.
I'm tired of this. I really am. Cite where I've said this. You have a habit of taking things and mischaracterizing them. It's intellectually dishonest. Now shift the goalpost....like you always do when presented with your blatant and deceitful characterization of other's words.
You really should stop confusing my words with your dishonest interpretations of them.
The two statements have two different context. Unless you care to elaborated on how not really being in high demand is the same as never being in demand. Please tell me you understand the distinctly different context of the two statements.
A. he used an absolute....I did not. (the interjection of "really" implies there is a bit of wiggle from for special cases)
b. he removes my qualification (i.e. high) to distort the context to something different to suit his straw man argument. I've never made an argument that unskilled workers were never in demand.....that would be stupid because obviously McD's needs someone to flip them burgers. I was not talking about "demand"....I was talking about "high demand".
To elaborate more, a skilled worker has, for the most part, always made more money than an unskilled worker since they are in higher demand. I wonder how they kept wages so low if low skill workers were ever in high demand using the history lesson Vac is listing as his "proof" that I'm purportedly ignoring.....history tells us wages were suppressed because they could always get someone else to do the job.....His entire argument falls apart if you add the qualification I explicitly used. Wages are kept low for high demand low skilled jobs and an abundance of low skilled workers.
His characterization of my words and resulting straw man is intellectually dishonest or he simply cant understand and ignores explicit context I've added. He is disputing a figment of his imagination.
The two statements have two different context. Unless you care to elaborated on how not really being in high demand is the same as never being in demand.
A. he used an absolute....I did not. (the interjection of "really" implies there is a bit of wiggle from for special cases)
b. he removes my qualification (i.e. high) to distort the context to something different to suit his straw man argument.
To elaborate more, a skilled worker has, for the most part, always made more money than an unskilled worker since they are in higher demand. I wonder how they kept wages so low if low skill workers were ever in high demand using the history lesson Vac is listing as his "proof" that I'm purportedly ignoring.....history tells us wages were suppressed because they could always get someone else to do the job.....His entire argument falls apart if you add the qualification I explicitly used.
You can state that it was pulled out of context but you specifically challenged him to find a point where you did state it. And it was last page. If your wondering how the two can be confused it shouldn't be too hard to figure out. I also brought it up to give you a second change to elaborate no what you meant if it was not how it was taken.
I tried to post it without any original context but apparently the forums wouldn't let me. So I went with the classic "um..."
But to be on point the vast majority of work has been unskilled labor if you look into history. The number one job has actually been agriculture. Agriculture is an unskilled work. Most non-craftsmen work is unskilled.
Why do you assume that unskilled work has never "really" been in high demand?
Why do you assume that unskilled work has never "really" been in high demand?
Because in most cases skilled workers make more money. Do you dispute this? Generally, skilled workers are worth more in the labor market because they are in higher demand than unskilled.
And it was last page. If your wondering how the two can be confused it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
I know how....when someone wants to make a disingenuous straw man that falls apart when put into context of the words I actually posted.
Why do you assume that unskilled work has never "really" been in high demand?
Because in most cases skilled workers make more money. Do you dispute this? Generally, skilled workers are worth more in the labor market because they are in higher demand than unskilled.
"Demand" is not the only factor. There are others involved. For example in 2013 Architects have an average unemployment of 12 something percent. At the same time historians were at a 9.5% unemployment rate.
The average Architect makes a little over 80k a year. At the same time Historians who are in "higher demand" make 44k a year. However the latter can change quite dramatically depending on the position.
But lets look at Nurses. They have a 2% unemployment rate and only make 60-70k a year on average. Thats a full ten thousand a year less than architects and they are in far more demand.
So while demand does play a partial role you can't ignore the other factors. Generally the more you can do the more valuable "you" as an individual are. You aren't necessarily in more demand but you are more valuable so you will get more money. There is also a trend that we give more money to people with more education/training no matter what. Even if demand plummets Doctors will still make more than Teachers.
And it was last page. If your wondering how the two can be confused it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
I know how....when someone wants to make a disingenuous straw man that falls apart when put into context of the words I actually posted.
Maybe. But I still have a hard time figuring out exactly what you were trying to say. After you clarified it made more sense but I still don't agree with the initial premis.
Why do you assume that unskilled work has never "really" been in high demand?
