Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[Jeff Matthews]

Hey Jeff....I got lost amongst the sea of crazy back and forth between you guys. Could you summarize your view on this? I've always enjoyed your perspectives over the years, but I'm finding it hard to find your views amidst all the posts.

 

One question I've been thinking a lot about is the idea that scarcity demands a higher dollar amount. The age old supply and demand analogy. Is this just a fundamental concept, or is it only applicable to a capitalist economy (or other similar structures)? I understand the idea of supply and demand when it comes to goods and whatnot, but something just feels off when we're talking about people and their skillsets. I just haven't been able to put my finger on it - or is it really as simple as supply and demand and I shouldn't worry about it? I am completely comfortable with the idea that people will have different life styles, so the idea of different pay doesn't bother me at all. It just seems odd to me that scarcity of a skill itself is what demands the higher dollar amount.

 

Perhaps this is a shortcoming of our educational system? If there were more CEO's that were really good at their job, then would their salary stay the same? Supply and Demand tells us that their pay should go down, right?

 

 

Maybe we should be focusing on our efforts on training our workforce to have a more balanced set of skills? Is the capability of a CEO the product of nurture or nature?

 

Hey, Mike.  Thanks for the comments.

 

I will first admit that I don't have any insightful response to give as far as choosing which way to go.  I think that even with inflation, markets adjust.  We should all be fine; it's just a matter of what size ripples you want to create in the economy.

 

Regarding supply/demand and skill sets, yes, it is absolutely that way.  How many people can throw a ball like Tom Brady?  On a more mundane level, look at what has happened with lawyers' earnings over the last couple of decades.  Law schools have churned out way too many lawyers.  So much so that the word is out, "Don't go to law school."  As a result, attendance is way down, and some law schools are facing having to close their doors.

 

Compare that trend to skilled trades.  When you call a plumber to fix a leak at your house, you're kind of lucky in some locales to get one promptly, and when they do show up, you can feel a bit of a "pucker" down below because they are charging high rates these days.

 

This is what happens when you spend a few decades saying the solution for all of America's children is to send them all to college.

[Mallette]

Would enjoy an amoral "health care system?"

 

I fully expect it to be so. 

 

Would you enjoy an amoral military? Treasury?

 

Same for those. 

 

I presume you don't believe in the Constitutional requirement to promote the general welfare?

 

Irrelevant.  Moral decisions may be made within amoral systems...like capitalism or communism...but the system itself remains amoral. 

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

Would enjoy an amoral "health care system?"

I fully expect it to be so.

Would you enjoy an amoral military? Treasury?

Same for those.

I presume you don't believe in the Constitutional requirement to promote the general welfare?

Irrelevant. Moral decisions may be made within amoral systems...like capitalism or communism...but the system itself remains amoral.

Dave

I disagree. Here's an example from the healthcare system, as practiced in the west.

Quote

The Hippocratic Oath is anoath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

Would enjoy an amoral "health care system?"

I fully expect it to be so.

Would you enjoy an amoral military? Treasury?

Same for those.

I presume you don't believe in the Constitutional requirement to promote the general welfare?

Irrelevant. Moral decisions may be made within amoral systems...like capitalism or communism...but the system itself remains amoral.

Dave

I disagree. Here's an example from the healthcare system, as practiced in the west.

Quote

The Hippocratic Oath is anoath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

 

 

Here's the difference:

 

In a "free market" (a phrase I use lightly, okay?), moral results are obtained because the rules of transacting allow people to choose.  This was Albright's point.  Maybe the rules of capitalism are amoral, but it does not follow that the results are likewise, amoral.  When I can choose not to buy from a fraudster, it is because I can choose.  Thus, it tends to compel a moral result.  When the system is monopolized (by government or whomever), the connection breaks down, and immorality (not just amorality) can be exacerbated quickly.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Jim Naseum]

Oath for enlisted men in army.

Quote

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Jeff Matthews]

Oath for enlisted men in army.

Quote

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

Sounds like a rule to me.  The guy pledges to follow a rule.  Doesn't mean he agrees with it.

