Minimum Wage

[SaintElsewhere]

"Dictionaries do not record definitions. They record common usage. The people create the language in the free market of vocabulary. Sovereign language is the only way to understand each other in terms of ambiguity."

This is absolutely correct.

 

"Our dictionary is not destroying words, it is adding words."

 

Functional vocabularies are decreasing.

 

No opinion on the current semantic argument, just some thoughts.

[empyblessing]

 

 

Dictionaries do not record definitions. They record common usage. The people create the language in the free market of vocabulary. Sovereign language is the only way to understand each other in terms of ambiguity. One of the greatest dangers is that of a centralized authority on language as has been written about ad nauseum. See 1984 and Animal Farm. 

 

I cant understand you. Please define all words in those sentences.

You are using all of these "words" in your reply, but you say they have no meaning until defined by the one speaking them, so either you are writing for no particular purpose or you do understand that we both agree to use words and there defined meanings, (which can be found in the dictionary) This is a huge contridiction. I've heard Stef talk about this sort of thing ad nauseum.  Words have meanings. We agree to go by their meanings. Those meanings are shared through the invention of dictionaries. If a word no longer reflects reality, then you don't use it anymore. You use an assemblage of other words that will get you to your point. Stef also does this, very often, but he also doesn't stop to define words over and over and over, because he must believe that we all can agree that if we use a word, we are not making up our own meaning, but we are using the definition that is agreed upon, and reflected in the newest versions of dictionaries.  

 

You're wrong. You do understand what those words mean and are purposely misleading the conversation. I am done speaking with you.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

You're wrong. You do understand what those words mean and are purposely misleading the conversation. I am done speaking with you.

 

How am I misleading the conversations? We hit a spot where everybody was in a feud over definitions, but everybody refused to find agreement on terms. Look up words you don't know the meaning of. That's how you get beyod this problem. I've explained why it's proper to use words proper meanings and not to go changing them. The words and meanings don't need to be questioned fo authenticity. The meanings of the words are what make those words mean anything at all. Either you use a word that has a meaning, or you use a different, or different set of words to describe what you need to describe, but if you use a word that already has become agreed upon by the majority of people, which is reflected in the dictionary, then you should use it propertly so you are understood, properly. Changing or redefining words is not useful. Using the right words, or group of words to describe something is useful. Instead of asking what a word means, "to me", just look it up. It doesn't matter what I want a word to mean. It matters what a word DOES mean. You can look a word up, and then make an argument based on what you learned about the word that was used. The person who uses the word uses the word assuming you know its meaning, and that if you don't you can look it up.

[empyblessing]

Language in its imperfect state is in a
constant state of change. Therefore, any attempt to record that
language is erroneous before it even begins. Communication is
facilitated chiefly through grammatical nuances within the language,
in accordance with cultural, social, and temporal bias, and only
presented in the vocabulary ipso facto. The majority use 1500 words
to communicate and yet can string together billions of sentences
using this limited amount because the structure of any given language
is more important than its vocabulary.

 

The closest approximation to a
permanent language is a computer's language where the parameters are
fixed. However, this does not allow for conceptual vagary within the
language and so the efficacy of a widespread mathematical language
remains diminished currently. Since the language is a representation
of the individual than it is impossible for that language to be used
colloquially and not change so long as the individual (and thus the
environment) is in a state of change.

 

However, there is a shared commonality
to language otherwise it would serve no function. Concrete nouns are
easy to convey. An apple is an apple is an apple. But red is only red
to the individual. When communicating using abstract or conceptual
terms it becomes easy to see the impotency of language. Otherwise,
words like good, evil, truth, freedom, and love would not have such
dichotomous interpretations.

 

All language is in a state of flux,
expanding, growing, dying, emerging. Its cycles are held to the
demand of the people and more importantly to the individual. As the
free market economy allows for businesses to expand, grow, and die in
accordance with the needs of the individual so to does language grow
and change. The notion of a central authority figure cannot allow for
the adaptive nature of the individual (and all that entails) any more
than a centrally planned economy can accurately and consistently
anticipate the demands of the consumer.