Because in most cases skilled workers make more money. Do you dispute this? Generally, skilled workers are worth more in the labor market because they are in higher demand than unskilled.
"Demand" is not the only factor. There are others involved. For example in 2013 Architects have an average unemployment of 12 something percent. At the same time historians were at a 9.5% unemployment rate.
The average Architect makes a little over 80k a year. At the same time Historians who are in "higher demand" make 44k a year. However the latter can change quite dramatically depending on the position.
But lets look at Nurses. They have a 2% unemployment rate and only make 60-70k a year on average. Thats a full ten thousand a year less than architects and they are in far more demand.
So while demand does play a partial role you can't ignore the other factors. Generally the more you can do the more valuable "you" as an individual are. You aren't necessarily in more demand but you are more valuable so you will get more money. There is also a trend that we give more money to people with more education/training no matter what. Even if demand plummets Doctors will still make more than Teachers.
And it was last page. If your wondering how the two can be confused it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
I know how....when someone wants to make a disingenuous straw man that falls apart when put into context of the words I actually posted.
Maybe. But I still have a hard time figuring out exactly what you were trying to say. After you clarified it made more sense but I still don't agree with the initial premis.
if you are concerned with the employment rate then clearly you should be against the minimum wage, since it mandates unemployment.
if you are concerned with the employment rate then clearly you should be against the minimum wage, since it mandates unemployment.
Good thing we don't want full employment, we want "full" employment. Having unemployed people is good for the economy, to a point. Isn't it about 3-5% unemployment considered full employment?
Also, dont farm jobs not have same unemployment rules?
Why do you assume that unskilled work has never "really" been in high demand?
Because in most cases skilled workers make more money. Do you dispute this? Generally, skilled workers are worth more in the labor market because they are in higher demand than unskilled.
Again, only a recent phenomena. Education put people around 10-15% ahead until recent times, and not even consistently at that before the 60s and its just been becoming more and more of a rift since.
Hell, being a Pharmacist - a VERY high paying career was an "unskilled career" up through the 1940s and 50s. Amongst other "unskilled labor" jobs...
Door to door sales (again, unskilled) was something my grandfather made a $65k/yr career out of... in the 60s... (Equivalent to well into 6 digits these days)
The problem with this is, it assumes the bottom half of the intelligence curve is incapable of leraning a marketable skill.
But what if the only marketable skill involves inventing/creating useful stuff - something that has continuously been shown to be the exclusive realm of the top 10% of the intelligence curve? It turns out there are very few jobs that can't be replaced by a sufficiently advanced robot, or by a cheap foreign worker. As automation becomes more and more prevalent, the bar for what constitutes a marketable job skill rises. Some can and will adapt, and the most competent will tend to do it best. But don't kid yourself - in a world dominated by automation, only rocket-scientist tier professions are marketable, and not everyone has the ability to become a rocket scientist.
Well, if automation truly continues to take over the market place, there really is only one way to go about it. Institute a minimum income for all people like Switzerland will be voting on. If there is not enough jobs for everyone then why should everyone be expected to work to survive?
if you are concerned with the employment rate then clearly you should be against the minimum wage, since it mandates unemployment.
Good thing we don't want full employment, we want "full" employment. Having unemployed people is good for the economy, to a point. Isn't it about 3-5% unemployment considered full employment?
Also, dont farm jobs not have same unemployment rules?
you are feebly grasping at the concept of frictional and non-frictional employment. and clearly unemployment as a result of wage-mandates would be frictional so your (attempted) point is moot.
Wait, you're saying that unemployment from wage increases would be frictional (AKA temporary)? I thought you were arguing that the consequences would be longterm and permanent...
Again, only a recent phenomena. Education put people around 10-15% ahead until recent times, and not even consistently at that before the 60s and its just been becoming more and more of a rift since.
skill does not always equal education. Your straw man falls apart when put into context of my words. Skill is almost always in higher demand than low skill. This it not a new thing....Slaves were worth more if they had a skill such as blacksmithing....They were in higher demand than those with less valuable or no skills consequently earning the owner more money.
It would really help if you tried to understand my position rather than interject your own interpertations and outright assumptions as to what I mean.
Hell, being a Pharmacist - a VERY high paying career was an "unskilled career" up through the 1940s and 50s. Amongst other "unskilled labor" jobs...
Now you pretend to define my use of skill as meaning education.....again in an attempt to argue a straw man.