[Travis In Austin]

From Vocabulary.com

 

Begin quote:

 

amoral/ immoral

Both have to do with right and wrong, but amoral means having no sense of either, like a fish, but the evil immoral describes someone who knows the difference, doesn't care, and says "mwah ha ha" while twirling a mustache.

If you are amoral, you're not a jerk, you just don't know that what you're doing is wrong. In the 1800s, Robert Louis Stevenson, author of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (among other treasures), coined the word amoral to differentiate from immoral. Amoral is generally more descriptive, rather than judgmental:

In an age enamored of machines, life becomes

amoral

, without moral bearings, devoid of moral categories. (

Edith Sizoo)

Amoral

nature committed the crime "the man" could not. (

Eye for Film

)

Immoral is having no morality, being wicked or evil. If you are immoral, you know what society considers right and wrong, yet you do wrong anyway. It's a judgment, no doubt:

The bankers who took millions while destroying people's savings: greedy, selfish, and

immoral.

(

Business Week

)

At best, it is in bad taste and worse, flatly

immoral

. (

Scientific American

)

If you call someone immoral, you are saying that person knows better. If you call him amoral, you are saying that person does wrong but doesn't understand that it is wrong. It can be a fine line, other times it's clear: If a giant wave turns your boat over, that wave isn't being mean, it's amoral. If another boat rams into you and does the same thing, that is an immoral act, especially if the immoral captain laughs instead of helping you out of the water.

 

End quote

[Jim Naseum]

Would enjoy an amoral "health care system?"

I fully expect it to be so.

Would you enjoy an amoral military? Treasury?

Same for those.

I presume you don't believe in the Constitutional requirement to promote the general welfare?

Irrelevant. Moral decisions may be made within amoral systems...like capitalism or communism...but the system itself remains amoral.

Dave

I disagree. Here's an example from the healthcare system, as practiced in the west.

Quote

The Hippocratic Oath is anoath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

Here's the difference:

In a "free market" (a phrase I use lightly, okay?), moral results are obtained because the rules of transacting allow people to choose. This was Albright's point. Maybe the rules of capitalism are amoral, but it does not follow that the results are likewise, amoral. When I can choose not to buy from a fraudster, it is because I can choose. Thus, it tends to compel a moral result. When the system is monopolized (by government or whomever), the connection breaks down, and immorality (not just amorality) can be exacerbated quickly.

Both sides choose. The vendor supplies poison but calls it "vitamins". The buyer thinks vitamins are good and buys.

One side acted immorally, the other side acted immorally, with a result of sickness or death.

That's an artifact of amoral systems.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

Oath for enlisted men in army.

Quote

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

Sounds like a rule to me. The guy pledges to follow a rule. Doesn't mean he agrees with it.

So, true faith and allegiance is not a meaningful moral obligation for you?

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

 

Would enjoy an amoral "health care system?"

I fully expect it to be so.

Would you enjoy an amoral military? Treasury?

Same for those.

I presume you don't believe in the Constitutional requirement to promote the general welfare?

Irrelevant. Moral decisions may be made within amoral systems...like capitalism or communism...but the system itself remains amoral.

Dave

I disagree. Here's an example from the healthcare system, as practiced in the west.

Quote

The Hippocratic Oath is anoath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

Here's the difference:

In a "free market" (a phrase I use lightly, okay?), moral results are obtained because the rules of transacting allow people to choose. This was Albright's point. Maybe the rules of capitalism are amoral, but it does not follow that the results are likewise, amoral. When I can choose not to buy from a fraudster, it is because I can choose. Thus, it tends to compel a moral result. When the system is monopolized (by government or whomever), the connection breaks down, and immorality (not just amorality) can be exacerbated quickly.

Both sides choose. The vendor supplies poison but calls it "vitamins". The buyer thinks vitamins are good and buys.

One side acted immorally, the other side acted immorally, with a result of sickness or death.

That's an artifact of amoral systems.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

 

 

That is correct, and this is the reason why we have regulations.  But note:  Part of our regulatory system is designed to prevent monopolies.  Our regulatory system encourages competition.  In order to foster competition, you have to allow people to compete.  They compete on price, quality, quantity, etc.  You have to give them some room to carve their niche.  Some people want American goods; others are okay with Chinese goods.  Choice is what it's all about.  Let people choose their careers, along with the potential the chosen careers have.  Let them take risks.  Let them fail, as well as succeed.  Let their failures and successes be the guide to others.  It's better than Big Brother lining up people and marching them through pre-determined doors to achieve pre-determined outcomes.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

Oath for enlisted men in army.

