Minimum Wage Can Stand Some Maximizing...

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

I shudder to think of the moral character of the individual who does not harm others simply because of concern that he might get caught and punished.

You need to get out more. I live in the backwaters know all kinds of people I wouldn't turn my back on. It's got to be much worse in the big cities.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Vic
I shudder to think of the moral character of the individual who does not harm others simply because of concern that he might get caught and punished.

Shudder all you want. To pretend this group of people doesn't exist is silly. Not everyone is moral.

Yes, I just threw out figures. Links above give more specific data. After wages went up 20%, inflation did NOT go up 20%. Yes, prices will go up. Call it a hidden tax, or call it whatever you want. The fact is simple the price increases are smaller than the wage increases for the poor. Of course the wealthy won't get much if any raise, and they will be hurt by the rising prices.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

I shudder to think of the moral character of the individual who does not harm others simply because of concern that he might get caught and punished.

You need to get out more. I live in the backwaters know all kinds of people I wouldn't turn my back on. It's got to be much worse in the big cities.

It is a sad state of affairs, but we are animals. We aren't some glorified civil spiritual being. There are bad elements in all areas and all peoples. I wouldn't expect much 'moral character' out of anyone.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Vic
I shudder to think of the moral character of the individual who does not harm others simply because of concern that he might get caught and punished.

Shudder all you want. To pretend this group of people doesn't exist is silly. Not everyone is moral.

Yes, I just threw out figures. Links above give more specific data. After wages went up 20%, inflation did NOT go up 20%. Yes, prices will go up. Call it a hidden tax, or call it whatever you want. The fact is simple the price increases are smaller than the wage increases for the poor. Of course the wealthy won't get much if any raise, and they will be hurt by the rising prices.

I'm not pretending that said group does not exist. I simply believe that its size is greatly overexaggerated, as is the power of the law to curtail them. After all, the more we try to stop crime, the more crime increases, does it not?

No, inflation did not go up 20%... right away. But it has since then with no corresponding increase in the minimum wage. Your dataset was not complete.
As for the wealthy, rising prices do not hurt them. First, they can afford them. Second, they own assets that increase in value along with inflation (their asses are properly hedged).

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm not pretending that said group does not exist. I simply believe that its size is greatly overexaggerated, as is the power of the law to curtail them. After all, the more we try to stop crime, the more crime increases, does it not?

No, inflation did not go up 20%... right away. But it has since then with no corresponding increase in the minimum wage. Your dataset was not complete.

Your quote, "despite the futility of using them to prevent crime", reads like you think laws are useless. If that wasn't your intent, I appologize. Maybe you should edit it to make it more clear. I cannot answer your question about rising crime since I don't know how the level of crime enforcement changed over the years. Graph of crime rates. Looks like a big per capita crime rate increase from 1960-1980, stationary from 1980-1990, and falling from 1990-2000. How did crime laws change during those periods? I simply do not know. I personally feel, admittedly without scientific proof, that economics and politics of the country are a leading factor towards crime rates and not necessarilly laws. But, absence of laws would be a terrible thing, leading to drastic crime rate increases. I think our laws make us safer (prevent crimes) compared to an anarchy.

As for your second point, are you arguing that (a) inflation is delayed significantly from wage increases, (b) wage should be inflation adjusted, (c) or some combination?

 

[Vic]

"despite the futility of using them to prevent crime"

If laws were successful in preventing crime, then (with all our laws) crime would not occur.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Vic
"despite the futility of using them to prevent crime"

If laws were successful in preventing crime, then (with all our laws) crime would not occur.

Our definition of 'prevent' is different then. If crime dropped from 100 to 30 with a new law, then I say 70 crimes were prevented. You say crime still exists thus it wasn't prevented. Nothing to see here, move along folks.

 

[borosp1]

How about creating a minumim living wage in terms of area of the country your in and cost of living in that part. Someone making $7 hr in New York is going to have a harder time getting by then someone living in Alabama. There needs to be a real living wage far above the proposed minimum wage for big market/higher cost cities like NY, LosAngeles, Chicago, etc..

