Minimum wage

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 157
#91
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Christen
How can the government set the correct minimum wage when nobody can agree what the correct minimum wage is? How do they know if they're setting the correct minimum wage? How can we trust that they know what they're doing if nobody can agree on it? 
You don't need everyone to agree on it. Just 50% + 1.
The minimum wage is already enough to afford people housing, clothing, and transportation, while the government covers food and health costs.
Exactly. The minimum wage isn't livable. It requires supplementary assistance. You concede the point, then?

Why raise the minimum wage and risk hurting those businesses with already-thin profit margins? They will have to fire employees, reduce hours, and/or raise costs. If those employees lose their jobs, they will be worse off, since they not cannot work and have to depend on others even more.
You made this up.

Many businesses are even replacing workers with automation/robots.
Off topic.

Those people won't be able to earn money to afford anything, their work won't be worth at least the minimum wage, it will be illegal for anyone to hire them, and they will be screwed.Those who still manage to keep their jobs would have their hours reduced or prices raised, in order for the business to stay in profit.If too many people get fired, or if prices are raised too much, the entire business could go out of business.
You made this up.

What does a minimum wage increase do for all those homeless people in America? They already can't get jobs since they won't get hired. Many of them are drug addicts too. https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-homeless-crisis-historic-cemetery-overrun-with-drugs-and-prostitution-amid-worsening-problem.amp
Off topic.

#92
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@drafterman
The minimum wage isn't livable. It requires supplementary assistance.
Do we raise the minimum wage and get rid of the supplementary assistance, or do we get rid of the minimum wage and raise the supplementary assistance?
It doesn't make sense to have both.

Why raise the minimum wage and risk hurting those businesses with already-thin profit margins? They will have to fire employees, reduce hours, and/or raise costs. If those employees lose their jobs, they will be worse off, since they not cannot work and have to depend on others even more.
You made this up.

Those people won't be able to earn money to afford anything, their work won't be worth at least the minimum wage, it will be illegal for anyone to hire them, and they will be screwed.Those who still manage to keep their jobs would have their hours reduced or prices raised, in order for the business to stay in profit.If too many people get fired, or if prices are raised too much, the entire business could go out of business.
You made this up.
Those aren't made up. Imagine that you run a business, your profit margins are razor thin, you already pay your employees as much as you can.
Then the government decides that they need more money instead of you.
What do you do?
#93
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Christen
Do we raise the minimum wage and get rid of the supplementary assistance, or do we get rid of the minimum wage and raise the supplementary assistance?
We raise the minimum wage so they don't need the supplementary assistance.

Those aren't made up. Imagine that you run a business, your profit margins are razor thin, you already pay your employees as much as you can.
Then the government decides that they need more money instead of you.
What do you do?
If I'm in a business whose profits are so razor thin I paying my employees as much as I can then I've designed my business poorly. I'm likely on the verge of collapse anyway. That's a problem with me, not with minimum wage.

Regardless, all of these fear-mongering scenarios are things you made up. I can make things up too: "If we don't raise minimum wage an asteroid will hit the Earth and obliterate everyone. What do you do?"

#94
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@drafterman
We raise the minimum wage so they don't need the supplementary assistance.

If I'm in a business whose profits are so razor thin I paying my employees as much as I can then I've designed my business poorly. I'm likely on the verge of collapse anyway.

While owners are closely examining the effects of the minimum wage increases on small businesses, they have important factors to consider beyond the quick math of how much more they have to pay their hourly employees. 
For one thing, the many small businesses that employ a slim, primarily hourly staff will see impacts on margins and cash flow from the shifts in minimum wage requirements. And those who forecast a direct hit on their bottom line will wonder if they should make any changes to make up for it.

Tara Oxley, who owns two businesses in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn—Eugene & Co, a farm-to-table restaurant; and Chicky’s General Store, a specialty grocery—is among those feeling a squeeze. She has seven employees at the store and 16 at the restaurant, including 10 bartenders and servers who received the statewide increase of $1.15 per hour to $8.65 for tipped workers.
After tips, she says, they make well over minimum wage, as do her other employees. But the wage increase is still a concern for Oxley as she evaluates her financials.
“Maybe some other businesses can pass it on to the customer and not affect their bottom line, and it might help them with retention,” she says. But as a small restaurant and small shop owner, Oxley says she already works unpaid shifts herself so she can make payroll.  
“I find myself extremely lucky because I am fortunate enough to have an extraordinary group of people that work with me,” she says. “I consider them family, so if they need something they do not hesitate to ask. We figure it out together. I would hate to lose any of these members of my family because I could not afford to pay as many employees.”

