Does minimum wage do more harm than good? (Page 4)

Lumpenproletariat:

057

WHISKY:

25) Living on the Minimum wage.

No I am not ignoring persons who cannot get hired. They cannot get hired due to being unskilled.
________________________________

No, there are many reasons they cannot get hired, not just that they're unskilled. There are many jobs for the unskilled also. Their chances are better if they're skilled, but the main advantage of being skilled is to get higher compensation.

There's nothing wrong with the unskilled also being able to work, at lower compensation. They do make their contribution to us all. This has always been an essential element of any prosperous economy, that there are those who contribute at a low skill level, as best as they can, and they get less reward. AND, at the same time we must provide opportunities for anyone to improve themselves, so they can move up.

But we cannot write off anyone just because they're unskilled. We must allow them the choice to take low-wage work if they think it's in their interest. All society benefits from allowing them that choice, rather than writing them off with minimum wage laws making it illegal for them to take the low-wage offer.
_______________________

WHISKY:

You are requested the removal of a minimum wage level so that unskilled workers can low-ball instead of competing based on skill set for the job and suitableness.
_____________________

Yes, true competition includes competing on price. ANY PRODUCER, big or small, is entitled to offer a product or service at lower price. This is good for the economy. There is no benefit to the economy by excluding certain producers because their price is too low.

You can't name one benefit to be gained by preventing the low-price producer from competing. As long as there's no fraud. Plus also it's legitimate to have some product standards, or some performance standards by the producers contracting to do work for someone.

But there is no benefit to having an artificial price minimum below which a producer may not go. You can't name one such benefit. This is just an arbitrary interference in the lives of others who are working and producing honestly, in an attempt to curtail competition from the lower-price producer.

Excluding any competition that would benefit consumers is never legitimate. If that producer offers an honest product to consumers, at a lower price, you can give no reason to prohibit that competitor from participating. Other than your hate. Your hate for that competitor who is better than you should not be a factor in deciding what should or should not be produced.

A producer who can do the same service at lower cost is always legitimate, no matter what, as long as it's not fraudulent and they adhere to their contract.

You can't name any case where that honest production should be excluded only because of the lower price. If you cannot compete with that price, then you're the one who's not legitimate and an inferior producer, and the competitive market should be allowed to penalize you for your inferiority.

Your vulgarity and name-calling, labeling it as "low-balling" is your personal problem and hangup, for which you may need counseling. Calling people vulgar names is not the solution to anything. If that low-cost producer is serving consumers better -- benefiting from the lower price -- that's good for the economy, and that producer is superior and desirable. While the one who cannot compete at that price is the one who might need to change or improve, to become less inferior.
______________________

WHISKY:

It will always be only ONE person to get the job, if not the skilled person at the minimum wage then the unskilled one without the minimum wage, someone will still be left unemployed of the two.
____________________

No, you're not doing the math when you say that. You're ignoring that the buyer, whoever pays them, is empowered to INCREASE production as a result of the lower cost. So the company can increase production and hire BOTH the higher- and lower-skilled worker.

So both can get hired in some cases, or in other ways the production is increased, and prices decreased to consumers, which is a WIN-WIN-WIN all around.

But your MW approach of curtailing the production, driving up the cost, ends up making everyone worse off, especially the consumers. You cannot defend an approach which drives up costs and reduces production and makes consumers worse off, as MW wage always does.

The only system which works is the one which leaves it to the free choices of buyers and sellers, employers and workers, allowing them to each serve at their maximum level plus minimum cost demand, so that the highest or optimum production level is attained. This then pressures ALL to reduce their cost demand, and also increase their output to better serve consumers.

Bottom Line = whatever best serves consumers results in the best outcome for the whole society.
____________________________

WHISKY:

The minimum wage is already low in itself.
_______________________

It's all relative. And no job at all is worse than minimum wage. The law imposing this ends up making us all worse off, by driving up prices and making all consumers worse off. Making consumers worse off (higher cost) is already too high, whereas if the wage is too low, the worker is always free to quit, so there's an automatic "safety net" to workers because they're always free to quit.

Whoever tries to dictate terms to another is always the one who is raising the cost too high or too low.