Quote

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

Sounds like a rule to me. The guy pledges to follow a rule. Doesn't mean he agrees with it.

So, true faith and allegiance is not a meaningful moral obligation for you?

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

 

 

Have you ever been to court?  It's about as meaningful as, "I swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

[Jim Naseum]

From Vocabulary.com

Begin quote:

amoral/ immoral

Both have to do with right and wrong, but amoral means having no sense of either, like a fish, but the evil immoral describes someone who knows the difference, doesn't care, and says "mwah ha ha" while twirling a mustache.

If you are amoral, you're not a jerk, you just don't know that what you're doing is wrong. In the 1800s, Robert Louis Stevenson, author of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (among other treasures), coined the word amoral to differentiate from immoral. Amoral is generally more descriptive, rather than judgmental:

In an age enamored of machines, life becomes amoral, without moral bearings, devoid of moral categories. (Edith Sizoo)

Amoral nature committed the crime "the man" could not. (Eye for Film)

Immoral is having no morality, being wicked or evil. If you are immoral, you know what society considers right and wrong, yet you do wrong anyway. It's a judgment, no doubt:

The bankers who took millions while destroying people's savings: greedy, selfish, and immoral. (Business Week)

At best, it is in bad taste and worse, flatly immoral. (Scientific American)

If you call someone immoral, you are saying that person knows better. If you call him amoral, you are saying that person does wrong but doesn't understand that it is wrong. It can be a fine line, other times it's clear: If a giant wave turns your boat over, that wave isn't being mean, it's amoral. If another boat rams into you and does the same thing, that is an immoral act, especially if the immoral captain laughs instead of helping you out of the water.

End quote

It's far simpler than that for institutions and philosophies.

If you have no statements describing right or wrong actions, it is amoral. It lacks a moral code.

If there are dictates of right behavior and wrong behavior, that constitutes a moral code.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

Would enjoy an amoral "health care system?"

I fully expect it to be so.

Would you enjoy an amoral military? Treasury?

Same for those.

I presume you don't believe in the Constitutional requirement to promote the general welfare?

Irrelevant. Moral decisions may be made within amoral systems...like capitalism or communism...but the system itself remains amoral.

Dave

I disagree. Here's an example from the healthcare system, as practiced in the west.

Quote

The Hippocratic Oath is anoath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

Here's the difference:

In a "free market" (a phrase I use lightly, okay?), moral results are obtained because the rules of transacting allow people to choose. This was Albright's point. Maybe the rules of capitalism are amoral, but it does not follow that the results are likewise, amoral. When I can choose not to buy from a fraudster, it is because I can choose. Thus, it tends to compel a moral result. When the system is monopolized (by government or whomever), the connection breaks down, and immorality (not just amorality) can be exacerbated quickly.

Both sides choose. The vendor supplies poison but calls it "vitamins". The buyer thinks vitamins are good and buys.

One side acted immorally, the other side acted immorally, with a result of sickness or death.

That's an artifact of amoral systems.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

That is correct, and this is the reason why we have regulations. But note: Part of our regulatory system is designed to prevent monopolies. Our regulatory system encourages competition. In order to foster competition, you have to allow people to compete. They compete on price, quality, quantity, etc. You have to give them some room to carve their niche. Some people want American goods; others are okay with Chinese goods. Choice is what it's all about. Let people choose their careers, along with the potential the chosen careers have. Let them take risks. Let them fail, as well as succeed. Let their failures and successes be the guide to others. It's better than Big Brother lining up people and marching them through pre-determined doors to achieve pre-determined outcomes.

The Golden Rule has pre determined outcomes? Not that I've ever seen.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Mallette]

Quote The Hippocratic Oath is anoath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards.

 

It requires them to render aid without judgment.  That, in my view, is amorality at it's purist. 

