US Politics: midterm elections are nigh: do you know where your voting rights are?

[Shryke]

The necessities of each party entering the contract is irrelevant. What a person would likely do out of one's own circumstances is not the liability of the other with whom one seeks to enter a contract. There's no misconduct when the contract is carried out willfully, peacefully, and freely. When the government imposes a minimum-wage it threatens the issuance of penalties--which countermands the volition and the freedom of the parties involved. Not to say--its intervention is not peaceful.

:rofl:

Yeah, this statement explains so much about your ideas on economics.

[1918me]

When the government imposes a minimum-wage it threatens the issuance of penalties--which countermands the volition and the freedom of the parties involved.

I don't know about you, but I would imagine that at least one of the two parties involved would object to your characterization of this scenario. I mean, if someone were to decree that I receive a more liveable wage from my employer, I certainly wouldn't feel as though my freedom was being infringed upon.

Furthermore, ignoring literally everything about both parties save for their willingness to enter into a contract seems like an overly-simplistic view. I can understand the principle behind it, sure, and in a perfect world such a lenient framework would work out wonderfully, but it seems pragmatically useless to build policy based on such a narrow viewpoint.

[Fez]

Fez - Where's your prediction for governor in Pennsylvania?

Here are my guesses on just the marquee Senate races, and I make it largely going off of the good pollsters out there with a little bit of gut feeling, and I also think that the Dems will have at least to some degree improved their off-year voter turnout...

Kansas - Orman wins

New Hampshire - Shaheen holds off Brown - Win for Dems

Georgia - Nunn wins, incredibly, huge pickup for Dems

Kentucky - McConnell holds of ALG - Win for GOP

Arkansas - Cotton beats Pryor - Win for GOP

Louisiana - Landrieu goes down - win for GOP

Colorado - Gardner beats Udall in a big win for GOP

Iowa - Braley barely just barely holds off Ernst in key win for Dems

Alaska - Begich holds off Sullivan in another key win for Dems

North Carolina - Hagan holds off Tillis

The scary thing for the Dems is that in each of those races, I could easily be wrong and the GOP could win.

The scary thing for the GOP is that this is a year where the fundamentals really favor them having something of a wave, and they may not have one.

Corbett beating Wolf would be a massive upset at this point, so adding PA to the prediction list would just be padding my guessing percentage; same goes for Kasich smacking down Fitzgerald (and damn did that race go south for the Dems).

And yeah, there's an absurd number of coin flip races going on this year; presumably a product of Obama being deeply unpopular but the Republican party being even more unpopular. The Democrats are definitely losing seats in the Senate, but it could be anywhere from -1 (not too likely, but possibly) to -10 (also not too likely, -8 is probably the most realistic worst case scenario). And of course, between LA and GA possibly going to runoffs, AK probably not getting called for upwards of three weeks, and Orman holding out until its clear which party has the majority, we might not know who controls the Senate for quite a while.

In fact, we might not even know until after the new Congress comes into session. That happens Jan. 2, but the Georgia runoff isn't until Jan. 6. I don't know if I could deal with two more months of this.

[Seli]

Now I feel bad - I was overly snarky, so I apologize.

The difference between what Commodore said and murder lies in the word "voluntary." Murder, by definition, involves an unwilling participant (the victim). Employment, on the other hand, involves two willing participants. If I am willing to pay $6 an hour, and someone is willing to work for that much, by what right does the government intervene? Now you can disagree with that reasoning (most people do), but it isn't comparable to "let's legalize murder/rape/theft!"

Employment contracts hardly ever involve two willing participants. In a lot, of not most, cases one of the parties involved has a virtual gun to their head. Since they do need the income.

Government of course in our societies tends to earn the right to intervene since it by popular consent picks up the holes the companies let fall. Government is already helping out employees with food support since their employers don't pay them enough to survive in this world. It only makes sense to offload that burden to our communities by having the employer pay a living wage, although it has to be balanced against giving as many people as possible a chance to earn that living wage.

[Athias]

No, you've side-stepped it in order to put forward a theory with no evidence at all.

I provided a link in my first post on this thread. Did you read it?

You've literally just gone "Well, the evidence we have here suggests no ill effects, but there's totally other bad effects somewhere else in areas where there is no data!". You know, dodging the evidence we have on the subject and pulling shit out of your ass so you don't have to change your position in the face of facts.