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic
"despite the futility of using them to prevent crime"

If laws were successful in preventing crime, then (with all our laws) crime would not occur.

Laws aren't meant to prevent crime, they are meant to define what is crime and what isn't. You can't say laws are a failure because they don't prevent crime.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: borosp1
How about creating a minumim lving wage in terms of area of the country your in and cost of living in that part. Someone making $7 hr in New York is going to have a harder time getting by then someone living in Alabama. There needs to be a real living wage far above the proposed minimum wage for big market/higher cost cities like NY, LosAngeles, Chicago, etc..

They already do to some extent. Clinton signed a law that allowed individual states to raise the minimum wage above federal min wage if they wanted.

Some states have and some havent.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Vic
"despite the futility of using them to prevent crime"

If laws were successful in preventing crime, then (with all our laws) crime would not occur.

Our definition of 'prevent' is different then. If crime dropped from 100 to 30 with a new law, then I say 70 crimes were prevented. You say crime still exists thus it wasn't prevented. Nothing to see here, move along folks.

A new law can NEVER cause a drop in crime, only an increase. Logically, it can be no other way, as a new law creates a new crime where one did not exist before.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic
"despite the futility of using them to prevent crime"

If laws were successful in preventing crime, then (with all our laws) crime would not occur.

Laws aren't meant to prevent crime, they are meant to define what is crime and what isn't. You can't say laws are a failure because they don't prevent crime.

And I did not say that laws are a failure because they don't prevent crime.


edit: What I did say (or mean, if you prefer) is that laws are failures when they are created and used with the intention of preventing crimes. Laws can't do that.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Vic
"despite the futility of using them to prevent crime"

If laws were successful in preventing crime, then (with all our laws) crime would not occur.

Our definition of 'prevent' is different then. If crime dropped from 100 to 30 with a new law, then I say 70 crimes were prevented. You say crime still exists thus it wasn't prevented. Nothing to see here, move along folks.

A new law can NEVER cause a drop in crime, only an increase. Logically, it can be no other way, as a new law creates a new crime where one did not exist before.

Exactly, a law will just define a crime, not prevent it.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic
"despite the futility of using them to prevent crime"

If laws were successful in preventing crime, then (with all our laws) crime would not occur.

Laws aren't meant to prevent crime, they are meant to define what is crime and what isn't. You can't say laws are a failure because they don't prevent crime.

And I did not say that laws are a failure because they don't prevent crime.

Ahh, futile or failure, what's the big difference??

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Vic
"despite the futility of using them to prevent crime"

Read, damnit, read!

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Vic
"despite the futility of using them to prevent crime"

If laws were successful in preventing crime, then (with all our laws) crime would not occur.

Our definition of 'prevent' is different then. If crime dropped from 100 to 30 with a new law, then I say 70 crimes were prevented. You say crime still exists thus it wasn't prevented. Nothing to see here, move along folks.

A new law can NEVER cause a drop in crime, only an increase. Logically, it can be no other way, as a new law creates a new crime where one did not exist before.

Exactly, a law will just define a crime, not prevent it.

I disagree, a crime can be defined without a law. We all know the definition of murder - to kill someone (yes there are degrees, but lets not complicate it for this discussion). Suppose a country allowed murders. Making murder illegal, can and will reduce the number of murders. Thus some murders were prevented. I do not see your logic that the number of murders will "only increase".

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic
"despite the futility of using them to prevent crime"

If laws were successful in preventing crime, then (with all our laws) crime would not occur.

Laws aren't meant to prevent crime, they are meant to define what is crime and what isn't. You can't say laws are a failure because they don't prevent crime.

And I did not say that laws are a failure because they don't prevent crime.


edit: What I did say (or mean, if you prefer) is that laws are failures when they are created and used with the intention of preventing crimes. Laws can't do that.

Example of this perhaps?

I think what your trying to say is that we have too damn many laws and I agree with that sentiment. It's stupid to think that just because you pass a law and make something illegal that the law all by itself is going to prevent everyone from doing what it prohibits.