How do you know that these many small businesses with razor thin profit margins designed their business poorly? How do you know that they would have been "on the verge of collapse anyway"?

Why can't I argue that it's the poor people themselves who made the poor decision to depend on low paying entry-level jobs in the first place, and make poor life choices such as having kids?

You already admitted that not everyone will agree on what the correct minimum wage is, and said we only need 50% + 1 to agree on it. What if 25% agrees there should be no minimum wage, another 25% agrees it should be 7.25, another 25% agrees it should be 20 dollars, and the other 25% agrees it should be 100 dollars?

How do we know which of those 25%'s know the correct minimum wage, and why blame the businesses even those they're not the ones setting the minimum wage, the government is.

If we don't raise minimum wage an asteroid will hit the Earth and obliterate everyone.
How long do we have, to raise the minimum wage, until we're hit by this thing? Also, when you say "we," are you referring to all of the states, a few states, or the whole world?

California, Illinois, and Massachusetts are all set to raise their minimum wages to $15.00 per hour by January 1, 2023 for California and Massachusetts and by 2025 for Illinois.[77][78] Colorado is set to raise its minimum wage from $9.30 per hour to $12 per hour by January 1, 2020, rising $0.90 per year.

Some areas are going to wait until 2025 to raise the minimum wage. Do they have to raise it sooner to avoid the asteroid? How much time do we have before the asteroid hits to make a decision?

How much do we raise the minimum wage by? A penny? A nickel? Also, how often do we need to keep raising the minimum wage? Can we raise it once and never have to do it again, or do we have to keep raising it every 20 years so the asteroid leaves us alone?
#95
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Christen
While owners are closely examining the effects of the minimum wage increases on small businesses, they have important factors to consider beyond the quick math of how much more they have to pay their hourly employees. 
Exactly. Things aren't as simple as your fear mongering would suggest.

How do you know that these many small businesses with razor thin profit margins designed their business poorly? How do you know that they would have been "on the verge of collapse anyway"?
I don't know. You're making shit up (e.g. people who want minimum wage increases are lazy people who've made bad decisions and want the government to pay for luxury items) so I figured I would, too. It's a fun game. When you want to stop making shit up, I will.

Why can't I argue that it's the poor people themselves who made the poor decision to depend on low paying entry-level jobs in the first place, and make poor life choices such as having kids?
You have argued that. It's patently ridiculous, which I think I've demonstrated by doing it back. Can we stop with the silly scenarios, then?

You already admitted that not everyone will agree on what the correct minimum wage is, and said we only need 50% + 1 to agree on it. What if 25% agrees there should be no minimum wage, another 25% agrees it should be 7.25, another 25% agrees it should be 20 dollars, and the other 25% agrees it should be 100 dollars?
If you don't understand how legislation works, then I encourage you to educate yourself.
#96
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@drafterman
I didn't make that up. It's basic math calculations.
Families with higher costs of living need higher wages than families with lower costs of living.
Families with lower costs of living do not need higher wages.
Not every business makes the exact same profits, and not every business is the exact same size.
Because of this, not every business will be able to afford to pay higher and higher wages, unless they find a way to increase their profits.
Where would this extra money come from?
They could reduce employee hours, raise prices of their goods, or fire employees outright, and invest in automation.

If someone works for me, they make 12 dollars an hour, they are working 2 hours a day, they are making 24 dollars a day. If the minimum wage is raised to 24 dollars an hour, I could simply reduce their hours to 1, so they're still making 24 dollars a day.
If the minimum wage, whatever that is, gets doubled, businesses can simply cut the hours in half to avoid having to pay more. If the minimum wage, whatever that currently is, gets multiplied by 1.5, businesses can divide the hours by 1.5 to avoid having to pay more. If you multiply the minimum wage by any number greater than 1, businesses can divide the hours by that same number so they are paying the same amount daily.

Here's a formula for this: ((A/B))*(C*B)) = D
A is the number of work hours, C is the current minimum wage B is whatever you multiply the minimum wage by, and D is how much money the worker makes, each day he/she works.
In this formula, D will always remain the same, regardless of what A and C are.

Basic math calculations can't be "made up".

If someone works for me, and I pay them 14 dollars an hour, and that's the minimum wage, and it gets raised to 16, and there's a robot than I can invest 15 dollars in to do that labor, I can fire that person and invest in the robot, so I save at least 1 dollar. 16 - 15 = 1.

It's basic math calculations. Not made up. Any business that can invest in automation that is cheaper than what the would have to pay an employee will save money by investing in that automation.