No. You are misrepresenting my argument. My argument isn't against what the data you proffer suggests because the data you proffer does not countermand my point. Have you read those studies? I did--and in those studies, it is suggested, once again, incremental increases in the minimum-wage has not worsened or negatively impacted unemployment. I don't need to dodge this because it does not disprove that the minimum-wage creates distortions. So before you go on and accuse me of "pulling shit out my ass" why don't read the studies you proffer. And if you've already have, please cite "the facts" that would suggest that the minimum-wage does not create distortions.

If you don't see how it pertains to your theory here I'm not sure how you can pretend to be arguing this at all. "The distortions in the labor market are there no matter which minimum-wage is being proposed." implies that whatever effect you are theorizing occurs at all points along the minimum wage spectrum and that it is non-zero or not-basically-zero at all those points. Which suggests you can't imagine that even if this effet exists it might be non-linear or piece-wise.

But given you've basically decided that a simplistic Econ 101 model means it must be true, despite all evidence, that may be attributing too much thought to your position.

What I can "imagine" is not an argument. That is your impression. You continue to argue that I'm arguing in spite of "all evidence." Please point out to me, which evidence I'm arguing against.

[Commodore]

Kind of like making things like murder illegal, right? Because the same argument could be applied.

I meant the transaction is voluntary for both parties (and no externalities).

Unlike murder.

[TrueMetis]

I meant the transaction is voluntary for both parties (and no externalities).

Unlike murder.

Well for a given value of voluntary.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I'm sort of confused why there's a lot of talk about a runnoff in Louisiana. I was getting the impression that Landrieu was going to lose most heavily of all Dems defending seats.

There will be a runoff because there are two Republicans running in the first round, so neither will get over 50%.

[SkynJay]

I meant the transaction is voluntary for both parties (and no externalities).

Unlike murder.

I actually agree. Let's drop mininimum wage completly and give everyone in the nation a standard of living allowance. Then all working contracts can be truly voluntary.

[Commodore]

I actually agree. Let's drop mininimum wage completly and give everyone in the nation a standard of living allowance. Then all working contracts can be truly voluntary.

except for the work required to generate the funds for the living allowance

[Athias]

except for the work required to generate the funds for the living allowance

You beat me to it, :) .

[Shryke]

I provided a link in my first post on this thread. Did you read it?

Yes. I also know both where it's from (a libertarian economics site, a dubious combination at any time) and more importantly I know what they are basing their analysis on. And also, I know what that model describes as the problems with minimum wage.

You know what that is? Unemployment. (ie - a drop in demand).

And what does the evidence show doesn't happen? A rise in unemployment.

Did you never consider that there's a reason unemployment as effected by minimum wage increases is the most commonly studied effect of minimum wage increases?

No. You are misrepresenting my argument. My argument isn't against what the data you proffer suggests because the data you proffer does not countermand my point. Have you read those studies? I did--and in those studies, it is suggested, once again, incremental increases in the minimum-wage has not worsened or negatively impacted unemployment. I don't need to dodge this because it does not disprove that the minimum-wage creates distortions. So before you go on and accuse me of "pulling shit out my ass" why don't read the studies you proffer. And if you've already have, please cite "the facts" that would suggest that the minimum-wage does not create distortions.

But you are pulling shit out of your ass. Specifically you are pulling "distortions" out of your ass without ever characterizing what they are and why they are bad and why anyone should give a shit about them. Cause "distortions" is by itself a meaningless term.

Now if we are talking actual economics, the distortions caused by price controls like minimum wage are an increase in supply and a decrease in demand. (link -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Supply_and_demand )

And hey, guess what a decrease in demand means in the labour market? If you guessed "unemployment", you win! (Ok, well, you don't cause you are mysteriously arguing the opposite)

PS - Extra hilarious from wikipedia on this subject:

Modern economic theory suggests an excessive minimum wage may raise unemployment as it fixes a price above demand for labor, but a reasonable minimum wage enhances growth because workers lack bargaining power and labor markets are persistently monopsonistic. When poorer workers have more to spend it stimulates effective aggregate demandfor goods and services.

Which makes me giggle after your other post on this page.

[Shryke]

except for the work required to generate the funds for the living allowance

So you'd support a living allowance if we could maximize economic output even with the tax rates to support it?

[Commodore]

So you'd support a living allowance if we could maximize economic output even with the tax rates to support it?

If funds are diverted to a living allowance, that wouldn't be maximizing economic output.

I'm not in favor of maximizing economic output or opposed to living allowances. I'm opposed to government imposing those things.

[Athias]

Yes. I also know both where it's from (a libertarian economics site, a dubious combination at any time) and more importantly I know what they are basing their analysis on. And also, I know what that model describes as the problems with minimum wage.