You can't prove any price is too high or too low unless you explain how it hurts consumers. Only if it hurts consumers is it too high or too low. If either the worker or employer individually doesn't like it, they are free to quit. It's not for their sake that the economy or the production exists. The only objective good is that of serving consumers, not making employers or workers feel better. Let them quit if the terms offered don't satisfy them.
___________________________

Lumpenproletariat

058

WHISKY:

An employer can be willing to pay shit and you think people should be ‘ah yes master thanks’.
____________________

No, the employer is not the master. Just say "NO! I quit!" what's the problem? What are they whining about when all they have to do is get off their butt and walk out the door? Who's stopping them? It's their free choice, to which they're entitled, and the employer cannot interfere with their free choice to quit.
__________________

WHISKY:

Enough of that shit talk.
___________________

Yes, enough of that shit "Master" talk. No one is master. Each is free to say "NO, I'm out of here!" No master, no servant. Each makes their individual free choice. Unless they're a crybaby.

Or, each is "master" of his own choice, individually, no crybaby "shit" talk. You don't like the other one's choice -- you be your own "master" and you get up and leave.

Or you be a crybaby and go whining to the government to pass a law interfering with someone else's free choice and call them names like "Low-balling" etc. That's not what the economy needs. Society is not made better off by Crybaby Economics like minimum wage law.
__________________

WHISKY:

People demand better and they get better.
_____________________

Yes, if they're worth it. But if they whine to the gov't to force something onto others, then they're making everyone else worse. Making others worse off is not what our society needs. Just because you "get better" by making others worse off does not mean society is better.

There are many ways to "get better" by inflicting costs onto others, and making everyone else worse off. Much of that is crime. But you can find ways legally to cheat the system, commit fraud, even inflict violence -- If your only argument is that you know a scheme to "get better" for yourself by inflicting pain and damage onto everyone else --- OK, at least you're honest.

But then you're admitting that this is what MW is ---- it's one way that some workers "get better" for themselves by making all consumers, the whole society worse off. Because that's the result when you artificially drive up production cost as MW does.
_________________

WHISKY:

If you want to be a low-baller then be a low-baller but don’t try to bring anyone down to your level.
________________________

Again, all you have is name-calling to fall back on. You can't explain how this artificial higher cost is going to do anything but make everyone else worse off -- because of the higher cost of production that has to be paid for.

It's also name-calling to say someone is lower down than you because they can compete better and offer the same product at lower cost.

It is not inferior, but SUPERIOR, to be able to produce at a lower cost. This is superior for either a company or for an individual worker, including individual independent contractor.

A lower price is better for consumers, and whatever makes consumers better off is SUPERIOR, because the point of production, or economics, is to serve consumers. This is why we have ANTITRUST laws. You have to be against Antitrust laws if you're against lower price. The point is COMPETITION, or forcing producers to serve consumers with lower prices. This is why we have anti-price-fixing laws. If you don't accept the theory of lower price through competition, then you cannot be in favor of anti-price-fixing laws or anti-trust laws.
_________________________

WHISKY:

Kudos to the workers that stand up for their rights with backbone and demand better.
_____________________

Yes, let them show it by saying, "I Quit! take this job and shove it!" Fine, let them stand up for their right to quit that job and compete in the economy and improve themselves rather than go whining to the gov't to protect them from having to compete. That's what the ones with backbone do. While the crybabies demand minimum-wage law because they don't have the backbone to compete and prove their worth.
_________________________

WHISKY:

Fuck that weak ass shit of being docile when better can be achieved.
_______________________

Yes, like those weak ass crybabies who go whining to the gov't for minimum wage shit rather than improving themselves and proving their worth.
____________________

WHISKY:

And on your little statement “How are they supposed to benefit from the higher wage level if they have no job at all?” Like I said someone will always be without the job as a vacancy is for one.
____________________

But there will be more jobs and fewer vacancies if the gov't gets its ass out of the way and stops interfering with production by increasing the costs through MW laws. It's not true that "someone will always be without the job" in all cases, because in some cases the number of jobs can be increased, if the production cost is not suppressed by the gov't interference.

By getting rid of the MW interference, companies can expand production, HIRE MORE WORKERS than before, meaning fewer vacancies and more workers on the job producing the stuff consumers need = win-win-win-win for all of society rather than special-interest benefits to a few workers who secure higher wages at everyone else's expense.
________________________

WHISKY:

However, at least the person who has that job will be able to have a basic level for living.
_____________________

Yes, by inflicting costs onto everyone else, caused by the artificially-higher labor cost, driving down everyone else's basic level for living.

Whereas with his freedom to say, "I quit! take this job and shove it!" he's free -- but allowing all others also to be free -- to seek something better, which he'll find if he's worth it, while leaving others alone and free to make their own choices and have the opportunity to also improve their basic level for living.