If I run a businesses that sells items, and the price of the item is 1 dollar, and my employee sells 7 items a day to make 7 dollars, and the minimum wage is 3 dollars, I can pay my employee 3 dollars, while my profit margin is 4 dollars. If the wage is raised to any number that is higher than my profit margin, I would have to raise the price of the item, to maintain a profit margin, or I go out of business.
It's basic deductive reasoning, which, again, is not made up.

If it is all made up... if raising wages doesn't lead to any of these possible outcomes... then why stop at $15 dollars? Why not raise it to $150 and make everyone richer?
#97
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Christen
I didn't make that up. It's basic math calculations.
Math calculations that you made up. I can make up my own, too. 5 + 7 = 12, ergo we should have minimum wage. End of discussion.

Families with higher costs of living need higher wages than families with lower costs of living.
Correct.

Families with lower costs of living do not need higher wages.
Incorrect. The is no cost of living in the United States that it is possible to live off of the federal minimum wage without supplementary assistance. Right now, all families need a higher minimum wage, regardless of cost of living.

Not every business makes the exact same profits, and not every business is the exact same size.
Correct.

Because of this, not every business will be able to afford to pay higher and higher wages, unless they find a way to increase their profits.
Okay, sure.

Where would this extra money come from?
They could reduce employee hours, raise prices of their goods, or fire employees outright, and invest in automation.
These are issues all businesses have to tackle all of the time that has nothing to do with minimum wage itself. Regardless, the inception of minimum wage 80 years ago, there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming problem with businesses employing people.

If someone works for me, they make 12 dollars an hour, they are working 2 hours a day, they are making 24 dollars a day. If the minimum wage is raised to 24 dollars an hour, I could simply reduce their hours to 1, so they're still making 24 dollars a day.
Correct. That would probably be a stupid thing to do, but correct. If you decrease their hours you decrease the amount of money you pay them.

If the minimum wage, whatever that is, gets doubled, businesses can simply cut the hours in half to avoid having to pay more...
Correct. They can do that, right now. They don't have to wait for any minimum wage law to pass. They can cut hours in half right now and double their profits!

If someone works for me, and I pay them 14 dollars an hour, and that's the minimum wage, and it gets raised to 16, and there's a robot than I can invest 15 dollars in to do that labor, I can fire that person and invest in the robot, so I save at least 1 dollar. 16 - 15 = 1.

It's basic math calculations. Not made up. Any business that can invest in automation that is cheaper than what the would have to pay an employee will save money by investing in that automation.
Off topic.

If I run a businesses that sells items, and the price of the item is 1 dollar, and my employee sells 7 items a day to make 7 dollars, and the minimum wage is 3 dollars, I can pay my employee 3 dollars, while my profit margin is 4 dollars. If the wage is raised to any number that is higher than my profit margin, I would have to raise the price of the item, to maintain a profit margin, or I go out of business.
It's basic deductive reasoning, which, again, is not made up.

If it is all made up... if raising wages doesn't lead to any of these possible outcomes...
It doesn't. At least not in any drastic way. We've had minimum wage laws for almost a century yet there doesn't seem to be some epidemic of business sinking and people being put out on the streets. You're touting arguments that are as old as my grand parents.

then why stop at $15 dollars? Why not raise it to $150 and make everyone richer?
Because the point of minimum wage laws isn't to "make everyone richer." You made that up.
#98
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@drafterman
all families need a higher minimum wage, regardless of cost of living.
Do all families need a higher federal minimum wage, a higher state minimum wage, or both?
Also, if we're going to be having minimum wages, then they have to be based on costs of living.

These are issues all businesses have to tackle all of the time that has nothing to do with minimum wage itself.
It does have something to do with minimum wage. Since not all businesses make the same profits, not all businesses will be able to afford to pay the same amount to employees.
Not all businesses can afford to pay a minimum wage of $15 or $16 an hour without reducing costs or raising prices.
Like you said, there are many struggles that businesses have to face, so why give them more struggles of having to find a way to pay their employees more, on top of the struggles that they already have? Why make things harder for them than they already are?

there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming problem with businesses employing people.
Is there a problem with businesses raising prices of goods or reducing hours, though?

They can cut hours in half right now and double their profits!
They would then risk losing potentially valuable employees, since those employees could quit that job and find another business to work with that pays them a better wage.
People usually favor the job that pays more, and if someone is a valuable employee, the business would pay them a good amount, so that they wouldn't want to quit.


#99
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Christen
Do all families need a higher federal minimum wage, a higher state minimum wage, or both?
Federal needs to be higher. State is on a case-by-case basis.

Also, if we're going to be having minimum wages, then they have to be based on costs of living.
They've only ever been based on costs of living.

