Minimum Wage, Nick Hanauer

Feb 2011
16,344
5,685
Boise, ID
#24
If Australia can do almost 18, we can damn sure do 12.
CBO said even $10.10 would eliminate an estimated half-million low-skill jobs. Sucks to be them, right?!

The cities of SeaTac and Seattle have been raising the minimum wages for the last two years. When's the automation going to start? It's a bullshit threat and you know it.
A federal minimum wage is going to be a lot different than SeaTac. SeaTac is nowhere close to a representative example of all the regional and local markets across the country. Bustling wealthy metropolises can support higher minimum wages the same way they can support extremely high housing costs. That's why you don't see me or anyone else railing against San Francisco or New York City or SeaTac being able to raise its own wage floor at its municipal level. You all, on the other hand, are pushing one-size-fits-all wage floors (that give comparative advantage to the largest and richest corporations, by the way, unless smaller and medium sized enterprises are exempt from it).

But as to your ignorant question "when is the automation going to start?," have you not been outside your home in 20 years or something? The automation already started a long time ago, and continues to progress. Forcing wages higher faster will accelerate it. The cost-benefit analysis gradually changes (in favor of automating) as costs to automate drop and as wages increase.

Again. You're just plain wrong.

View attachment 12160
LOL, you declare "wrong" and then cite a sarcastic meme from Bill Maher. Very convincing!

I already annihilated Bill Maher's little meme earlier in this very thread. All FedGov has to do is disqualify all employees from any and every type of welfare benefit. The level of welfare benefit becomes the de facto minimum wage without any need to legislate blanket wage floors across all markets. So his assumption that "Uncle Sam has to" pay the remainder of what a KFC employee is assumed to need is flat wrong. It doesn't have to. Left wingers have this irresistible compulsion to, as they say, subsidize corporations, and then they whine incessantly about the fact that they're "subsidizing corporations."

If workers on welfare is "subsidizing corporations" via wage support and therefore intolerable, what is it when an unemployed people use welfare benefits to buy things from large companies/corporations? That must also be a "corporate subsidy." So should we pass a law that requires them to sell whatever they sell at-cost, if it's to an unemployed welfare beneficiary? Different prices for different people, based on perceived need?

Because that's exactly what you're advocating with wages: that government dictate a blanket price at which something is bought/sold based on its administrative assumptions about need, or based on some economic advisor or banker's macroeconomic agenda, and regardless of what the buyer and seller are actually willing to settle on between themselves, left to their own devices without government price-setting.

Government does not have to fill in the unmet needs of any wage worker. Government can disqualify all employed people from social welfare benefits and then employers wouldn't be able to get anyone to agree to work for those wages, unless the wage markedly exceeded their level of welfare from not working. Then the nation's social welfare provision becomes the de facto minimum wage. Alternatively, FedGov could pay a guaranteed minimum income to everyone who doesn't work, and let people decide if they want to work on top of that or not. The latter is an MMT style recommendation that I don't actually advocate. But you could, if you had the mental wherewithal to realize what you're really promoting. Either option creates full employment immediately, by definition. Neither is "subsidizing corporations." To even say that is to pretend not to know the actual definition of the word 'subsidy.'

Put more money into the pockets of the middle class and we all reap the benefits, including less people dependent on welfare.
Whose money do you tell yourself is being "put" there in those pockets? The money in the case of federal wage mandates doesn't just magically appear to be "put" in the pockets. It comes from somewhere. If you really want to "put money into the pockets of" somebody, start campaigning for a GBI (helicopter money).

You left wing ideologues have no ability to conceive of there possibly being ANY sort of downside to your pet policies WHATSOEVER. You think it is 100% good policy in all places, no matter what. No downsides. No one is harmed!!! EVERYONE BENEFITS TREMENDOUSLY!!! LA LA LA!!
 
Last edited:
Jan 2016
46,390
42,312
Colorado
#27
The liberal brain cannot come to grips with the fact that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Actually, the claim that "there is no such thing as a free lunch" is one of the most perniciously FALSE ideas that people get about economics.

