ADVERTISEMENT

Adam Smith Correct Once Again

McDonald's and many other businesses are dealing with this by reducing hours of employees, installing self-serve kiosks, allowing ordering via telephones and more. The losers are the employees who lose their jobs.

The minimum wage proponents were told this would be the outcome. They didn't care about the employees. They wanted the issue.
 
When automation becomes more cost effective than human labor businesses automate.

That's business class 101. Most liberals are economic morons.

High minimum wage only makes teenagers and the uneducated more unemployable. Let the market dictate price and wages. Government is the least efficient manager of resources, always has been, always will.
 
One good thing about automated kiosks in restaurants is there is no need to tip the food delivery person although there will likely be a line for a tip on the screen.
 
Last edited:
When automation becomes more cost effective than human labor businesses automate.

That's business class 101. Most liberals are economic morons.

High minimum wage only makes teenagers and the uneducated more unemployable. Let the market dictate price and wages. Government is the least efficient manager of resources, always has been, always will.

This (automation) makes the mass importation of low skilled people from traditionally low IQ countries all the more retarded. We are just basically ensuring generational welfare for large segments of those populations.
 
Uber owns no cars but is the largest taxi company in the world. Airbnb is the worlds largest hotel and they own no property. No one will own a car in 10 years or so and will only use their phone to acquire transportation. Technology is going to change and disrupt many of our known and accepted ways. McDonalds sells more hamburgers than anyone but has no employees!! Coming soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NZ Poke
This (automation) makes the mass importation of low skilled people from traditionally low IQ countries all the more retarded. We are just basically ensuring generational welfare for large segments of those populations.

@Been Jammin an important perspective when considering where you stand on immigration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyTanker
Did you bother to read the part where the "study" has not yet been peer reviewed and a number of other economists looked at the data and pushed back, noting that there seemed to be some major problems with the conclusions (as well as the underlying data)?
 
Did you bother to read the part where the "study" has not yet been peer reviewed and a number of other economists looked at the data and pushed back, noting that there seemed to be some major problems with the conclusions (as well as the underlying data)?

Hollywood if you drop an apple from your hand does it fly up, sideways, or fall to the ground?
 
If wages go up, then so will costs. Costs will either be passed on to the consumer or people will be asked to work less/jobs cut. What am I missing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyTanker
Did you bother to read the part where the "study" has not yet been peer reviewed and a number of other economists looked at the data and pushed back, noting that there seemed to be some major problems with the conclusions (as well as the underlying data)?


"This strikes me as a study that is likely to influence people," said David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not involved in the research. He called the work "very credible" and "sufficiently compelling in its design and statistical power that it can change minds."

Yet the study will not put an end to the dispute. Experts cautioned that the effects of the minimum wage may vary according to the industries dominant in the cities where they are implemented along with overall economic conditions in the country as a whole.

And critics of the research pointed out what they saw as serious shortcomings. In particular, to avoid confusing establishments that were subject to the minimum with those that were not, the authors did not include large employers with locations both inside and outside of Seattle in their calculations. Skeptics argued that omission could explain the unusual results.

"Like, whoa, what? Where did you get this?" asked Ben Zipperer, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in Washington.

Emphasis added.
 
Hollywood if you drop an apple from your hand does it fly up, sideways, or fall to the ground?
Tell me, was I wrong on any actual point I made?

Was the study peer reviewed? Were there other economist who disagreed with the data and the conclusion?

YES or NO?
 
"Like, whoa, what? Where did you get this?" asked Ben Zipperer, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in Washington.

So, from that statement your take-away is that he agreed with the conclusions of the study?
 
If I've learned anything from the left, if a scientist or think tank says its true it must be true. Case closed, if you disagree or if someone else looks at the data and pushes back they are deniers and rubes. Wage Deniers!!!!
 
Tell me, was I wrong on any actual point I made?

Was the study peer reviewed? Were there other economist who disagreed with the data and the conclusion?

YES or NO?

I don't care about your point. Your point is superseded by economic theory akin to gravity.

I really have no idea why you would want to engage in your original line assuming you have any kind of business or economic sense.
 
"Like, whoa, what? Where did you get this?" asked Ben Zipperer, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in Washington.

So, from that statement your take-away is that he agreed with the conclusions of the study?

Don't be dumb.
 
Something can't be true until it's peer reviewed - the hollywood worldview in a nutshell.

That's not my position, but nice strawman. My point being that there is NOT some universal acceptance of the conclusions of this study. The Peer Review Process does tend to add a bit credibility as it's quite possible that the data collection was skewed (as was pointed out by noting that they included data from businesses which were NOT even affected by the Seattle law) and/or that the conclusions were valid.

That is my point, let's see how this "study" holds up to some scrutiny. Including, but not only - who paid for it. (You want me to find some of those studies funding by the Tobacco Institute which found that cigarettes do not contribute to lung cancer, because there were dozens upon dozens of those put out in the 70's and 80's)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
Well if it is peer reviewed and someone disagrees with it, all the authors of the paper and supports of the claims has to do is claim that those who oppose are crazy and attack them personally, conversation over. Once again something I've learned from the left. Economics denier!!! Man I've never done this before, it's fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mseabolt
INKY29,

The article in question is basically nothing more than an opinion article. The "study" in question is not exactly something that has been reviewed by other economists. At this point, do you accept it as gospel and there is no way that it could be wrong?