Wait, you're saying that unemployment from wage increases would be frictional (AKA temporary)? I thought you were arguing that the consequences would be longterm and permanent...
you are failing to comprehend basic economics, you looked the term up on wikipedia, and you misinterpreted their explanation. frictional unemployment is a macroeconomic phenomenon. just because any given individual's period of unemployment is temporary doesn't mean the overall-phenomenon isn't permanent and doesn't cause an immense amount of economic hardship on those who are most vulnerable.
you (and the person i originally responded to) are literally suggesting that low-skilled individuals not being able to find jobs; as a direct result of the government mandating that only jobs which create a marginal product above a certain arbitrary amount are allowed to exist; is not a problem. this is not only insane, its completely contrary to what you have been saying in this thread.
you have totally lost sight of the debate and your own argument and are only out to (erroneously and fallaciously) prove others wrong.
Again, only a recent phenomena. Education put people around 10-15% ahead until recent times, and not even consistently at that before the 60s and its just been becoming more and more of a rift since.
skill does not always equal education. Your straw man falls apart when put into context of my words. Skill is almost always in higher demand than low skill. This it not a new thing....Slaves were worth more if they had a skill such as blacksmithing....They were in higher demand than those with less valuable or no skills consequently earning the owner more money.
It would really help if you tried to understand my position rather than interject your own interpertations and outright assumptions as to what I mean.
I'm using the definition in a historical context to include people with an apprenticeship and the like to be "educated" as well.
Most work that we consider "unskilled labor" used to fall under those lines not long ago, and do require skills to actually do well in - even something as silly as working in a warehouse pulling boxes requires organization and tracking skills in all the workers to maximize efficiency - yet they're considered "unskilled labor".
Very few jobs don't have "on the job orientation" which is today's version of apprenticeship for most careers - to get people some basic skills to do their job - once you're past the McDonald's tier. Hell, call centers do it. [VZW absolutely did, since I had to teach some of my hires on how to teach their hires... fun times never doing the work myself I'll tell you...]
The definition of what is considered "skilled" has risen with the times pretty drastically is my primary point.
Wait, you're saying that unemployment from wage increases would be frictional (AKA temporary)? I thought you were arguing that the consequences would be longterm and permanent...
you are failing to comprehend basic economics, you looked the term up on wikipedia, and you misinterpreted their explanation. frictional unemployment is a macroeconomic phenomenon. just because any given individual's period of unemployment is temporary doesn't mean the overall-phenomenon isn't permanent and doesn't cause an immense amount of economic hardship on those who are most vulnerable.
you (and the person i originally responded to) are literally suggesting that low-skilled individuals not being able to find jobs; as a direct result of the government mandating that only jobs which create a marginal product above a certain arbitrary amount are allowed to exist; is not a problem. this is not only insane, its completely contrary to what you have been saying in this thread.
you have totally lost sight of the debate and your own argument and are only out to (erroneously and fallaciously) prove others wrong.
First of all I probably knew the term when you were crawling out of your mother's womb... I was first taught the term fully when I was educating nearly 20 years ago now, and it was something I'd had covered briefly in economics in high school beforehand. [Back in my day we actually had classes like that... had home econ (i.e. mostly cooking) and music in grade school too!]
And by definition frictional unemployment is a temporary phenomena - and there's been plenty of studies that demonstrate that minimum wage increases only create a temporary dip in employment which then recedes within 6 months and has no long term malus in all cases, even the NJ study which was refuted by one group was later refuted by MULTIPLE groups for being wrong. Every other case I've seen analyzed has universally demonstrated "temporary loss, longterm no substantial deviation".
As for us not thinking it's a problem - that's like saying "We don't think chopping limbs off is a problem" if we support amputation for severe diabetic issues, some times some temporary pain creates a better environment for the whole and can be adapted to in time. It's an absurd strawman - any change in anything in the economy causes some jobs to be lost, the only way you can argue it without it being a strawman is to present an idea that would create no jobs ever be lost.
It's literally an intentionally unachievable goal that you know you can't reach but yet you try to present to opponents of your views, while barely detailing your own. (Other than "change bad!" - but not changing anything also causes job losses quite often, OOPS!)