The right way to improve your "basic level of living" is a system which allows this to everyone, rather than denying this "basic level of living" to all others in order to secure it to only a few special-interest workers who can't gain it honestly but must resort to having the gov't interfere and drive up the costs to everyone else.
____________________

WHISKY:

Get mad at that if you wish, be envious if you wish.
____________________

You mean like the envious striking workers who smash the machines and assault the replacement workers and burn down the factory in order to protect their jobs? and then throw a tantrum when the armed police show up and people get hurt, some killed, even executed later (200 years ago, e.g.).

You have a point -- Much life would have been saved and suffering prevented if your preaching had been listened to by those crybaby striking workers assaulting the replacement workers and destroying company property and driving up costs.

Lumpenproletariat:

059

WHISKY:

26) Small Violin

On your statement: “What you're saying to them is that it's better for them to starve (or beg on the streets) than to have a low-wage job. Why do you want to crush these would-be workers who could otherwise get hired? What good do you accomplish by forcing them out of the market, so the work they could do never gets done?”

What I am saying is that those who are employed and those that are selected for the job should have proper wages.
________________________

The "proper" wage level is the market wage, or, the "proper" price for anything is the market price for it. Which is determined by the competitive free market driven by supply-and-demand, not by artificial "minimum wage" theories.

Neither the buyer or seller can dictate to the other what is the "proper" price (or wage). Each one is entitled to set the price that is acceptable, and then whatever price they both agree to in order to do the transaction is the "proper" price (wage).

If they cannot agree on the price, then there should be no transaction. Either is free to walk away from the deal and refuse the other's terms. Either is free to offer its price to the other (take it or leave it), no matter how low or high that price is. The worker or job-seeker is free to say no and walk away from the deal.

So, each is sovereign to make his/her choice and offer a price, and after that the "proper" price (wage) is whatever they can both agree to in order for the work to go forward. But when the state interferes and prohibits the transaction because the price is too low or too high, that interference price which the state imposes, such as a "minimum wage" level it sets, is not the "proper" price or wage level. That is an IMPROPER price/wage, because it interferes with a worker wanting to take the offer, even at the lower wage offer. That lower wage is not "improper" if both employer and employee are able to agree on that wage level.

Just because a certain low level is "improper" to you does not make it genuinely "improper" if some other job-seeker is willing to accept it. If that wage level, low or high, is agreed to by the employer and job-seeker, that wage level is "proper" because it's based on the individual free choice of both buyer and seller, which is what makes any price the "proper" price for that transaction.

So, maybe that low wage is not "proper" for you, but it is "proper" for another job-seeker who agrees to it and is entitled to make that choice which you would not make. In that case, it's "proper" for that job-seeker to take the job under those terms which are unacceptable for you, so that you step aside and the job is done by another who is entitled to have that choice, as an individual.
________________________

WHISKY:

Like I said minimum wage is a low wage job. It is not even livable on in itself.
________________

That's up to each individual worker to decide, not for you to decide for another, or for the politicians or the state to decide for an individual worker. What is "livable" is subjective, according to what each individual job-seeker in the market chooses.

Everyone -- every worker, every producer of any kind -- would like to get a better deal. Everyone thinks they make too little and cannot survive on this pittance. But that fantasy of each individual cannot be what dictates the price of anything. The real price has to be whatever they both -- buyer and seller -- can agree to in order to go ahead with the transaction, with each probably getting worse than they'd prefer ideally.

Lumpenproletariat:

060

WHISKY:

27) More production

More production for who to consume since you don’t seem to believe in the importance of consumerism. More production to have the products piled up? You confuse yourself.
____________________________

The simple "more production" as a goal, or a premise, is justified in the sense of letting the producers go forward with whatever is needed in order to satisfy the existing demand.

But "more production" can be wrong if it just means expanding the "economic growth" in order to provide more "jobs" and just get people spending more and more just for the sake of higher spending or higher demand, etc.

The "more production" mantra is legitimate if it means we want producers to do anything to improve their service to consumers, to satisfy whatever is the existing demand. It does not mean to CREATE MORE DEMAND -- no, that is not a legitimate goal, or legitimate premise for improving the economy.

So "more production" strictly speaking is not always legitimate, but is desired only when it means unleashing the producers, or letting them be free, to serve the consumer demand. It's not legitimate if it means only increasing the GDP for the sake of getting some higher production numbers, or more dollars spent, or more demand created by spreading more money around for someone to spend, to "create jobs" or goose the economy regardless of the demand.