Because that's the primary point I'm raising. There is little information available to determine whether the study's conclusions are correct, or that the data collection was carried out correctly.

I'm just suggesting caution until the underlying study is put to the test.
 
Was the study peer reviewed? Were there other economist who disagreed with the data and the conclusion?

YES or NO?

Where is the peer review on MSM and the Russia allegations?
 
  • Like
Reactions: squeak
INKY29,

The article in question is basically nothing more than an opinion article. The "study" in question is not exactly something that has been reviewed by other economists. At this point, do you accept it as gospel and there is no way that it could be wrong?

Because that's the primary point I'm raising. There is little information available to determine whether the study's conclusions are correct, or that the data collection was carried out correctly.

I'm just suggesting caution until the underlying study is put to the test.

Not true, some economist have called it credible. There are economist on both sides.

"This strikes me as a study that is likely to influence people," said David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not involved in the research. He called the work "very credible" and "sufficiently compelling in its design and statistical power that it can change minds."

And there is also this:

Yet the study will not put an end to the dispute. Experts cautioned that the effects of the minimum wage may vary according to the industries dominant in the cities where they are implemented along with overall economic conditions in the country as a whole.

You're only looking at the disagreement and ignoring the concurrence.
 
"Like, whoa, what? Where did you get this?" asked Ben Zipperer, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in Washington.

So, from that statement your take-away is that he agreed with the conclusions of the study?
No, it wasn't; geez. My conclusion was that this guy is a lefty, and was probably the lone source this piece spoke with that saw "serious shortcomings".
 
Last edited:
That's not my position, but nice strawman. My point being that there is NOT some universal acceptance of the conclusions of this study. The Peer Review Process does tend to add a bit credibility as it's quite possible that the data collection was skewed (as was pointed out by noting that they included data from businesses which were NOT even affected by the Seattle law) and/or that the conclusions were valid.

That is my point, let's see how this "study" holds up to some scrutiny. Including, but not only - who paid for it. (You want me to find some of those studies funding by the Tobacco Institute which found that cigarettes do not contribute to lung cancer, because there were dozens upon dozens of those put out in the 70's and 80's)?

So you are a man made economy denier. :)
 
Well if it is peer reviewed and someone disagrees with it, all the authors of the paper and supports of the claims has to do is claim that those who oppose are crazy and attack them personally, conversation over. Once again something I've learned from the left. Economics denier!!! Man I've never done this before, it's fun.
It's what happened in the ClimateGate debacle. Only here Mann, the East Anglia folks and others deliberately refused to "peer review" research contrary to theirs or simply ignored data blowing holes in their claims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
Simplistic conclusion on your part. Did Adam Smith take into account the effects of welfare on labor supply for instance?

Interesting study, likely won't hold up if only the skew in the data munging together impacted an non impacted employers.

As discussed previously, Seattle will make a nice test bed for this. Just want to see more data.

  • The title of this thread was a reference to Adam Smith's writing as understood in the popular culture
  • Are you suggesting that welfare somehow cancels the law of demand such that the demand for labor doesn't decrease at the cost of labor increases, ceteris paribus?
  • If $15 per hour is good, why not $25?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AC_Exotic
  • The title of this thread was a reference to Adam Smith's writing as understood in the popular culture
  • Are you suggesting that welfare somehow cancels the law of demand such that the demand for labor doesn't decrease at the cost of labor increases, ceteris paribus?
  • If $15 per hour is good, why not $25?
The effective subsidy afforded by welfare absolutely mediates the price expectation of the labor supply effectively offsetting what otherwise would be labor scarcity. The ability to hire a 30 YO at minimum wage is ONLY possible with the assistance of welfare bastardizing or at the very least complicating the notion of supply/demand in labor markets. Any study that doesn't at least attempt to account for the impacts of welfare on changes to minimum wage are incomplete at best.

I have no minimum wage in mind - I do know that $7.25 does not provide a living wage. I know that the practice of employing only part time labor to avoid tripping thresholds is a legal dodge. I know that welfare is both personal and corporate welfare accruing some $7 bln plus per year in effective labor savings by its mere existence.
 
The effective subsidy afforded by welfare absolutely mediates the price expectation of the labor supply effectively offsetting what otherwise would be labor scarcity. The ability to hire a 30 YO at minimum wage is ONLY possible with the assistance of welfare bastardizing or at the very least complicating the notion of supply/demand in labor markets. Any study that doesn't at least attempt to account for the impacts of welfare on changes to minimum wage are incomplete at best.

I have no minimum wage in mind - I do know that $7.25 does not provide a living wage. I know that the practice of employing only part time labor to avoid tripping thresholds is a legal dodge. I know that welfare is both personal and corporate welfare accruing some $7 bln plus per year in effective labor savings by its mere existence.
So every job should pay a living wage?
 
As the lack of economic opportunity for the lowest rungs of a society evaporate, the stability of that society does what?
Giving additional government money to individuals will not provide them additional economic opportunity.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT