The DNC KenyanCommieMooselimbDidn'tBuildIt MegaThread!

[Jaron]

Wouldn't the rise in their wages be offset by the rise of the cost of goods?

[DGuller]

Even if that means white collar professionals have to pay slightly more for their groceries.

The hardest hit would be the menial workers who would need to pay slightly more for their groceries.

Don't let logic interfere with the rhetoric of class warfare.

That's not logic, that's just something dumb.  Yes, menial workers would probably pay more for goods and services if they were paid more.  That is true.  To suggest that it's a bad trade-off is where it gets mind-numbingly stupid.

[Valmy]

I'm afraid of a Roman system in which "we" tax "those people over there" and then fight over the best seats in the Colliseum.

I do not see how this is a characteristic of the Roman system at all.

[Jaron]

I don't think there is any shortage in labor supply at that tier. Person A can walk in off the street and apply. If they balk at the offered wages, person B or C or D will take it.

Then disincentives to work don't really exist in this example.  Everyone except the one person who takes the job will have to be on the dole anyway.

It is not about disincentives in this case, but just highlighting why it is silly to raise the minimum wage to make those jobs more attractive. Spend a few months living off pennies and whatever food you can scrape by on and suddenly working at Walmart for minimum wage looks mighty attractive.

[Neil]

Even if that means white collar professionals have to pay slightly more for their groceries.

The hardest hit would be the menial workers who would need to pay slightly more for their groceries.

Don't let logic interfere with the rhetoric of class warfare.

That's not logic, that's just something dumb.  Yes, menial workers would probably pay more for goods and services if they were paid more.  That is true.  To suggest that it's a bad trade-off is where it gets mind-numbingly stupid.

You seem to have a hard time understanding the lives of poor people.  Maybe you should think more and be less of a stupid fucking faggot.

[DGuller]

You seem to have a hard time understanding the lives of poor people.  Maybe you should think more and be less of a stupid fucking faggot.

I don't need to understand anything about the lives of the poor people to demolish this argument.  To claim that higher wages for menial labor would be at least fully offset by higher cost of goods and services is incredibly stupid regardless of how much you understand about the lives of poor people (as a matter of fact, I think I do understand something about it, having been poor in the past).  The stupidity of such argument is on par with Laffer Curve argument, or "Henry Ford paid his workers a lot so that they could buy his cars and increase his profits" myth. 

The general fallacy behind all those arguments is that the mere existence of the secondary effect that works in the opposite direction leads to the giant logical leap that ends in the conclusion that the side-effect at least fully cancels out the original obvious effect.

[garbon]

Even if that means white collar professionals have to pay slightly more for their groceries.

The hardest hit would be the menial workers who would need to pay slightly more for their groceries.

Don't let logic interfere with the rhetoric of class warfare.

That's not logic, that's just something dumb.  Yes, menial workers would probably pay more for goods and services if they were paid more.  That is true.  To suggest that it's a bad trade-off is where it gets mind-numbingly stupid.

I don't think I said it was a bad trade-off (though that would really depend on just what exactly the increase in wage was relative to the increase in price for goods and services). I was suggesting that however you slice it, a rise in price in consumer goods is more likely to have significant effects on those in menial or lower positions - especially those who did not see their wages rise (unless we are discussing a scenario where everyone from the destitute to lower middle class sees an increase in income) rather than on the white collar professionals that Peter has maligned.

Really it'd be the middle class who'd feel the biggest pinch.

[DGuller]

I don't think I said it was a bad trade-off (though that would really depend on just what exactly the increase in wage was relative to the increase in price for goods and services). I was suggesting that however you slice it, a rise in price in consumer goods is more likely to have significant effects on those in menial or lower positions - especially those who did not see their wages rise (unless we are discussing a scenario where everyone from the destitute to lower middle class sees an increase in income) rather than on the white collar professionals that Peter has maligned.

Really it'd be the middle class who'd feel the biggest pinch.

Unskilled labor is more or less a commodity.  If the wages for it rise in one sector, they have to rise in all sectors due to competitive pressures. 

As for who's "hardest hit", it makes no sense to talk about it in gross terms.  If Congress passes an act tomorrow that awards me $10 million, I would probably not be the hardest hit person by that act, even though my tax bill would increase the most as a result of it.

[garbon]

Unskilled labor is more or less a commodity.  If the wages for it rise in one sector, they have to rise in all sectors due to competitive pressures.

It wouldn't be immediate but rather a slow painful process and not necessarily one that guarantees a positive outcome.

As for who's "hardest hit", it makes no sense to talk about it in gross terms.  If Congress passes an act tomorrow that awards me $10 million, I would probably not be the hardest hit person by that act, even though my tax bill would increase the most as a result of it.

I don't think I follow this at all.

[DGuller]

Well, sleep on it.

[garbon]

No, I don't think I will spend additional time thinking about your scenario about hardest hit not being an applicable label when you are awarded money.

[DGuller]

Sigh, it's really a drag to engage in conversations with people who totally lack abstract thinking skills.  Ok, I'll elaborate for willfully obtuse.

The hypothetical and hugely implausible act that will award me $10,000,000 million would cost an average taxpayer a couple of cents.  However, I personally would pay around $3,000,000 more in taxes because of that act, since that award will be part of my income.  Ergo, I would be "hardest hit".

The logic is greatly exaggerated for illustrative purposes, but it is identical in structure to the logic that claims that poor people would be the hardest hit if they would be paid more for work.

[garbon]

The logic is greatly exaggerated for illustrative purposes, but it is identical in structure to the logic that claims that poor people would be the hardest hit if they would be paid more for work.

I don't see how it is identical in the least. Even if wages were to increase across the board (as you stated), that increase would be slow and gradual. Those who currently had not received the increase would be pinched hard by the increase in basic goods - much more so than the terrible white collar workers.  And really a similar story for the unemployed. It isn't really the direct menial workers so much but everyone around their class who doesn't get to reap the same benefits.

Though also, I don't really see why prices on said goods wouldn't increase beyond the simple increase needed to cover the increase in pay for the menial workers.  If everyone is making more money, why wouldn't business charge more as everyone would be able to afford more.  Much in the same way that if I buy liquor at 6th and 8th, I'll pay a significant premium over a purchase of the same liquor at 6th and 23rd (and more dramatically over said purchase in BedStuy) in one part because people in the village can afford to pay more.

[Eddie Teach]

rather than on the white collar professionals that Peter has maligned.

Where?

[Eddie Teach]

Really it'd be the middle class who'd feel the biggest pinch.

Well, kinda. As this hypothetical was based on the impact of government safety nets, it's the doctors and lawyers and other professionals in the 36% bracket who are contributing the most. Any effect on labor costs and thus prices is dwarfed by the amount of welfare spending it would take to make government welfare have such an effect.