Wait, you're saying that unemployment from wage increases would be frictional (AKA temporary)? I thought you were arguing that the consequences would be longterm and permanent...
you are failing to comprehend basic economics, you looked the term up on wikipedia, and you misinterpreted their explanation. frictional unemployment is a macroeconomic phenomenon. just because any given individual's period of unemployment is temporary doesn't mean the overall-phenomenon isn't permanent and doesn't cause an immense amount of economic hardship on those who are most vulnerable.
you (and the person i originally responded to) are literally suggesting that low-skilled individuals not being able to find jobs; as a direct result of the government mandating that only jobs which create a marginal product above a certain arbitrary amount are allowed to exist; is not a problem. this is not only insane, its completely contrary to what you have been saying in this thread.
you have totally lost sight of the debate and your own argument and are only out to (erroneously and fallaciously) prove others wrong.
First of all I probably knew the term when you were crawling out of your mother's womb... I was first taught the term fully when I was educating nearly 20 years ago now, and it was something I'd had covered briefly in economics in high school beforehand. [Back in my day we actually had classes like that... had home econ (i.e. mostly cooking) and music in grade school too!]
And by definition frictional unemployment is a temporary phenomena - and there's been plenty of studies that demonstrate that minimum wage increases only create a temporary dip in employment which then recedes within 6 months and has no long term malus in all cases, even the NJ study which was refuted by one group was later refuted by MULTIPLE groups for being wrong. Every other case I've seen analyzed has universally demonstrated "temporary loss, longterm no substantial deviation".
As for us not thinking it's a problem - that's like saying "We don't think chopping limbs off is a problem" if we support amputation for severe diabetic issues, some times some temporary pain creates a better environment for the whole and can be adapted to in time. It's an absurd strawman - any change in anything in the economy causes some jobs to be lost, the only way you can argue it without it being a strawman is to present an idea that would create no jobs ever be lost.
It's literally an intentionally unachievable goal that you know you can't reach but yet you try to present to opponents of your views, while barely detailing your own. (Other than "change bad!" - but not changing anything also causes job losses quite often, OOPS!)
you are totally and unequivocally wrong, you have no source for your statements because they are totally untrue.
if the minimum wage is X per hour, then jobs with a marginal product of <x per hour will no longer exist. this is axiomatically true. I am utterly baffled that you think you can dispute something like this.
your "experts agree/uncited studies have found" bull**** is totally unfounded and doesn't belong in this thread.
and your last point is, surprise surprise, totally fallacious. just because frictional unemployment can never be fully eradicated, doesn't mean that reducing frictional unemployment isn't a bad thing (and it certainly doesn't mean its a good thing, your non-relevant analogy notwithstanding)
again, you throw around the word strawman for absolutely no reason. stop using that buzzword.
my view is simple: minimum wage causes unemployment and unemployment is bad. you can clearly deduce my views from my posts (the post you are responding to alone), unlike certain people on this board i don't morph my views to stretch the goalposts as far as possible.
"Marginal product"(-ion in my experience though is more accurate, no?) is nowhere near where current production for minimum wage workers is - they've seen a 400-600% increase in production in the same time they've seen a 60% increase in wages....
While the axiom is true, we're not talking about raising minimum wage up to the $40-60/hr mark that would create a wage increase above their production increase over the years. Based upon your same axiom if a company sees an employees production increase by 10% they should reward them with a wage increase commensurate, right? Unfortunately reality bears out to about 10% more production being worth 1-2% worth of greater wage for how it's been applied for decades now on these workers.
Now it's possible some of the "slightly above minimum wage" places might have some trouble with it - that's true - and we'd see things like the Dollar Menu that are spurred by intentional wage neglect for their workers that are producing more than ever disappear - but to present it as an overall thing that would effect all businesses that hire employees in such a tier ignores the reality of these companies and their operations for the last few decades.
It's something that doesn't fly in "career" type fields because people realize if they're not getting rewarded for their improved production that it's time to move on - but since minimum wage jobs are high turn over, companies capitulate between them in the race to the bottom that makes the careers permanently unlivable from lack of PROPER advancement potential.
And the "uncited studies" are mentioned a few times in the earlier parts of either this thread or the other minimum wage topic - I try not to spam the forums by repeating the same link multiple times - New Jersey minimum wage study is more than enough breadcrumbs to find it if you actually cared to read it and possibly have your worldview shaken a bit should you actually take it to heart. (Which we all know with how close minded you are is quite unlikely)
I'm using the definition in a historical context to include people with an apprenticeship and the like to be "educated" as well.
