Ukip! Ukip! Ukip!

[SpontaneousOrder]

So he wasn't arguing that it was a bad thing, simply that some of those supporting it were doing so for the wrong reasons.

He was (assuming he was saying the same things I already know Friedman to typically say) saying that it is bad.
But the reason it's bad is because it hurts the poor people who have nothing other than their cheap labour as a weapon to get a step up on the work experience ladder (or for some, even just getting work). Not that it was bad "because it helped unions protect their members", although it is the protection of the union members that causes the suffering of the others.

The example was given to show that the altruistic veneer over NMW, at it's conception at least, was a fraud - NMW doesn't (in his opinion) help the very people it is supposed to. it hurts them (and benefited some others instead).

[doodab]

It is a statement of fact, not a political statement or an expression of undying love for one economic framework or another.

Is it though? Any evidence to back that up?

[SpontaneousOrder]

The point is, and you have clearly missed it these people are great at telling you what does not work, but the only thing they offer that 'will' work is 'don't give them $4 min, make them stay on $2 because it's better for them'. None of the experts have an answer or their ideas would have been put in practice and we would all live in utopia. What these people who have all the answers are are really saying is 'tough!'

The free market is the answer. Legislation such as NMW is created despite these experts because voters want something for nothing, and politicians are not subject to experts - they're subject to voters.

These experts aren't saying 'tough' at all - if you read what they are saying they are saying that people will be better off without things like NMW. That's the whole point. These guys aren't generally saying that these pieces of legislation are immoral because they rely on theft, like I say. They're simply saying that it makes things worse.

How can saying that something is making people's lives worse equate to saying "tough!"? That doesn't make sense - they're saying the exact opposite of 'tough!'. They are saying "i know how to make your life easier".

I don't understand the basis for your objection at all.

[SpontaneousOrder]

The point is, and you have clearly missed it these people are great at telling you what does not work, but the only thing they offer that 'will' work is 'don't give them $4 min, make them stay on $2 because it's better for them'. None of the experts have an answer or their ideas would have been put in practice and we would all live in utopia. What these people who have all the answers are are really saying is 'tough!'

Friedman actually reminded me of Hague and IDS when they were opposition leaders - they were absolutely brilliant when it came to tearing Labour down at the despatch box but now they have the power they are worse than useless. Look at IDS flagship policies, Universal Credit, privatising the JC (which never did anything, anyway so should have just been obliterated), when the reality is that he has reduced unemployment by refusing to pay benefits to as many as he can using sanctions issued by private companies who are paid commission - so the savings we as taxpayers make go to Seetec and the like in payment and people some of whom deserve help and are just down on their luck or indeed they are disabled get kicked in the teeth.

Thanks for the insult btw, makes me want to call the Samaritans lol

I removed the insult right after because it was meant to sound light-hearted, but when I read it back it sounded very harsh

[tractor]

...

Is it though? Any evidence to back that up?

Sorry, a statement of likelihood, why would anyone pay more than they have to for anything? Yes, there are the odd few who guarantee the 'living wage' but not many.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You aren't going to stop people being greedy and lazy though. You need to work with what you have.

Here's a snippet from Herbet Spencer (probably about a hundred & fifty or so years ago) where he outlines to hazard to raising children insulated from the natural consequences of their actions, in favour of artificial ones imposed by their parents.

On Moral Education

This is no different. The nanny state only makes the world a more dangerous place.

[tractor]

I removed the insult right after because it was meant to sound light-hearted, but when I read it back it sounded very harsh

Indeed it did. It's hardly my fault that you or Friedman are unable to convince idiots like me now is it? For the sake of doubt, I am not even arguing that NMW is the right thing to do. Where I came in was to make the point that it quickly became National MAXIMUM wage because no one will pay more than they have to.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Indeed it did. It's hardly my fault that you or Friedman are unable to convince idiots like me now is it? For the sake of doubt, I am not even arguing that NMW is the right thing to do. Where I came in was to make the point that it quickly became National MAXIMUM wage because no one will pay more than they have to.

You mean that it acts like some kind of artificial 'morally acceptable' rate to pay?

[tractor]

...

You mean that it acts like some kind of artificial 'morally acceptable' rate to pay?

For many, it's an artificial ceiling.

[Zero Liability]

The minimum wage is an irredeemably flawed policy, that requires technocrats to be able to precisely identify wage ranges where, provided there is a monopsony (another big if), it would not cause more harm than good, and this is more or less what DA was getting at. Why believe these individuals possess all the requisite, localised, circumstantial knowledge to do this? In all other scenarios it will cause disemployment effects (which include unemployment, amongst other things.) Even then, there is no reason to think voluntary unionisation could not do a better job, and from a policy perspective, that something like a minimum basic income would not be better and require less technocratic intervention. The track record of the MW is highly contentious (many studies defending it don't control for things like credit bubbles), and based on economic theory, there is very little to recommend it. I believe not even 6% of jobs in the UK are paid MW. Throw in inflation and workarounds like apprenticeships, and its effect is probably dampened even further.

I really can't see what recommends the MW over a basic income guarantee, if the goal is to increase the income of the "poor".

Indeed it did. It's hardly my fault that you or Friedman are unable to convince idiots like me now is it? For the sake of doubt, I am not even arguing that NMW is the right thing to do. Where I came in was to make the point that it quickly became National MAXIMUM wage because no one will pay more than they have to.

What makes you say this?