 

At best the language used in this
writing is a vague approximation of billions of thoughts amalgamated
into a semi-coherent structure of grammar, which by its very nature,
will be obsolete before anyone reads it.  

[empyblessing]

 

 

 

You're wrong. You do understand what those words mean and are purposely misleading the conversation. I am done speaking with you.

 

How am I misleading the conversations? We hit a spot where everybody was in a feud over definitions, but everybody refused to find agreement on terms. Look up words you don't know the meaning of. That's how you get beyod this problem. I've explained why it's proper to use words proper meanings and not to go changing them. The words and meanings don't need to be questioned fo authenticity. The meanings of the words are what make those words mean anything at all. Either you use a word that has a meaning, or you use a different, or different set of words to describe what you need to describe, but if you use a word that already has become agreed upon by the majority of people, which is reflected in the dictionary, then you should use it propertly so you are understood, properly. Changing or redefining words is not useful. Using the right words, or group of words to describe something is useful. Instead of asking what a word means, "to me", just look it up. It doesn't matter what I want a word to mean. It matters what a word DOES mean. You can look a word up, and then make an argument based on what you learned about the word that was used. The person who uses the word uses the word assuming you know its meaning, and that if you don't you can look it up.

 

I can only communicate when I feel comfortable. I do not feel comfortable posting in this thread anymore. I want to be understood. That's not going to happen so I'll leave now.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

 

You're wrong. You do understand what those words mean and are purposely misleading the conversation. I am done speaking with you.

 

How am I misleading the conversations? We hit a spot where everybody was in a feud over definitions, but everybody refused to find agreement on terms. Look up words you don't know the meaning of. That's how you get beyod this problem. I've explained why it's proper to use words proper meanings and not to go changing them. The words and meanings don't need to be questioned fo authenticity. The meanings of the words are what make those words mean anything at all. Either you use a word that has a meaning, or you use a different, or different set of words to describe what you need to describe, but if you use a word that already has become agreed upon by the majority of people, which is reflected in the dictionary, then you should use it propertly so you are understood, properly. Changing or redefining words is not useful. Using the right words, or group of words to describe something is useful. Instead of asking what a word means, "to me", just look it up. It doesn't matter what I want a word to mean. It matters what a word DOES mean. You can look a word up, and then make an argument based on what you learned about the word that was used. The person who uses the word uses the word assuming you know its meaning, and that if you don't you can look it up.

 

I can only communicate when I feel comfortable. I do not feel comfortable posting in this thread anymore. I want to be understood. That's not going to happen so I'll leave now.

 

If you want to be understood then speak words other people have access to define without asking you what the words mean over and over. Use words from our lexicon. The dictionary will help you. If I make you uncomfortable because I say that, then just avoid live debates for sure because nobody is going to keep stopping to clarify definitions of words. Conversations don't go anywhere that way. I've never seen a debate where the opposing sides keep demanding definitions. We accept that we are speaking the same language. You don't argue by what you think your opponent thinks a word means. You argue on what the word means. I don't mind at all if you don't want to converse any longer with me because it's not useful for me either at this point to keep stopping conversations to go through all of this crap.

[VforVoluntary49]

Lol and here it goes again. Unreal

[David Ottinger]

The message I try to get across:

 