I am going to quote a bit from the marvelous book The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress, by Joel Mokyr, Professor of Economic History at Northwestern University (and widely considered one of the leading economic historians of today). From the Introduction, in fact:

"Technological progress has been one of the most potent forces in history in that it has provided society with what economists call a 'free lunch', that is, an increase in output that is not commensurate with the increase in effort and cost necessary to bring it about. This view of technological change is inconsistent with one of the most pervasive half-truths that economists teach their students, the hackneyed aphorism that there is no such thing as a free lunch....Economic history is FULL of examples of free lunches, as well as (more frequently) very cheap lunches."

Another prominent economic historian, Deirdre McCloskey (at the University of Chicago) points out that the Industrial Revolution must be "a bitter disappointment to the apostles of scarcity" and refers to the no-free-lunch dogma as "a mildly comical jargon".

Here's my favorite example of an UTTERLY FREE lunch. The ancient Greeks and Romans used a ludicrously inefficient horse harness. It was essentially a copy of the harness used for cattle, but in the case of horses, it CHOKED the animals. At some point in the early Middle Ages, some nameless peasant (in all likelihood) got the bright idea of harnessing horses around their chests rather than their throats, and the efficiency of horses as work animals improved by more than 300%, OVERNIGHT.

And how much did this change 'cost'? Why, nothing. Nothing at all. Zilch, bupkus, nada. ALL it took was a reasonably smart peasant who could see that there was a better way to harness horses. A free lunch.
 
Likes: 1 person
Feb 2011
16,344
5,685
Boise, ID
#28
Actually, the claim that "there is no such thing as a free lunch" is one of the most perniciously FALSE ideas that people get about economics.

I am going to quote a bit from the marvelous book The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress, by Joel Mokyr, Professor of Economic History at Northwestern University (and widely considered one of the leading economic historians of today). From the Introduction, in fact:

"Technological progress has been one of the most potent forces in history in that it has provided society with what economists call a 'free lunch', that is, an increase in output that is not commensurate with the increase in effort and cost necessary to bring it about. This view of technological change is inconsistent with one of the most pervasive half-truths that economists teach their students, the hackneyed aphorism that there is no such thing as a free lunch....Economic history is FULL of examples of free lunches, as well as (more frequently) very cheap lunches."

Another prominent economic historian, Deirdre McCloskey (at the University of Chicago) points out that the Industrial Revolution must be "a bitter disappointment to the apostles of scarcity" and refers to the no-free-lunch dogma as "a mildly comical jargon".

Here's my favorite example of an UTTERLY FREE lunch. The ancient Greeks and Romans used a ludicrously inefficient horse harness. It was essentially a copy of the harness used for cattle, but in the case of horses, it CHOKED the animals. At some point in the early Middle Ages, some nameless peasant (in all likelihood) got the bright idea of harnessing horses around their chests rather than their throats, and the efficiency of horses as work animals improved by more than 300%, OVERNIGHT.

And how much did this change 'cost'? Why, nothing. Nothing at all. Zilch, bupkus, nada. ALL it took was a reasonably smart peasant who could see that there was a better way to harness horses. A free lunch.
Now if only you could wrap these examples of technological progress back around to the minimum wage, we'd be back on track!

Honestly, just because a few academia dwellers decided to declare the definition of "free lunch" to be "gains enjoyed by technological progress," then yeah, every example of human intellectual advancement or discovery of a more efficient method of doing anything, dating back to the dawn of the hominids and before, therefore qualifies as "free lunch."

But what webrock was talking about was people under the impression that they can legislate the outcomes they feel entitled to and there is no adverse effect for anyone.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person
Jul 2013
51,108
54,255
Nashville, TN
#29
Now if only you could wrap these examples of technological progress back around to the minimum wage, we'd be back on track!

Honestly, just because a few academia dwellers decided to declare the definition of "free lunch" to be "gains enjoyed by technological progress," then yeah, every example of human intellectual advancement or discovery of a more efficient method of doing anything, dating back to the dawn of the hominids and before, therefore qualifies as "free lunch."

But what webrock was talking about was people under the impression that they can legislate the outcomes they feel entitled to and there is no adverse effect for anyone.
You did a lot of whining and posturing, but you never addressed how Australia's economy is doing so well with an 18 dollar minimum wage and yet it would absolutely destroy the American economy. If that was true, why didn't it destroy the Australian economy? In fact, you have dodged the question for months why German auto manufacturers are justified paying their American workers half as much as they pay their German workers building the same car and selling it at the same price. One thing you are consistent, you always favor the corporation, and corporate malfeasance is never in your spotlight, it is always the workers fault.