 

Dave

[Paducah Home Theater]

Why not $20, $30, or $50? Easy. Because those numbers would throw the system out of balance the other direction. Layoffs would slow new spending, which would lower production, which would create more layoffs. That's called deflation, and it ends in depression.

The reason it's appropriate to raise the minimum now is that the system is out of balance the other way. Minimum has not kept up with productivity gains, and that is depressing spending, and shifting too much income to the highest brackets (0.5%).

Doesn't matter whether you think it's appropriate or not, if you build a business based on a certain level of labor costs, but then that doubles, you get the same side effects. The same things happen when we get hit by high gas prices suddenly.

[Jim Naseum]

Oath for enlisted men in army.

Quote

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

Sounds like a rule to me. The guy pledges to follow a rule. Doesn't mean he agrees with it.

So, true faith and allegiance is not a meaningful moral obligation for you?

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

Have you ever been to court? It's about as meaningful as, "I swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Right. Telling the truth is a common element of many moral codes.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

All our military academies have a Code of Honor. You all know of that, right? Why would you think our Officer corps would be trained in a system with a moral code?

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Travis In Austin]

 

 

 

 

Would enjoy an amoral "health care system?"

I fully expect it to be so.

Would you enjoy an amoral military? Treasury?

Same for those.

I presume you don't believe in the Constitutional requirement to promote the general welfare?

Irrelevant. Moral decisions may be made within amoral systems...like capitalism or communism...but the system itself remains amoral.

Dave

I disagree. Here's an example from the healthcare system, as practiced in the west.

Quote

The Hippocratic Oath is anoath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

Here's the difference:

In a "free market" (a phrase I use lightly, okay?), moral results are obtained because the rules of transacting allow people to choose. This was Albright's point. Maybe the rules of capitalism are amoral, but it does not follow that the results are likewise, amoral. When I can choose not to buy from a fraudster, it is because I can choose. Thus, it tends to compel a moral result. When the system is monopolized (by government or whomever), the connection breaks down, and immorality (not just amorality) can be exacerbated quickly.

Both sides choose. The vendor supplies poison but calls it "vitamins". The buyer thinks vitamins are good and buys.

One side acted immorally, the other side acted immorally, with a result of sickness or death.

That's an artifact of amoral systems.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

 

Both sides are immoral?  Or just the vendor?  Is the vendor immoral if it purchases the vitamins from a manufacturer and had no idea it contained poison?  Is the manufacturer immoral if it added poison by an honest mistake?

 

I think most people would agree that the vendor is not immoral if the poison was put in by a manufacturer and they had no knowledge.  Likewise, if the manufacturer added the poison by an honest mistake, most would say it was not being immoral.

 

Public policy would make the vendor and manufacturer both liable for damages under all of those situations under our legal system.  Public policy, as set forth in statutes, regulations, and the common law are moral decisions that constrain the economic system.

 

If the poison was put in by intent, or reckless conduct, then criminal liability would attach.  Criminal laws are moral decisions and set forth in statutes and regulations.

 

Putting poison in vitamins, with any knowledge, is immoral, and it is immoral regardless of the  economic system that it may be distributed under.  Whether it is supplied by a government producer or a private one.  It is immoral even if it is distributed outside of an economic system, for example if it was donated to the poor.

 

I don't think there is a moral economic system, because "moral" is a value judgement that is  going to vary according to the individual.  There is, however, moral, immoral, and amoral public policy, which results in laws and regulations.  Depending on your viewpoint, the resulting laws fit into one of those three categories.  They have nothing to do with the economic system they happen to operate under.

 

Locke, who pretty much described and advocated for what  we consider to be capitalism and liberalism (this does not mean "liberal" in the  political sense) today, was very clear that  capitalism must be restrained in order to be successful. 

[Jim Naseum]

Both sides are immoral?

 

 

It was a typo. I meant to say the buyer was moral and the vendor was immoral. My typing is deranged by the automatic keyboard on tablets@!

[Jim Naseum]

 

Quote The Hippocratic Oath is anoath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards.

 

It requires them to render aid without judgment.  That, in my view, is amorality at it's purist. 

 

Dave

 

 

Well, actually it is a rather extensive moral code that includes many aspects. Here's the modern version of it.

 

QUOTE

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

 

END