It does have something to do with minimum wage. Since not all businesses make the same profits, not all businesses will be able to afford to pay the same amount to employees.
These are issues all businesses have to tackle all of the time that has nothing to do with minimum wage itself.

Not all businesses can afford to pay a minimum wage of $15 or $16 an hour without reducing costs or raising prices.
Okay.

Like you said, there are many struggles that businesses have to face, so why give them more struggles of having to find a way to pay their employees more, on top of the struggles that they already have? Why make things harder for them than they already are?
I'm sure it was (and still is) a struggle for businesses to implement maximum hours per work week, minimum age limits on people they could hire, implementation of safety measures. I'm sure many businesses would prefer to run their shops like sweat shops of old (and indeed, many do by outsourcing their labor to places where sweatshop conditions are still permitted).

As a society we've judged those conditions to be inhumane and the general welfare of the people trumps business interests in these regards. You have yet to present a compelling reason to undo a century's worth of work on this social progress.

Is there a problem with businesses raising prices of goods or reducing hours, though?
An epidemic that would warrant not raising the minimum wage as a result? No.

They would then risk losing potentially valuable employees, since those employees could quit that job and find another business to work with that pays them a better wage.

People usually favor the job that pays more, and if someone is a valuable employee, the business would pay them a good amount, so that they wouldn't want to quit.
Exactly! And that would still be the case if minimum wage is raised. Glad we're on the same page now.

#100
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@drafterman
Earlier you said:

The best way to help these poor people is by figuring out why costs are rising so much and then figuring out how to bring costs back down, such as by increasing the supply of things.
Sure. In the mean time, until we find the source of the problems and fix them, we should increase minimum wage.

I will agree that if the need for a higher minimum wage is eliminated, then it shouldn't be raised. But that need hasn't, in fact, been eliminated and implementation of those solutions would take time. Until we actually reach that state of affairs, raise the minimum wage.

I've already listed some areas like illinois that are going to wait until as late as 2025 to raise the minimum wage, at least 6 years from now (2019).

So I must ask: Why can't we work on implementing my solutions in the mean time? I'm sure we could find ways to address the rising cost within 6 years. One of my solutions was for the government to stop spending recklessly. That should be doable in 6 years before the minimum wage goes up, right? Shouldn't building a few more housing units and fixing our education system also be doable within that time, way before the minimum wage increase becomes necessary?
Wouldn't it be great if we fixed this problem within 6 years, before the minimum wage has to go up again?
#101
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Christen
I've already listed some areas like illinois that are going to wait until as late as 2025 to raise the minimum wage, at least 6 years from now (2019).
Yeah, I know. You claimed a similar thing for Massachusetts. Except that's not true. I highly recommend claiming things that are true.

So I must ask: Why can't we work on implementing my solutions in the mean time?
Never said we couldn't. You're the one that is saying there are certain solutions we can't implement. Not me.

I'm sure we could find ways to address the rising cost within 6 years. One of my solutions was for the government to stop spending recklessly. That should be doable in 6 years before the minimum wage goes up, right?
LOL.

Shouldn't building a few more housing units and fixing our education system also be doable within that time, way before the minimum wage increase becomes necessary?
No. A minimum wage increase is necessary right now.

Wouldn't it be great if we fixed this problem within 6 years, before the minimum wage has to go up again?
There is a need for a higher minimum wage right now. When the government has implemented your magical solutions and there isn't a need for a higher minimum wage, we can readdress the issue.
#102
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
-->
@drafterman
If we need the extra money literally right now, why are places waiting months/years before they bring the wages up? You have one area waiting until 2020, another area waiting until 2021, and other areas waiting until 2023 or 2025, and so on.

We also still haven't figured out why states are going for only $15 an hour, when you've already said we would need at least $16 an hour. We might even need far more than that, just to make sure people can have money to get themselves out of their situation.

There is a reason Donald Trump cut taxes on the wealthy, because it allows them to have more money to invest back into their businesses, hire more employees, and pay them higher wages. There is now less unemployment, and there are also less people on food stamps.

There are many different solutions to helping our poor citizens. Raising the minimum wage is a solution, but it isn't the only solution, and some solutions will take longer than others. It's taking time for these states to raise wages, but maybe it wouldn't take that much time to implement other faster solutions

States are obviously not raising the minimum wage right now, so in the mean time, we can look at different quick small solutions to improving the lives of those poor people, until they do raise the minimum wage.
#103
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Christen
If we need the extra money literally right now, why are places waiting months/years before they bring the wages up?

You have one area waiting until 2020, another area waiting until 2021, and other areas waiting until 2023 or 2025, and so on.
No you don't.

We also still haven't figured out why states are going for $15 an hour, when you've already said we would need at least $16 an hour. We might even need far more than that, just to make sure people can have money to get themselves out of their situation.
Maybe.

There is a reason Donald Trump cut taxes on the wealthy, because it allows them to have more money to invest back into their businesses, hire more employees, and pay them higher wages. There is now less unemployment, and there are also less people on food stamps.
Off topic.

There are many different solutions to helping our poor citizens. Raising the minimum wage is a solution, but it isn't the only solution, and some solutions will take longer than others.
I'm glad you agree that raising minimum wage is a solution. Are we done now?
#104
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
There is a need for a higher minimum wage right now. When the government has implemented your magical solutions and there isn't a need for a higher minimum wage, we can readdress the issue.
No, there isn't. Even if one were to argue that the minimum wage is meant to reflect the cost of living, the solution would then be to address the cost of living, rather than artificial nominal increases in wages (which price out low-skilled labor.) Your logic is consistent with political narrative of addressing the national debt. Rather than find ways to reduce it, the solution is often argued to be taxation and bailouts.

#105
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
If you're only response amounts to "Nuh uh," then I have no response.

#106
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
If you're only response amounts to "Nuh uh," then I have no response.
My response wasn't a mere negation. (Perhaps the first sentence was. But there are more.) Read it more comprehensively.

#107
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
The rest of your post is contingent on the minimum wage not being sufficient. Do you concede that?
#108
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
The rest of your post is contingent on the minimum wage not being sufficient. Do you concede that?
Some of it, yes.

On which part would you like me to elaborate?


#109
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
Part of what? You either reject the premise that minimum wage is sufficient or you don't.
#110
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
Part of what? You either reject the premise that minimum wage is sufficient or you don't.
You forgo a response because you allege my argument amounts to nothing more than a negation. I then contend that it wasn't mere negation and that reading it more comprehensively would make that clear. You offer that my argument is contingent on the minimum wage's not being sufficient, to which I concede a part of it is. I reciprocate, and offer to elaborate on the parts you deem necessary. You then render a conclusion in dichotomous fashion that a mere negation or affirmation suffices.

What's the end game, here?

#111
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
You forgo a response because you allege my argument amounts to nothing more than a negation.
It is:

Me: "There is a need for a higher minimum wage right now."
You "No, there isn't."

What follows is a hypothetical scenario contingent upon a premise you don't accept "Even if one were to argue that the minimum wage is meant to reflect the cost of living..." But since you don't accept the premise, there is no point in addressing the argument, is there? 

I spent the past 10 days going round and round with Christen and when we even got a modicum of concession or agreement, he disappears. At least he was arguing from premises he actually accepted. What's the point here? Let's say I spend the next 10 days arguing with you and, at the end of those 10 days, you agree with all of my conclusions.

It's all irrelevant because they're still rooted in a premise you don't accept. There is no point in arguing the consequences of it if you don't accept it. Any starting ground should start with shared premises.

I then contend that it wasn't mere negation and that reading it more comprehensively would make that clear. You offer that my argument is contingent on the minimum wage's not being sufficient, to which I concede a part of it is.
How can part of it be sufficient but not all of it? Part of the minimum wage is less than the minimum wage. How can less than the minimum wage be enough to live off of, but all of the minimum wage not be enough to live off of? That is nonsensical.

I reciprocate, and offer to elaborate on the parts you deem necessary. You then render a conclusion in dichotomous fashion that a mere negation or affirmation suffices.

What's the end game, here?
You tell me. You decided to respond to me. What is your end game. As it is you have provided the following:

1. "Nuh uh."
2. "Here is a hypothetical situation that amounts to nothing because I don't agree with the premise anyway."

If you have anything to elaborate on that, please, do so at your convenience. You don't need my permission.
#112
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
It is:
No, it isn't (mere negation.)

Me: "There is a need for a higher minimum wage right now."
You "No, there isn't."

What follows is a hypothetical scenario contingent upon a premise you don't accept

"What follows" is analogical reasoning, as well as an inductive counterargument using the minimum wage's strongest argument (cost of living.)

But since you don't accept the premise, there is no point in addressing the argument, is there? 
You can attempt to substantiate your premise rather than presuppose that we must agree on/accept it first.

I spent the past 10 days going round and round with Christen and when we even got a modicum of concession or agreement, he disappears. At least he was arguing from premises he actually accepted. What's the point here? Let's say I spend the next 10 days arguing with you and, at the end of those 10 days, you agree with all of my conclusions.
To quote you:

It's all irrelevant

There is no point in arguing the consequences of it if you don't accept it. Any starting ground should start with shared premises.
Your premise can be accepted if its well-substantiated. I don't understand that reason you'd presume that it should be accepted beforehand.