If the "demand" is low, then maybe the production should remain low, at that moment, until the producers find something better to offer consumers.
_____________________

WHISKY:

28) Made up Percentages

Your statement, “Virtually every wage-earner, and 90% of capitalists, think they get less in income than they put in. If we're going to use Crybaby Economics ---- Whoever whines the loudest gets pandered to ---- we will create good-paying jobs for 20 or 30% of the population, and the other 70-80% will pay the higher costs of providing these profitable jobs to the minority.”
Reads like a rant with unfounded percentages. I’ll let this slide too.
____________________

These percentages are estimates, or generalizations in order to make the point.

It should be obvious that if the policies are determined by pandering to whoever whines loudest, the benefits to society will be less, or will go to a smaller percent of the population than if the policies are determined by letting everyone have a voice, without just submitting to whoever whines the loudest, or makes the most noise, and does best at intimidating and threatening the decision-makers.

The "job creation" rhetoric is often aimed at pandering to special-interest producers who make an emotional appeal, trying to get special subsidies of some form, or corporate welfare, pandering to phony patriotism and China-bashing and other illegitimate demands for promoting their factories or other projects for the benefit of a small minority which everyone else has to pay for.

We can make estimates of how much the whole society benefits from something in contrast to how many of us have to pay for it and experience a net loss.

E.g., when production is done at the cost of pollution, such as poisoning the water or air, can't we estimate that more of us will suffer net harm rather than benefit? even though it's true that some also will benefit more? E.g., that polluting company might benefit, and also that company's customers, so that they might constitute 10% or 20% of the population -- a very large number, maybe many millions in the society. And yet because of the pollution damage, a net total larger number is harmed, so that the percent of society harmed is greater and that production does more harm than good overall, to the whole society.

It's legitimate to use hypothetical numbers to express this harm vs. benefit in order to make the point, even if the precise numbers are not available. Estimates are legitimate as long as it's clear that they are estimates only. Those numbers help to state the legitimate point of the economics.

Lumpenproletariat:

061

WHISKY:

29) Addressing your Rant 1

On your statement: “It's not true that you're making most workers better off. It's not true that your scheme brings out anyone "in poverty" and gives everyone the high standard of living you're promising them. Lenin and Stalin made similar promises ---- just making promises does not improve the lives of those in poverty. Your false promise that minimum wage brings more poor workers out of "poverty" and will "balance what he gets out" to what he puts in is just empty words. You have no evidence or facts to show that minimum wage produces these "paradise on earth" results. Just because you can sloganize and preach the utopian words does not mean there's any truth to it.”

I have not stated that minimum wage will bring workers out of poverty.
___________________________________

This promise is made by many MW crusaders. Or the promise is that it will bring many workers out of poverty, if not all. Or also that it will reduce the poverty average among workers. All these promises are false and fraudulent.

The truth is MW benefits some workers but hurts others. And the total damage to workers is greater than the total benefit.

MW hurts ALL consumers, including ALL workers because of higher prices they must pay as consumers. This happens because it always drives up the cost of production (labor is one cost of production), and higher cost of production must result in higher prices consumers pay, because there's no other way for the costs to be paid except out of the prices consumer pay.

But it's true that some workers get higher wages from the MW, and of these there are a few whose increased income might offset the higher prices they pay as consumers, and so they experience a net benefit from the MW increase. But these are a minority of workers. Most of them experience a net loss, because of the higher prices they pay as consumers. which offsets any higher wage (for those whose wage increases).

Also, the MW causes a certain reduced production, because of the higher labor cost, and this means reduced jobs, and thus some layoffs and also fewer job openings because employers don't hire as many in the future because of the higher labor cost. So this reduction of job openings hurts many job-seekers who now cannot get hired. So virtually all the unemployed workers are also made worse off. So MW is a net loss for the workers overall, or the working class, or all those working or wanting to work.

If you agree that MW does this net harm to workers overall, then we don't disagree on this point. And your claim only is that it does benefit at least some workers, even though it does harm to others and thus a total of net harm rather than net benefit. I cannot disagree that it does benefit some workers, along with the total net harm it does to workers generally.

It's better to not have a law which inflicts net harm overall, even though you can argue that it benefits a few. The law should aim at doing overall net good rather than net harm.
_______________________

WHISKY:

As I already posted the living on the minimum wage is not a liveable wage.
___________________________

Whatever you call it, workers generally are better off if there is no Minimum Wage imposed by government. That law does more damage than benefit, because at best it only benefits some workers by inflicting harm onto others, and this harm is greater than the benefit.