I'm not using your definition. You changed the meaning of my post then submitted a counter argument to fit it.
What's your differentiation between "apprenticeship", "learning on the job" , "educated" and "unskilled labor" then?
To me the first three are not unskilled labor. It seems like to me only 1 and 3 would not be to you - but at that point I would like you to elaborate on how you feel 1 and 2 are different from each other in today's environment. [Especially keep in mind how some of the true apprenticeships do things today - i.e. HVAC and electricians]
I'm using the definition in a historical context to include people with an apprenticeship and the like to be "educated" as well.
I'm not using your definition. You changed the meaning of my post then submitted a counter argument to fit it.
What's your differentiation between "apprenticeship", "learning on the job" , "educated" and "unskilled labor" then?
To me the first three are not unskilled labor. It seems like to me only 1 and 3 would not be to you - but at that point I would like you to elaborate on how you feel 1 and 2 are different from each other in today's environment. [Especially keep in mind how some of the true apprenticeships do things today - i.e. HVAC and electricians]
I'm not biting on your straw man. This has nothing to do with with my statement that low skilled work has never really been in high demand. I even added and explained it's relative to skilled work. There is a reason wages are low for unskilled work as opposed to skilled work....want to guess why?
I have clearly stated my position. He has yet to make an argument towards the point I was making and only argues in response to his own mischaracteriztion of my words. Skill = the ability to do something well; expertise. Do I have to define very simple words?
The demand for low skilled work is never really been that high compared with skilled work.....the reason for this is the abundance of low skilled workers. If there was, the cost of that labor as compared to skilled labor would of increased. History tells us this lack of high demand has led the US to creating minimum wage laws....
EDIT: there are examples of where this is the case (i.e. low skilled jobs spike in pay) but speaking generally low or no skill workers have never really been in high demand.
um....
um what?
The two statements have two different context. Unless you care to elaborated on how not really being in high demand is the same as never being in demand. Please tell me you understand the distinctly different context of the two statements.
A. he used an absolute....I did not. (the interjection of "really" implies there is a bit of wiggle from for special cases)
b. he removes my qualification (i.e. high) to distort the context to something different to suit his straw man argument. I've never made an argument that unskilled workers were never in demand.....that would be stupid because obviously McD's needs someone to flip them burgers. I was not talking about "demand"....I was talking about "high demand".
To elaborate more, a skilled worker has, for the most part, always made more money than an unskilled worker since they are in higher demand. I wonder how they kept wages so low if low skill workers were ever in high demand using the history lesson Vac is listing as his "proof" that I'm purportedly ignoring.....history tells us wages were suppressed because they could always get someone else to do the job.....His entire argument falls apart if you add the qualification I explicitly used. Wages are kept low for high demand low skilled jobs and an abundance of low skilled workers.
His characterization of my words and resulting straw man is intellectually dishonest or he simply cant understand and ignores explicit context I've added. He is disputing a figment of his imagination.
So...
Um what?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You can state that it was pulled out of context but you specifically challenged him to find a point where you did state it. And it was last page. If your wondering how the two can be confused it shouldn't be too hard to figure out. I also brought it up to give you a second change to elaborate no what you meant if it was not how it was taken.
I tried to post it without any original context but apparently the forums wouldn't let me. So I went with the classic "um..."
But to be on point the vast majority of work has been unskilled labor if you look into history. The number one job has actually been agriculture. Agriculture is an unskilled work. Most non-craftsmen work is unskilled.
Why do you assume that unskilled work has never "really" been in high demand?
Because in most cases skilled workers make more money. Do you dispute this? Generally, skilled workers are worth more in the labor market because they are in higher demand than unskilled.
I know how....when someone wants to make a disingenuous straw man that falls apart when put into context of the words I actually posted.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
"Demand" is not the only factor. There are others involved. For example in 2013 Architects have an average unemployment of 12 something percent. At the same time historians were at a 9.5% unemployment rate.
The average Architect makes a little over 80k a year. At the same time Historians who are in "higher demand" make 44k a year. However the latter can change quite dramatically depending on the position.
But lets look at Nurses. They have a 2% unemployment rate and only make 60-70k a year on average. Thats a full ten thousand a year less than architects and they are in far more demand.