How can part of it be sufficient but not all of it? Part of the minimum wage is less than the minimum wage. How can less than the minimum wage be enough to live off of, but all of the minimum wage not be enough to live off of? That is nonsensical.
You argued my following statement, which you allege came after a mere negation, was contingent on the minimum wage's being insufficient. And, I conceded that part of it was. The "part" is in reference to my following statements, not the minimum wage itself.

You tell me. You decided to respond to me. What is your end game.
To initiate you in a discussion over the necessity of a higher minimum wage, as you put it.

1. "Nuh uh."
False.

2. "Here is a hypothetical situation that amounts to nothing because I don't agree with the premise anyway."
Not "hypothetical." It's analogical. And once again, your position operates on expecting agreement rather than establishing agreement.

If you have anything to elaborate on that, please, do so at your convenience. You don't need my permission.
I wasn't asking permission. It was a courtesy extended to help explain any parts you may have not understood or parts which I may not have communicated well enough. But if no elaboration is necessary, then there is no reason to offer one.


#113
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
"What follows" is analogical reasoning, as well as an inductive counterargument using the minimum wage's strongest argument (cost of living.)
It doesn't really matter what you call it. It's basically "If A then B."

I can argue till I'm blue in the face that that logical connection (A > B) is true. At the end of the day you can just go "Well sure, but A isn't true anyway so it doesn't matter."

You can attempt to substantiate your premise rather than presuppose that we must agree on/accept it first.
It's necessary for any debate or conversation to start with some shared premise. Regardless, I have substantiated that premise throughout this thread. If you have specific points you'd like to address, you are welcome to do so.

You argued my following statement, which you allege came after a mere negation, was contingent on the minimum wage's being insufficient. And, I conceded that part of it was. The "part" is in reference to my following statements, not the minimum wage itself.
Ok, fair enough. But it doesn't change anything. If part of your argument is contingent on the minimum wage being insufficient then it all is, unless we're talking about two independent arguments. I don't see more than one argument, so it is all, however indirectly, tied to that premise. If that premise wasn't necessary then you wouldn't have included it. If it was necessary, then my statement holds. The second you reject the premise, the rest of the argument falls like dominoes. I'm not interested in pursuing a line of conversation that is poisoned from the get-go.

Not "hypothetical." It's analogical. And once again, your position operates on expecting agreement rather than establishing agreement.
It's hypothetical because it is based on a premise you don't accept (that minimum wage is insufficient).

I wasn't asking permission. It was a courtesy extended to help explain any parts you may have not understood or parts which I may not have communicated well enough. But if no elaboration is necessary, then there is no reason to offer one.
Then I guess we're done here. As stated I perfectly understand what you are saying. As it stands, I am unmoved. If you have nothing further to elaborate on or add to the conversation, I suppose that's it, then.

#114
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
It doesn't really matter what you call it. It's basically "If A then B."
No, it's not. It's a conditional elliptical statement. Let's examine:

"Even if one were to argue that the minimum wage is meant to reflect the cost of living, the solution would then be to address the cost of living, rather than artificial nominal increases in wages (which price out low-skilled labor.)"

I'm not arguing the solution is a consequence of one's arguing the minimum wage reflects the cost of living. That as makes no sense grammitically or logically. The statement here can be expressed as,

"Even if one were to argue that the minimum wage is meant to reflect the cost of living, [I would argue] the solution would then be to address the cost of living, rather than artificial nominal increases in wages (which price out low-skilled labor.)"

My leaving out the subject, auxiliary, and verb, makes the statement elliptical. So the hypothetical you allege isn't the content, but the act of my response.

I can argue till I'm blue in the face that that logical connection (A > B) is true. At the end of the day you can just go "Well sure, but A isn't true anyway so it doesn't matter."
So then we argue over the truth of A. We may have to establish or reference some axioms, but I wouldn't presume that you're arguing the minimum wage's necessity is self-evident, right?

It's necessary for any debate or conversation to start with some shared premise. Regardless, I have substantiated that premise throughout this thread. If you have specific points you'd like to address, you are welcome to do so.
Actually, no you haven't. Your premises themselves are yet-to-be substantiated arguments. (e.g. cost of living where you used superficial numbers from Columbus Ohio.)

Ok, fair enough. But it doesn't change anything. If part of your argument is contingent on the minimum wage being insufficient then it all is, unless we're talking about two independent arguments.
Yes, there are independent arguments. One deals with the nominal increases in the wage, and the other deals with the cost of living. I argue that rather than risk pricing out low-skilled labor (those who work minimum wage jobs) and facilitating price inflation, we ought to consider reducing the cost of living where we can.

