2005/11/16/whats_inflation/page/full/

 

[TheGrinch]

Yes it is.

Let's take money out of it and imagine a barter scenario where two parties are trading apples for oranges. If at one point in time the exchange rate is 2 apples for every orange, and then something happens that changes the supply or the demand for one or the other, such that the exchange rate becomes 3 apples for every orange, then another way of saying that is that the price of the apples went down commensurately with the price of the oranges going up. If you add in money as a medium of exchange, that basic result would be the same. If you increase the amount of money, then the prices of apples and oranges would both go up together, but the ratio of the price of one to the price of the other would stay the same. If you enact some price control that increases the price of one relative to the price of the other, then the one will go up in price while the other will go down. If you want to increase the price of the one without the price of the other going down, you have to increase the money supply.

This is not an issue of supply and demand, other than potentially more demand. If you raised the national minimum wage, then companies would almost immediately band together and charge more collectively, because they know that their products have all of the sudden become cheap relative to what the consumer can afford. Thus, there will be potential to raise prices to where they can still maximize profits without sacrificing demand, rahter than have high demand at too cheap of a price.

Wages will also trickle upward as prices do if they haven't already, and so yes that is where it can eventually lead to the Fed manipulating it with inflation, but it doesn't have to as long as higher prices can be maintained.

What does it matter if I now have to pay $1 instead of 0.50, if people are still able and willing to pay $3 instead of $2 for it?

That's where I think you're grossly oversimplifying some other prices needing to go down to compensate, when it's the higher wages that compensate for the higher prices, perhaps even across the board. There is no negative correlation unless the products are direct or indirect competitors, and as explained by Friedman, it is the priveledged who will be favored over the competitors in that situation.

Thus, you reduce competition, raise wages, raise prices and it matters little if you have to pay a little more to make it happen. If this happened in a free market, you'd call this savvy business, but in a manipulative market, it's just another sickening way the ones on top break the rules to stay there.

 

[The Free Hornet]

I already did Hazlitt and Friedman in this thread.

Here's Williams.
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2005/11/16/whats_inflation/page/full/

No. You have not shown where they claim: some prices go up/some prices go down due to minimum wage.

The closest you could come to sourcing anything is that there is no affect. Of course, those guys would be too smart to make such a claim as they understood the local and economy-wide affects.

Welcome to the bucket. It is long overdue.

 

[DamianTV]

...

What does it matter if I now have to pay $1 instead of 0.50, if people are still able and willing to pay $3 instead of $2 for it?

...

I cant afford it. But then again, I dont even count as a statistic either. And Im not the only one in this situation.

When costs go up, something has to get cut, somewhere. Maybe it is the quality of the product. Maybe it is someones job. Maybe the prices go up. One thing is for sure, prices dont come back down once they go up. Has anyone ever seen a DECREASE in Minimum Wage?

 

[erowe1]

This is not an issue of supply and demand, other than potentially more demand. If you raised the national minimum wage, then companies would almost immediately band together and charge more collectively, because they know that their products have all of the sudden become cheap relative to what the consumer can afford. Thus, there will be potential to raise prices to where they can still maximize profits without sacrificing demand, rahter than have high demand at too cheap of a price.

Wages will also trickle upward as prices do if they haven't already, and so yes that is where it can eventually lead to the Fed manipulating it with inflation, but it doesn't have to as long as higher prices can be maintained.

What does it matter if I now have to pay $1 instead of 0.50, if people are still able and willing to pay $3 instead of $2 for it?

That's where I think you're grossly oversimplifying some other prices needing to go down to compensate, when it's the higher wages that compensate for the higher prices, perhaps even across the board. There is no negative correlation unless the products are direct or indirect competitors, and as explained by Friedman, it is the priveledged who will be favored over the competitors in that situation.

Thus, you reduce competition, raise wages, raise prices and it matters little if you have to pay a little more to make it happen. If this happened in a free market, you'd call this savvy business, but in a manipulative market, it's just another sickening way the ones on top break the rules to stay there.

You keep talking about raising just some prices and some wages. Again, that's not what I'm talking about.

 

[TheGrinch]

I cant afford it. But then again, I dont even count as a statistic either. And Im not the only one in this situation.

When costs go up, something has to get cut, somewhere. Maybe it is the quality of the product. Maybe it is someones job. Maybe the prices go up. One thing is for sure, prices dont come back down once they go up. Has anyone ever seen a DECREASE in Minimum Wage?

Precisely. I never tried to claim that price increase was the only possibility, just that it can happen, along with all of the other shit from that damn policy that claims to help poor people.

 

[TheGrinch]

You keep talking about raising just some prices and some wages. Again, that's not what I'm talking about.

Yes, you're talking about how if some prices go up, some others have to go down. That's not necessarily true at all, especially when wages increase.

And in the cases of direct or indirect competition for consumers where this can happen regardless of policy, the policy favors the more privileged competition, so that is far more to relevant to a company losing its market share than where prices are at.

The point is that it stacks the deck even more in favor of some, and disproportionately to the detriment of the poor, not unlike inflation.

 

[mport1]

Raising the minimum wage? They must really hate poor people.