Subject:
|
Re: Ldraw cannon
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 6 Dec 1998 15:03:57 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpien@[nospam]ctp.IWANTNOSPAM.com
|
Viewed:
|
1706 times
|
| |
|
|
<366A0E48.901D7C85@ctp.IWANTNOSPAM.com> <F3J7pC.EGt@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jesse Long wrote:
>
> Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <366A0E48.901D7C85@ctp.IWANTNOSPAM.com>...
> >
> > Minimum wage CAUSES unemployment. Followups to .debate not .fun...
>
>
> You could at least explain that if you're going to toss it out. Lots of
> people don't believe it. Apparently people think employers will just fork
> out more moeny and not cut any jobs.
OK, briefly. This is purely an economic analysis. Anyone who wishes to
prattle about how people have rights to jobs or employers have
obligations to provide them hasn't any standing in the debate and can
just keep such fantasyland thinking to themselves.
Performing a task has an economic value. That value is what getting the
task done is WORTH. Determining that value by analysis is tricky, but
factors that contribute include what the impact of not doing the task at
all would be with no process change, and what it would cost to change
process to avoid the need for the task, and what it would cost to
automate the task (just another sort of process change).
In deciding how to get a task performed, given its worth, an employer
can either get an existing employee to do it or hire a new one. Hiring
has a cost as well, and there are ongoing incremental costs associated
with one more employee, both reasonable (benefits, and uniforms and
suchlike) and unreasonable (the Social Security ponzi scheme, for
example), that must be borne.
Now suppose that a newly identified task is worth 7 dollars an hour to
get done (vast simplification) but non wage costs if a new employee is
hired are 4 dollars an hour (rather cheap, actually). Now if there is a
minimum wage law in effect saying that a new employee must get 5
dollars, then the employer will have to pay 2 dollars an hour more than
the task is worth to get it accomplished. Ergo either the task will not
be done or will be done in another way. No job created.
Since creating jobs is the primary way that unemployment is attacked,
the MW directly causes unemployment. A person who may have been willing
to work for that 3 dollars an hour (after nonwage costs, and because
they want to get started in the work force and learn skills (1) ) now is
DENIED a job thanks to the friendly government.
Now let's look at the long term effects. We all agree that long term,
that 3 dollar job is not where we want a worker to remain (although it
is a good starting point). If we mandate that employers subsidise low
value jobs we get lots of bad effects. First, people in them are not
incented to improve themselves since they're getting more than their
work is worth. Second, the high wage jobs aren't getting what they are
worth either, also a disincentive. Third, our McDonalds is dirtier than
it needs to be since we can't get the workers in to clean it
economically. (noticed how McDonalds are dirtier lately... now you know
why)
Now, a 3 dollar job WOULD be a living wage job if it weren't for the
drag that government placed on the economy, but that's another topic (
personally, i think 80 cents on the dollar of my food dollar goes to
silly government in one way or another when you factor in evertying)
1 - my first job not supplied by a relative paid maybe 50 cents an hour,
as a paper boy. I had it when I was 12. Learned a lot. My next one paid
well below minimum wage, and I was in collusion with my employer to keep
it that way. (2) He could not have afforded another bus boy if he had to
pay a "living wage" to a middle school student. I would not have learned
the food service industry well enough to become a crew leader at
McDonalds by the time I was in 12th grade. We both won.
2 - who shall remain anonymous despite my belief about the statue of
limitations
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Ldraw cannon
|
| (...) I happen to know someone who seems to hold these beliefs. I once had to hear him whine and complain about how our employer had to pay him more because he was behind in his bills and would never catch up and be able to buy a house if they (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Ldraw cannon
|
| Larry Pieniazek wrote (...) One minor point Larry: this presumes that the employer will pay what the job is worth, rather that the minimum required to attract staff. I would object to that practice were I a shareholder. The minimum wage is similar (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Ldraw cannon
|
| (...) I have a shooting cannon in my to-render-bucket, but unfortunately, it has low priority. Also, at the Tracked Parts List at (URL) it says: 3 Cannon Zach Coakley Planning to Work On 1/7/98 I'll never learn if that means January 7th or July (...) (26 years ago, 6-Nov-98, to lugnet.cad)
|
94 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