It's hypothetical because it is based on a premise you don't accept (that minimum wage is insufficient).
That's not how the hypothetical operates.

Then I guess we're done here. As stated I perfectly understand what you are saying. As it stands, I am unmoved. If you have nothing further to elaborate on or add to the conversation, I suppose that's it, then.
Far be it from me to compel you to engage. A simple, "I don't want/intend to argue" would suffice.
#115
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
So then we argue over the truth of A.
I agree! I have provided my side. Your response (to the truth of A) is: no it isn't.

We may have to establish or reference some axioms, but I wouldn't presume that you're arguing the minimum wage's necessity is self-evident, right?
Not at all.

Actually, no you haven't. Your premises themselves are yet-to-be substantiated arguments. (e.g. cost of living where you used superficial numbers from Columbus Ohio.)
I disagree with that characterization of my argument. I provided actual, real numbers that demonstrate how, even in the best of circumstances, minimum wage fails to provide for such a life. You certainly can dismiss them as superficial, nothing I can do about that.

Far be it from me to compel you to engage. A simple, "I don't want/intend to argue" would suffice.
I generally respond to the level of effort I am given. In this case: "No it isn't."

#116
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
I agree! I have provided my side. Your response (to the truth of A) is: no it isn't.
No. You provided your side, and I responded, no it isn't because reducing the cost of living would be the solution, rendering your argument about the necessity of higher minimum wage, which I also submitted prices out low-skilled workers, rebutted.

I disagree with that characterization of my argument. I provided actual, real numbers that demonstrate how, even in the best of circumstances, minimum wage fails to provide for such a life. You certainly can dismiss them as superficial, nothing I can do about that.
I characterized your numbers as superficial because you presume two things: recurring transportation costs, and recurring clothing costs. Furthermore, you also presumed recurring 3 figure health insurance cost, especially when there are government programs which offer it for much less. Now if we were to take your numbers, and compare them nominally in a year, the cost of living would be $14,820 and a salary with minimum wage would be $15,080 for an average 40 hour work week. And that includes your presumptions.

Now let's consider adding the average overtime, which is at an average of 3.5 hours per week and valued at time and a half, that adds $1,887.34 of income ($16,967.34.) If we negate your clothing expense and gauge them as a fixed yearly expense at four hundred dollars, the cost of living reduces to $14,620. If one were to apply for food stamps, we can eliminate the cost of food entirely, making the cost of living $12,220. If we substitute public transportation for a bicycle (of course this is contingent on the distance between one's home and desired destination) we can shave off another 900 dollars ($11, 320.)

Essentially, your numbers are superficial because the cost index is superficial. It doesn't consider enough variables, much less the government programs available which mitigates such costs--not that I would endorse such programs, but they are there.

I generally respond to the level of effort I am given. In this case: "No it isn't."
Your reading comprehension needs a bit more work--that or your approach. If that's all you read into my statement is "No it isn't," then all I can presume is that's all you were capable of reading, or all you were willing to read.
#117
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
No. You provided your side, and I responded, no it isn't because reducing the cost of living would be the solution, rendering your argument about the necessity of higher minimum wage, which I also submitted prices out low-skilled workers, rebutted.
No, you said "No it isn't" to the statement "Minimum wage is insufficient." If the minimum wage is sufficient, then I can only ask to what problem you are offering a solution to.

I characterized your numbers as superficial because you presume two things: recurring transportation costs, and recurring clothing costs.
You're right, I presumed that people would need to be able to get places and wear clothes. How outrageous of me. I also presumed they would need a place to live and food to eat. I did not consider that they would be naked hobos walking everywhere and eating out of trash cans.

Furthermore, you also presumed recurring 3 figure health insurance cost, especially when there are government programs which offer it for much less.
Okay so you're saying that minimum wage + government assistance is required, which concedes that minimum wage isn't sufficient.

Now let's consider adding the average overtime, 
Let's not. The solution to a substandard wage shouldn't be "well just work more." We got rid of overbearing work weeks for a reason. They're inhumane.

Your reading comprehension needs a bit more work--that or your approach. If that's all you read into my statement is "No it isn't," then all I can presume is that's all you were capable of reading, or all you were willing to read.
If that's all you can presume, then your imagination needs a bit more work.

#118
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
No, you said "No it isn't" to the statement "Minimum wage is insufficient." If the minimum wage is sufficient, then I can only ask to what problem you are offering a solution to.
The written/typed word is an excellent resource.