You know what that is? Unemployment. (ie - a drop in demand).

And what does the evidence show doesn't happen? A rise in unemployment.

Did you never consider that there's a reason unemployment as effected by minimum wage increases is the most commonly studied effect of minimum wage increases?

But you are pulling shit out of your ass. Specifically you are pulling "distortions" out of your ass without ever characterizing what they are and why they are bad and why anyone should give a shit about them. Cause "distortions" is by itself a meaningless term.

Now if we are talking actual economics, the distortions caused by price controls like minimum wage are an increase in supply and a decrease in demand. (link -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Supply_and_demand )

And hey, guess what a decrease in demand means in the labour market? If you guessed "unemployment", you win! (Ok, well, you don't cause you are mysteriously arguing the opposite)

PS - Extra hilarious from wikipedia on this subject:

Which makes me giggle after your other post on this page.

Thank you Shryke for your participation. But you're backtracking and arguing ad hominem, now. Whether the information is "Libertarian" sourced doesn't qualify its validity. You say that I'm pulling "shit out my ass" because I'm not providing evidence, but now it's because I have not explained distortions, even though at the very beginning of this argument I did--by example of unemployment. I rationalized this point in subsequent comments by explaining legal unemployment. You put forward that I need data to back it up--despite that the conceptual understanding is derived a priori. You then suggest that I'm arguing against all evidence, despite the fact, that I'm obviously not. You've now gone on to explain supply and demand to me and insinuate that a wikipedia snippet suggest that "excessive" minimum-wage--though I don't see how the "modifier" changes the argument--may in fact create unemployment, but a "reasonable" one will not because of the stimulation of "aggregate demand" which by the way is a concept from those "simple" models with which you take issue.

I don't care about what makes you "giggle." I don't care about your perceptions of my understanding of economics unless it influences your participation in this argument. All I care about are your points. Make them. Because all you've argued thus far are tautologies. Please spare the redundancies.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Employment contracts hardly ever involve two willing participants. In a lot, of not most, cases one of the parties involved has a virtual gun to their head. Since they do need the income.

I understand this argument, that economic necessity is the same as coercion, but I will never agree. Working for low wages is not the same as working at gunpoint. Walmart employees are not slaves.

[TerraPrime]

It's interesting how Libertarians who ride the hobby horse of free contract of labors hard are also the same who would gut almost all, if not all, social welfare programs to support people who are out of work so they could look for a job that they can freely accept without undue economic pressure. In their world, people are "free" to choose to accept whatever labor contract offered because their alternate to not having a job would be to rely on private charities for sustenance. According to them, this is more ideal than (1) having a minimum wage, (2) having social welfare programs, or (3) both.

Fascinating.

[Athias]

Why do most arguments against Libertarians include "in their world..." Am I mistaken, and in fact I've been communicating with Libertarians through an interdimensional fiber-optic network (You go Verizon!)

The problems, as Commodore alluded to earlier, Terra, are not the goals, per se. It's the means by which these goals are effectuated that presents a problem. In other words, it's the imposition. If people voluntarily gather and agree up on a wage for which they will submit their labor, there's no problem. When the government intervenes and imposes a price with which both employer and employee are forced to comply, there's a problem. Why must the liability of "undue economic pressure," however vague that is, forcibly be transferred from one party to another or shared by both parties? A better question: why would one espouse an ideology that seeks to impose and force obligations?

[MerenthaClone]

So, if people voluntarily get together and agree that they'll all refuse to work for less than a certain value, and elect spokespersons to negotiate with the company that wishes to hire them, you'd have no problem with it?

Then there's the issue of "voluntary." By similar definitions of "voluntary" that you're using, companies chose to become incorporated within the United States. By doing so, they submit to the laws of the United States (and gain some protections as well). Why are they not voluntarily choosing to submit to a negotiated voluntary wage minimum? Why is that suddenly "force" while the worker is not "forced" to accept a pittance when the alternative is starvation?

[TrackerNeil]

It's interesting how Libertarians who ride the hobby horse of free contract of labors hard are also the same who would gut almost all, if not all, social welfare programs to support people who are out of work so they could look for a job that they can freely accept without undue economic pressure. In their world, people are "free" to choose to accept whatever labor contract offered because their alternate to not having a job would be to rely on private charities for sustenance. According to them, this is more ideal than (1) having a minimum wage, (2) having social welfare programs, or (3) both.

Fascinating.

A good libertarian never lets reality get in the way of philosophy.