So while demand does play a partial role you can't ignore the other factors. Generally the more you can do the more valuable "you" as an individual are. You aren't necessarily in more demand but you are more valuable so you will get more money. There is also a trend that we give more money to people with more education/training no matter what. Even if demand plummets Doctors will still make more than Teachers.
Maybe. But I still have a hard time figuring out exactly what you were trying to say. After you clarified it made more sense but I still don't agree with the initial premis.
if you are concerned with the employment rate then clearly you should be against the minimum wage, since it mandates unemployment.
You'd said it a few hours before... all of the times I mentioned were 60-99% unskilled labor dominated.
Hell the industrial revolution was still around 90% unskilled labor.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Good thing we don't want full employment, we want "full" employment. Having unemployed people is good for the economy, to a point. Isn't it about 3-5% unemployment considered full employment?
Also, dont farm jobs not have same unemployment rules?
Again, only a recent phenomena. Education put people around 10-15% ahead until recent times, and not even consistently at that before the 60s and its just been becoming more and more of a rift since.
Hell, being a Pharmacist - a VERY high paying career was an "unskilled career" up through the 1940s and 50s. Amongst other "unskilled labor" jobs...
Door to door sales (again, unskilled) was something my grandfather made a $65k/yr career out of... in the 60s... (Equivalent to well into 6 digits these days)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
But what if the only marketable skill involves inventing/creating useful stuff - something that has continuously been shown to be the exclusive realm of the top 10% of the intelligence curve? It turns out there are very few jobs that can't be replaced by a sufficiently advanced robot, or by a cheap foreign worker. As automation becomes more and more prevalent, the bar for what constitutes a marketable job skill rises. Some can and will adapt, and the most competent will tend to do it best. But don't kid yourself - in a world dominated by automation, only rocket-scientist tier professions are marketable, and not everyone has the ability to become a rocket scientist.
you are feebly grasping at the concept of frictional and non-frictional employment. and clearly unemployment as a result of wage-mandates would be frictional so your (attempted) point is moot.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
skill does not always equal education. Your straw man falls apart when put into context of my words. Skill is almost always in higher demand than low skill. This it not a new thing....Slaves were worth more if they had a skill such as blacksmithing....They were in higher demand than those with less valuable or no skills consequently earning the owner more money.
It would really help if you tried to understand my position rather than interject your own interpertations and outright assumptions as to what I mean.
Now you pretend to define my use of skill as meaning education.....again in an attempt to argue a straw man.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
you are failing to comprehend basic economics, you looked the term up on wikipedia, and you misinterpreted their explanation. frictional unemployment is a macroeconomic phenomenon. just because any given individual's period of unemployment is temporary doesn't mean the overall-phenomenon isn't permanent and doesn't cause an immense amount of economic hardship on those who are most vulnerable.
you (and the person i originally responded to) are literally suggesting that low-skilled individuals not being able to find jobs; as a direct result of the government mandating that only jobs which create a marginal product above a certain arbitrary amount are allowed to exist; is not a problem. this is not only insane, its completely contrary to what you have been saying in this thread.
you have totally lost sight of the debate and your own argument and are only out to (erroneously and fallaciously) prove others wrong.
I'm using the definition in a historical context to include people with an apprenticeship and the like to be "educated" as well.
Most work that we consider "unskilled labor" used to fall under those lines not long ago, and do require skills to actually do well in - even something as silly as working in a warehouse pulling boxes requires organization and tracking skills in all the workers to maximize efficiency - yet they're considered "unskilled labor".
Very few jobs don't have "on the job orientation" which is today's version of apprenticeship for most careers - to get people some basic skills to do their job - once you're past the McDonald's tier. Hell, call centers do it. [VZW absolutely did, since I had to teach some of my hires on how to teach their hires... fun times never doing the work myself I'll tell you...]
The definition of what is considered "skilled" has risen with the times pretty drastically is my primary point.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
First of all I probably knew the term when you were crawling out of your mother's womb... I was first taught the term fully when I was educating nearly 20 years ago now, and it was something I'd had covered briefly in economics in high school beforehand. [Back in my day we actually had classes like that... had home econ (i.e. mostly cooking) and music in grade school too!]