You:

There is a need for a higher minimum wage right now. When the government has implemented your magical solutions and there isn't a need for a higher minimum wage, we can readdress the issue.
I:

No, there isn't. Even if one were to argue that the minimum wage is meant to reflect the cost of living, the solution would then be to address the cost of living, rather than artificial nominal increases in wages (which price out low-skilled labor.) Your logic is consistent with political narrative of addressing the national debt. Rather than find ways to reduce it, the solution is often argued to be taxation and bailouts.
Do you see how my language reflected yours? My response was direct. And every statement I made afterwards, supplemented my point.

You're right, I presumed that people would need to be able to get places and wear clothes. How outrageous of me. I also presumed they would need a place to live and food to eat. I did not consider that they would be naked hobos walking everywhere and eating out of trash cans.
Neither martyrdom nor sarcasm helps your argument. It's a legitimate query. Using myself as an example, I make well above the minimum, and I don't spend $50 a month on clothing. Not to mention I live in area with a high cost of living. Assuming that the cost of clothing is recurring like utilities or even food has little to no substantiation. Now clothing may not be defined as a durable good, but it's certainly not a perishable good.

Okay so you're saying that minimum wage + government assistance is required, which concedes that minimum wage isn't sufficient.
No, your argument is that there's a need for a higher minimum wage because the current minimum wage isn't commensurate to the cost of living. I rebut this by not only arguing that your position lacks insight of other factors like welfare/entitlement programs which are available to minimum wage workers, but also even when calculating the salary of minimum wage workers, they make more than the cost of living you provided.

The solution to a substandard wage shouldn't be "well just work more." We got rid of overbearing work weeks for a reason. They're inhumane.
An average 43.5 hours a week is inhumane? That's 8 hours and 42 minutes a day.

If that's all you can presume, then your imagination needs a bit more work.

Take my counsel or leave it. It's of no consequence to me either way.
#119
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
Do you see how my language reflected yours? My response was direct. And every statement I made afterwards, supplemented my point.
The directness of your language isn't a point of contention.


Neither martyrdom nor sarcasm helps your argument. It's a legitimate query. Using myself as an example, I make well above the minimum, and I don't spend $50 a month on clothing. Not to mention I live in area with a high cost of living. Assuming that the cost of clothing is recurring like utilities or even food has little to no substantiation. Now clothing may not be defined as a durable good, but it's certainly not a perishable good.
Well, I guess if it doesn't apply to you it doesn't apply to anyone, then.

No, your argument is that there's a need for a higher minimum wage because the current minimum wage isn't commensurate to the cost of living. I rebut this by not only arguing that your position lacks insight of other factors like welfare/entitlement programs which are available to minimum wage workers, but also even when calculating the salary of minimum wage workers, they make more than the cost of living you provided.
Again, when you are arguing that the minimum wage is sufficient when you add supplementary assistance then you are, in fact, arguing that the minimum wage is insufficient. Otherwise they wouldn't need those other factors. And the cost of living I provided did not include all the factors of a cost of living, such as emergency funds.

A minimum wage that exactly equals the cost of living is necessarily insufficient because of the non-zero chance of emergency or extreme situations. If you have to miss work for any reason, you are automatically less than the cost of living. If you have no emergency funds then there are innumerable emergency situations that can completely derail your life.

An average 43.5 hours a week is inhumane? That's 8 hours and 42 minutes a day.
The context in which I am arguing is the well-established 40-hour work week, living on minimum wage alone. When you argue that minimum wage is fine, once you add assistance programs and overtime, you are conceding my point.

#120
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
The directness of your language isn't a point of contention.
Reading comprehension is key. My language reflected yours because my response was direct, not that my language reflected yours, hence it's direct.

Well, I guess if it doesn't apply to you it doesn't apply to anyone, then.
Reading comprehension is key. I used myself as an example.

Again, when you are arguing that the minimum wage is sufficient when you add supplementary assistance then you are, in fact, arguing that the minimum wage is insufficient.
No. Even with the minimum wage, I conveyed it meets the costs of living you provided. More so, I also rebutted your claim of necessarily raising the minimum wage.

A minimum wage that exactly equals the cost of living is necessarily insufficient because of the non-zero chance of emergency or extreme situations. If you have to miss work for any reason, you are automatically less than the cost of living. If you have no emergency funds then there are innumerable emergency situations that can completely derail your life.
That's hypothetical, and in your own words, amount to nothing.

The context in which I am arguing is the well-established 40-hour work week, living on minimum wage alone. When you argue that minimum wage is fine, once you add assistance programs and overtime, you are conceding my point.
I am most certainly did not. Your point is that it's necessary to raise the minimum wage to meet the cost of living. I've rebutted that through the demonstration of calculating the annual salary of minimum wage workers as well as providing possible government programs to help mitigate the costs of living.