Typically people confuse economics with politics.   Economics is descriptive, not prescriptive.  Putting forth a policy is putting forth a value judgment.  In other words, economics explains what IS going on while policies serve to tell people what OUGHT to be done.  However, what ought to be done is entirely subjective because value is subjective.  Thus, by putting forth a minimum wage law, you are imposing a value judgment on the populace.  This is true for various policies.  And it's all these impositions on the populace that move us away from having a free market.Thus, the markets as they exist today are not truly representative of the people that make-up the markets.  It is a market system that represents a select few.  So, by definition, economical equality is impossible without a free market.  Furthermore, economics makes no distinction between whether employment is good or bad.  So, the supply and demand graph as it relates to the labor market as well as the implementation of a minimum wage is simply pointing out that there is a max price one is willing to pay for the exchange of labor and a minimum someone is willing to accept for the exchange of labor.That is not up for interpretation.  That is simply a fact of reality.     So, again, economics does not put forth any moral evaluations.  Furthermore, the equilibrium range is set by the market.  Thus, if minimum wage laws set the minimum above that equilibrium range, then unemployment will occur.  That is the risk of imposing minimum wage laws.  There is no dispute to that.  More importantly, political risk does not end there.  What is commonly overlooked is the desire to cause unemployment.  Unemployment tends to cause social unrest -- which can also be exploited.  So, it is entirely naive to automatically assume minimum wage laws are this unequivocal counter to exploitation of the populace.  No, there are various groups of various interests that want minimum wage laws.  For example, big corporations may push for minimum wage laws, thus preventing small businesses from having the appropriate size staff needed for their operation, thereby hindering their competitiveness in the market place.  Furthermore, this same corporation will push for welfare policies such as food stamps that can only be used at licensed organization -- which naturally that corporation would be one of them -- thus exploiting the unemployed for profits via proxy of the state, thereby further hindering competition.This is why libertarians argue in favor of a free market.  Exploitation might occur in the free market, but that's nothing compared to policies that solidify them into practice by fiat.  

[aeonicentity]

1) while the minimum wage is now the lowest it has been since the 1940's relative to cost of living, this is actually a good reason to NOT utilize a minimum wage to set wages. If it takes an act of congress to move the damn thing, wouldn't we all be better if the market could set wage prices? markets respond much faster and the market doesn't require consensus, or majorities to change its self.

 

2) the minimum wage has dropped in purchasing power because of the minimum wage, since we always set the minimum wage higher than the standard of living, it will re-adjust the standard of living upwards to compensate for the higher price of goods, and general inflation. An argument could be made for lowering the minimum wage actually lowering the cost of living, since inexperienced teens who lack the need for things like houses, apartments, and child care could now produce the products consumed by now much wealthier middle-income familes.

 

3) The 'standard of living' proposed is insanely high. I make almost $15 an hour and I still live at home, not because I couldn't afford to move out, but because I couldn't afford to move out AND pay cash for school. The average person who makes the minimum wage shouldn't:

 

1- Be married.

2- Live on their own

3- have a family

4- be buying education on a cash basis.

 

It is a wise man who says, "Don't raise your goals, lower your expectations". The reality is that we in America have a massively skewed sense of the 'standard of living' because the standard of living we've lived for the past 50 years has been entirely financed on debt and leverage. Its exactly like the 20's when people woke up and realized their mansions and Gatsby's liquor had cost too much, and we had a depression when all the bad debt came due.

 

finances like life, is about sacrifices. I sacrifice x to gain y. I spend more here, to make more there. Save now to make more in the future.

 

But you can't have your money now, then have more money in the future. Fundamentally this is what minimum wages do.

[BradP55]

Having a minimum wage doesn't make any sense. It's going to make all prices higher anyhow, and the people that made 9 bucks an hour before, are now making minimum wage, unless they get a "raise"  and a LOT of the time that doesn't happen. So it's a pay cut for people who worked their way up to 9 bucks an hour. Lets say min wage is 7.50. You started your job at 7.50 hr. You worked a couple years and now you make 9 bucks an hour. You just received a 1.50 pay cut per hour now that you're back down to min wage. Will your boss give you 10.50 an hour to compensate. No. Probably not. So prices increase, your pay "really" decreases, and jobs hire fewer people. I swear it's unbelievable that raising the minimum wage gets votes, but it still works!!! It's proof that most people don't want or care about truth. Most people are totally brainwashed by either religion, or politics. 

If a Deli owner, has two employees making $9/hr, when minimum wage increases $3./hr, how does he deal with this?  Based on your statement, he increases his prices to give himself and his employees a $3/hr increase in wages.  This maintains their standard of living in a changing market.  The problem isn't the Deli, when a wage increase occurs, it's the $50/hr employee working for the State who receives the Cost of living increase.  Who should change jobs to attain higher pay? I apologize, if I lack clarity.  I am new to this site.