And by definition frictional unemployment is a temporary phenomena - and there's been plenty of studies that demonstrate that minimum wage increases only create a temporary dip in employment which then recedes within 6 months and has no long term malus in all cases, even the NJ study which was refuted by one group was later refuted by MULTIPLE groups for being wrong. Every other case I've seen analyzed has universally demonstrated "temporary loss, longterm no substantial deviation".
As for us not thinking it's a problem - that's like saying "We don't think chopping limbs off is a problem" if we support amputation for severe diabetic issues, some times some temporary pain creates a better environment for the whole and can be adapted to in time. It's an absurd strawman - any change in anything in the economy causes some jobs to be lost, the only way you can argue it without it being a strawman is to present an idea that would create no jobs ever be lost.
It's literally an intentionally unachievable goal that you know you can't reach but yet you try to present to opponents of your views, while barely detailing your own. (Other than "change bad!" - but not changing anything also causes job losses quite often, OOPS!)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
you are totally and unequivocally wrong, you have no source for your statements because they are totally untrue.
if the minimum wage is X per hour, then jobs with a marginal product of <x per hour will no longer exist. this is axiomatically true. I am utterly baffled that you think you can dispute something like this.
your "experts agree/uncited studies have found" bull**** is totally unfounded and doesn't belong in this thread.
and your last point is, surprise surprise, totally fallacious. just because frictional unemployment can never be fully eradicated, doesn't mean that reducing frictional unemployment isn't a bad thing (and it certainly doesn't mean its a good thing, your non-relevant analogy notwithstanding)
again, you throw around the word strawman for absolutely no reason. stop using that buzzword.
my view is simple: minimum wage causes unemployment and unemployment is bad. you can clearly deduce my views from my posts (the post you are responding to alone), unlike certain people on this board i don't morph my views to stretch the goalposts as far as possible.
Well, if there's one thing I know its that economics is simple
I'm not using your definition. You changed the meaning of my post then submitted a counter argument to fit it.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
While the axiom is true, we're not talking about raising minimum wage up to the $40-60/hr mark that would create a wage increase above their production increase over the years. Based upon your same axiom if a company sees an employees production increase by 10% they should reward them with a wage increase commensurate, right? Unfortunately reality bears out to about 10% more production being worth 1-2% worth of greater wage for how it's been applied for decades now on these workers.
Now it's possible some of the "slightly above minimum wage" places might have some trouble with it - that's true - and we'd see things like the Dollar Menu that are spurred by intentional wage neglect for their workers that are producing more than ever disappear - but to present it as an overall thing that would effect all businesses that hire employees in such a tier ignores the reality of these companies and their operations for the last few decades.
It's something that doesn't fly in "career" type fields because people realize if they're not getting rewarded for their improved production that it's time to move on - but since minimum wage jobs are high turn over, companies capitulate between them in the race to the bottom that makes the careers permanently unlivable from lack of PROPER advancement potential.
And the "uncited studies" are mentioned a few times in the earlier parts of either this thread or the other minimum wage topic - I try not to spam the forums by repeating the same link multiple times - New Jersey minimum wage study is more than enough breadcrumbs to find it if you actually cared to read it and possibly have your worldview shaken a bit should you actually take it to heart. (Which we all know with how close minded you are is quite unlikely)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
What's your differentiation between "apprenticeship", "learning on the job" , "educated" and "unskilled labor" then?
To me the first three are not unskilled labor. It seems like to me only 1 and 3 would not be to you - but at that point I would like you to elaborate on how you feel 1 and 2 are different from each other in today's environment. [Especially keep in mind how some of the true apprenticeships do things today - i.e. HVAC and electricians]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I'm not biting on your straw man. This has nothing to do with with my statement that low skilled work has never really been in high demand. I even added and explained it's relative to skilled work. There is a reason wages are low for unskilled work as opposed to skilled work....want to guess why?
Because its never really been in HIGH DEMAND!
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Define the terms and things will become clear
I have clearly stated my position. He has yet to make an argument towards the point I was making and only argues in response to his own mischaracteriztion of my words. Skill = the ability to do something well; expertise. Do I have to define very simple words?
The demand for low skilled work is never really been that high compared with skilled work.....the reason for this is the abundance of low skilled workers. If there was, the cost of that labor as compared to skilled labor would of increased. History tells us this lack of high demand has led the US to creating minimum wage laws....
EDIT: there are examples of where this is the case (i.e. low skilled jobs spike in pay) but speaking generally low or no skill workers have never really been in high demand.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.