>> If I spend twice as much at McDonalds, I'm spending less money somewhere else.
> But if that doubling in money spent is solely due to wage increases on the service side, then those people are going to spend it somewhere else, probably somewhere locally.
Just like the other folks who were going to get the money that you want to divert to McDonalds.
> Minimum wage is not a tax, it is a regulated minimum on cost of labour, primarily to protect against people being taken advantage of when they are desperate.
If I want to buy a gallon of vodka, I'm required to pay money that I wouldn't pay otherwise - we call that a tax. How is requiring someone to pay more for an hour of labor any different? (In both cases, the argument is made that the money goes for a good cause....)
>> If you really believe that the minimum wage has almost no negative effects, why not raise it to $100.
> There's fairly obvious reasons for not trying to raise the minimum wage above the average wage.
The minimum wage can't be higher than the average wage....
The stated "minimum wage increases have no effect" argument doesn't have any dependency on the level/amount of the minimum wage.
Feel free to provide an argument that does.
> Personally I doubt that you really believe the tripe you are coming out with.
Hmm. I thought that the relevant question was whether I was correct or not.
No, I'm not suggesting diverting funds to McDonalds and raising the minimum wage wouldn't do that anyway as that isn't how the economics of it works.
After this I may want to buy a gallon of vodka, but if I do so I do not consider the wages of the person I am buying it off to be a form of tax, whether they have a regulatory minimum or not.
This is because the concept of tax has an actual definition that isn't really changed by your attempts to redefine it on the fly.
The definition of tax is not dependent on it being for a good cause, or even for any particular cause for that matter. Tax is a levy paid to a state, not a regulation of the minimum cost of a transaction between individuals. The portion of the money paid in wages cannot be a tax by definition as it is not being paid to a state.[1]
And no, the hourly minimum wage cannot be higher than the average, but you can create one that is higher than the current average, which is the example you yourself gave when you suggested a figure of $100.
And no-one is arguing that minimum wages have no effect. If they had no effect, no-one would be bothered either way. They can have positive and negative effects, like any other regulatory mechanism.
But the net benefit of a reasonably costed minimum wage is that people can always live off the money a job provides and not be taken advantage of by complete scoundrels, such as yourself.
[1] Or statelike actor, if we want to get picky. And no, the guy behind the counter at the 7-11 is probably not a statelike actor.
...Although, I just thought, if someone running a little shop was also an earl, or some tribal chieftain, and they considered their little shop to be their final outpost of conquered land, then there might be argument to be made that monies paid to them while in their fiefdom could be construed as some form of taxation. But I don't think that is all that common outside of Cornwall.
> And no-one is arguing that minimum wages have no effect. If they had no effect, no-one would be bothered either way.
Folks up this chain are clearly claiming that increasing the minimum wage has no effect on consumer behavior and no negative effect on the economy.
> But the net benefit of a reasonably costed minimum wage is that people can always live off the money a job provides
Repeating something doesn't make it true.
> and not be taken advantage of
Huh? Who is forcing them to settle for minimum wage? They're free to make more from anyone who will pay.
> by complete scoundrels, such as yourself.
Hey - a two-fer - you can't read AND you're resorting to name-calling.
You're just jealous because scoundrels get the babes.
I do like the assumption that I'm a bad person because I'm pointing out that your theory doesn't work. Newsflash - the good consequences of a theory have no bearing on whether it is actually true.
There's a reason why "he meant well" is a fairly significant insult.
Comments
>> If I spend twice as much at McDonalds, I'm spending less money somewhere else.
> But if that doubling in money spent is solely due to wage increases on the service side, then those people are going to spend it somewhere else, probably somewhere locally.
Just like the other folks who were going to get the money that you want to divert to McDonalds.
> Minimum wage is not a tax, it is a regulated minimum on cost of labour, primarily to protect against people being taken advantage of when they are desperate.
If I want to buy a gallon of vodka, I'm required to pay money that I wouldn't pay otherwise - we call that a tax. How is requiring someone to pay more for an hour of labor any different? (In both cases, the argument is made that the money goes for a good cause....)
>> If you really believe that the minimum wage has almost no negative effects, why not raise it to $100.
> There's fairly obvious reasons for not trying to raise the minimum wage above the average wage.
The minimum wage can't be higher than the average wage....
The stated "minimum wage increases have no effect" argument doesn't have any dependency on the level/amount of the minimum wage.
Feel free to provide an argument that does.
> Personally I doubt that you really believe the tripe you are coming out with.
Hmm. I thought that the relevant question was whether I was correct or not.
Is this really a "Tinkerbelle" issue?
No, I'm not suggesting diverting funds to McDonalds and raising the minimum wage wouldn't do that anyway as that isn't how the economics of it works.
After this I may want to buy a gallon of vodka, but if I do so I do not consider the wages of the person I am buying it off to be a form of tax, whether they have a regulatory minimum or not.
This is because the concept of tax has an actual definition that isn't really changed by your attempts to redefine it on the fly.
The definition of tax is not dependent on it being for a good cause, or even for any particular cause for that matter. Tax is a levy paid to a state, not a regulation of the minimum cost of a transaction between individuals. The portion of the money paid in wages cannot be a tax by definition as it is not being paid to a state.[1]
And no, the hourly minimum wage cannot be higher than the average, but you can create one that is higher than the current average, which is the example you yourself gave when you suggested a figure of $100.
And no-one is arguing that minimum wages have no effect. If they had no effect, no-one would be bothered either way. They can have positive and negative effects, like any other regulatory mechanism.
But the net benefit of a reasonably costed minimum wage is that people can always live off the money a job provides and not be taken advantage of by complete scoundrels, such as yourself.
[1] Or statelike actor, if we want to get picky. And no, the guy behind the counter at the 7-11 is probably not a statelike actor.
...Although, I just thought, if someone running a little shop was also an earl, or some tribal chieftain, and they considered their little shop to be their final outpost of conquered land, then there might be argument to be made that monies paid to them while in their fiefdom could be construed as some form of taxation. But I don't think that is all that common outside of Cornwall.
> And no-one is arguing that minimum wages have no effect. If they had no effect, no-one would be bothered either way.
Folks up this chain are clearly claiming that increasing the minimum wage has no effect on consumer behavior and no negative effect on the economy.
> But the net benefit of a reasonably costed minimum wage is that people can always live off the money a job provides
Repeating something doesn't make it true.
> and not be taken advantage of
Huh? Who is forcing them to settle for minimum wage? They're free to make more from anyone who will pay.
> by complete scoundrels, such as yourself.
Hey - a two-fer - you can't read AND you're resorting to name-calling.
You're just jealous because scoundrels get the babes.
I do like the assumption that I'm a bad person because I'm pointing out that your theory doesn't work. Newsflash - the good consequences of a theory have no bearing on whether it is actually true.
There's a reason why "he meant well" is a fairly significant insult.
Don't worry. I don't think you mean well.
> Tax is a levy paid to a state, not a regulation of the minimum cost of a transaction between individuals.
That's absurd.
There's no difference between the state taking my money and giving it to you and the state telling me that I have to give you money.