 

[dullard]

I think Vic means this:

Laws cannot eliminate bad behaviors, laws only have the *potential* to reduce these bad behaviors.

If that is what you mean, then I think we all agree.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Vic
"despite the futility of using them to prevent crime"

If laws were successful in preventing crime, then (with all our laws) crime would not occur.

Our definition of 'prevent' is different then. If crime dropped from 100 to 30 with a new law, then I say 70 crimes were prevented. You say crime still exists thus it wasn't prevented. Nothing to see here, move along folks.

A new law can NEVER cause a drop in crime, only an increase. Logically, it can be no other way, as a new law creates a new crime where one did not exist before.

Exactly, a law will just define a crime, not prevent it.

I disagree, a crime can be defined without a law. We all know the definition of murder - to kill someone (yes there are degrees, but lets not complicate it for this discussion). Suppose a country allowed murders. Making murder illegal, can and will reduce the number of murders. Thus some murders were prevented. I do not see your logic that the number of murders will "only increase".

Agreed, a law "might" prevent a crime. Example: I don't drink and drive home from the bar after a night out anymore. Actually I seldom have a night out anymore, just too much hassle for the limited amount of fun obtained.

However, in your example, that law created crime, because there is now legal crime as defined by the law where before there was no crime.

 

[ValkyrieofHouston]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: ntdz
1. State minumum wage is usually higher than Federal (here in Cali it's like $7 something), so raising federal minimum wage is somewhat pointless.

2. Raising minimum wage will mostly help high school and college kids with part-time jobs, not people actually trying to make it on their own.

(1) Link from above, 11 states have higher minimums. That is far from "usually higher". Your argument could potentially be used to argue why fight federal increases if states were truely "usually higher". Just let the federal go up.

(2) From the original post, 70% are adults (20+ years old). Thus, it will help many who AREN'T kids. Yes, it will help high school kids and yes it will help college kids. But these kids are the same who usually spend their money and pump it right back into the businesses to begin with. Meaning, overall, businesses aren't harmed much by having kids get raises. Sure some businesses will be greatly helped and others greatly harmed. But overall, they pretty much cancel out.

I agree, and in the article links I posted many of those teenagers come from homes that are at or below the poverty line.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
However, in your example, that law created crime, because there is now legal crime as defined by the law where before there was no crime.

There was murder before, so I define it as being a "crime" before (even though it wasn't against the law).

Thus to get stupid semantics out of the way, lets just say it can reduce what politicians consider unwanted behaviors.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dullard
I disagree, a crime can be defined without a law. We all know the definition of murder - to kill someone (yes there are degrees, but lets not complicate it for this discussion). Suppose a country allowed murders. Making murder illegal, can and will reduce the number of murders. Thus some murders were prevented. I do not see your logic that the number of murders will "only increase".

Actually, what you consider a complication is crucial to the discussion. Without the law to define murder and enforce that definition, people would be unable to agree on circumstances and punishment. John and his family might feel that Bob murdered John's brother, while Bob and his family might feel that the killing was self-defense. Without the law to determine what actually happened then hold that determination up against the definition of the law, John might feel compelled to take matters into his own hands for what he considers to be a crime after Bob's family decides that no crime occurred.

However, I did not say that the number of murders would increase. I said the amount of crime would increase. That is a crucial difference. As you see from the example above, without the law, it is impossible for people to determine and agree that a crime had actually occurred. Therefore, the crime of murder did not exist until it was made a crime under the law. Murder occurred prior to, of course, but it was not a crime.

To understand something, you must compare it against nothingness. Because without something, nothing would exist. Does that make sense?

 

[Meuge]

Zentroll - Poor people don't deserve to live.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Zentroll - Poor people don't deserve to live.

A pre-emptive trolling? :roll:

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Meuge
Zentroll - Poor people don't deserve to live.

A pre-emptive trolling? :roll:

Heh, yeah... sorry about that - I just figure if I put this troll out there, I won't have to see it written by someone who means it.