Soft Head, Soft Heart Argument
So I propose a simple challenge to pave the way to my refutation: Tell me how to sell the abolition of the minimum wage to the typical Feeling American.
Please don't give me any "hard heads, soft hearts" answers. Give me "soft heads, soft hearts" answers. You're trying to persuade Oprah Winfrey, not Data from Star Trek after he gets his emotion chip.
I am not sure what makes for a soft head argument, but lots of talk about oppressors and racism combined with argument by anecdote rather than facts felt right, so this was my shot at it:
Bobby is a black teen in Chicago. Since he has just 9 years old, the only way he could support his family and survive in his neighborhood was to join a gang and deal drugs.
After his recent arrest, Bobby wants to go straight, to escape the cycle of crime and violence into which he has become trapped. But no one will hire him without experience. He needs a history showing he can do simple things, like show up reliably to work on time, cooperate with other employees, and interact well with customers.
Bobby would be willing to work for free to gain this experience, to get a toe-hold on the simple skills many of us take for granted. Be he can't. he is barred by law. He cannot legally be offered a job for less than $8.25 an hour, a wage he could one day earn but right now lacks the basic skills to justify.
The minimum wage raises the first rung on the ladder of success higher than Bobby can possibly reach. This is not an accident. Early proponents of the minimum wage in the early 20th century supported it precisely because it protected white workers from competition from blacks attempting to enter the work force. The minimum wage began as, and still is, a tool of oppression,preventing young men like Bobby from gaining access to good employment.
Today, the unemployment among black teens has risen to nearly 40%. This is because the government has been working for years to help older white workers with political clout keep men like Bobby out of the workforce, and the minimum wage is their most powerful tool for doing so.
Because it disproportionally affects minority youth. Therefore it is racist.
It doesn't have to actually make logical sense. He said it was an argument for the soft heads / soft hearts crowd.
BIGGEST BENEFICIARY OF MINIMUM WAGE? IT IS BIG LABOR. TOO MANY AUTOMATIC WAGE ADJUSTMENTS ARE TIED TO MINIMUM WAGE. EVERY TIME IT IS INCREASED IT RESULTS IN CONTRACTED LABOR WAGE INCREASES.
MAKES A LIBERAL "FEEL" LIKE THEY ARE DOING GOOD.
I like it!
But
1: we are talking about some scientific theory, in the field of economics.
2: And many countries do many things that are not in the best interest of their citizens.
3: I have shown 2 examples of how a widely (even universally) held belief was completely turned on its head. So your appeal to popularity is false. There is actually a name for this false argument technique "Argumentum ad Populum" you can read about it on the wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
there are about 200 countries in the world. More than 100..probably close to 150 have some form of wage law.
If you had one or two or three countries as counter-examples, it would seriously bolster your view. The fact that you have none simply undermines it.
it's one thing to have a theory of which you have no examples or counter-examples, it's just at theory, it's quite another when you have a theory and there are 150 counter-examples and no actual examples that substantiate it.
at that point, to be realistic, one has to start thinking that the theory may be just that- a theory, without any real examples.
First off, you have not shown that any of your 150 examples are really successful, second you are still arguing from a Argumentum ad Populum false logic standpoint. Third my not showing a country does not add or hinder any argument. Did you go to the Wiki article and read about your logical fallacy they give interesting examples. Assume everyone smoked in some country, you could argue, because everyone is smoking it must be good for them. - It is the same thing you are trying to argue with all these ill informed countries.
but I never claimed that to start with. It's the folks who say that such policies are wrong and lead to economic damage that have made such claims and all I have pointed out is that a whole bunch of countries have such policies and we have yet to see any examples of countries without such policies that perform according to what the theory claims.
You cannot sell an economic theory just by insisting it's correct and ignore what happens in the real world with 200 countries.
Well, you can do that but you have no credibility at all.. just someone who spouts unproven economic theories.
If you actually want to convince people, win over people to the argument you have to offer more than logic with no real world examples.
otherwise, why spend time on theories to start with unless you're just sticking to some ideology that you believe in regardless whether or not it really exists in practice.
This is good. Just add that the grocery store is in a "food desert," and maybe that Ron operates a community garden out back.
Larry yes you can ignore 200 countries. If 1 million countries had minimum wage, that would not mean it is necessarily economically correct. if you have 100% of countries doing it, it is still not necessarily economically correct.
You really haven't shown anything showing that minimum wage is a net good either from an economic perspective.
I will give you this. Minimum wage may be a good choice, even if it does not make sense economically for various other factors. For instance - if it keeps the rif raff from rising up and starting a revolution - that would be a good benefit.
But yeah, you are arguing in a circle. 150 - 200 - 500 countries is not proof of goodness, yet you keep arguing that even when I have pointed out several times it is a flawed argument. Do don't have anything, so it is time to end the debate.
L8R
no, you cannot ignore 200 countries that represent the real world guy.
I have never claimed it is a net good. What I said is that the theory is not in real-world practice and I said that if the theory was correct, at least SOME countries would be doing it that way.
your view is that virtually every country on the planet is wrong.
and all I asked was to show one country that was right and how it did benefit from doing it "right".
It's true - you can have 500 countries "doing it wrong" and not a single one doing it right - but at that point you are whistling in the wind. If people thought the theory was correct - enough people like you then what hasn't it been implemented?
that's not arguing in circles.. that's asking you why there are no real world examples of it - if indeed it is the "correct" way.
In fact we do have about 50-100 countries that don't have wage laws and every one of them is 3rd world or developing world country and not single one is a modern industrialized country.
I can't prove your theory wrong but you cannot prove it is right either - ESPECIALLY if out of 200 countries - there are no real examples of it.
Hello friends, nice post and nice urging commented at this place, I am in fact enjoying by these.