Jargon about "liveable wage" does not change this fact. If you increase the minimum wage to the "liveable wage" level, you only inflict still GREATER HARM onto workers generally, because that still higher wage only means more damage to us all. because it drives up the labor cost even higher = higher production cost = higher prices which consumers must pay = still greater damage inflicted onto all workers who are consumers forced to pay the higher prices. And likewise more damage is inflicted onto job-seekers, because employers have to reduce production as a result of those higher production costs.

So,

MINIMUM WAGE imposed by gov't = "x" amount of damage to society

LIVEABLE WAGE imposed by gov't = "2x" or TWICE as much damage

Obviously there's no way to calculate the "x" or the exact increased damage caused by the "Liveable Wage" in comparison to the "Minimum Wage" -- but as the wage is increased higher and higher by laws imposed onto employers, the damage caused to us all just increases more and more.

So preaching the need for "liveable wage" rather than "minimum wage" only means you are imposing even still more damage onto the economy.
__________________________

WHISKY:

Someone on the minimum wage line can already in poverty.
___________________________

The higher wage imposed onto employers by MW law is pushing workers generally down into worse poverty than if there were not any MW law. Waving your magic wand to make the workers better off does not make them better off. Just passing a law saying workers must be better off does not make them better off.
______________________________

WHISKY:

I fail to see how even lowering that unliveable wage brings ‘prosperity’ to an individual who is already struggling at the minimum wage.
____________________________

The gov't should not lower or raise anyone's wage. What it should do is get its ass out of the way and let the market set the wage.

If we let the market set the wage level, just as it sets the prices for almost everything, and if that means some wages will decrease, that will make most workers better off. Because that will put an end to the artificial higher costs producers must pay, allowing them to save on labor costs = lower cost of production = lower prices consumers must pay.

More competition is ALWAYS BENEFICIAL for consumers because it allows producers to reduce costs and to lower prices in order to compete for more consumers in the market.

ALL COMPETITION is good for consumers, including competition among workers offering their service at lower wage level. Anything that increases the competition among producers makes ALL CONSUMERS better off, including all workers who are consumers who must pay those prices.

And name-calling, such as "low-balling" and other vulgar language does not change the facts or the realities of the economic factors. Whatever name you call it, the whole economy is made better off when any producers, including workers, are allowed to compete with others, including to offer their service at a lower price (wage).

So that is how "liveable wage" law makes the economy worse off, including most workers, the same as "minimum wage" law makes them worse off. What makes us all better off is to let the competitive marketplace set the wages and prices of everything.

SandeeLgs: Lumpenproletariat are you related in any way to
Mr. Snuffleupagus?

Lumpenproletariat:

062

WHISKY:

32) Addressing your Strawman

When I stated, “There is no charity or one-sidedness in this interaction.” I don’t know where you got that to mean: “OK then you agree that no 3rd party has any say in determining the wage level, but that only the terms agreed to by the employer and worker…” If you read what was being referred to and what was said which was “ As I said, an employer is to pay a worker based on the value of work/service rendered by the worker.
_________________________________

That sounds nice, but who determines what the "value of work" is in each case? It's up to each party, buyer and seller, to determine the "value." It's not up to you or the gov't or some philosopher or ideologue or anyone else other than the buyer and seller.

The "value" is not an objective scientific fact that all the experts agree on. Even if a gaggle of economists pretend to know the "value" of this or that, who are they to impose this onto a buyer or seller? They're entitled to their theories, which they can offer, but until you scientifically determine this "value" element you're preaching about, and prove or verify it scientifically, you or your demagogue-politician are not entitled to go around imposing it onto others, as though somehow they have some scientific expertise to determine what this "value" thing is for everyone else.

They do not have any such legitimate authority to impose it.

If that "value" is something in the contract between the buyer and seller (the employer and employee), and they both agreed to that contract, then they are obligated to obey that contract, or that term in the contract.

But if there is no agreed "value" set by both the employer and employee in their contract, then there is no way to impose this "value" onto either of them. Either one, worker or employer, is entitled to set whatever figure they say is the real "value" and to reject the other one's figure. Neither is obligated to agree to any stated money figure that someone wants to impose onto them. Not any figure you or the gov't wants to impose.

Of course the government can pass any law, including to enslave someone, and impose anything it wants, and exterminate anyone who gets in their way. If that's all you're saying -- that the gov't should impose this arbitrary "value" number onto everyone, and execute anyone they suspect of evading this -- then yes, a gov't might oppress people that way and in many other ways.

So you're wrong to say "an employer is to pay a worker based on the value of work/service rendered" because you're only imposing your own arbitrary definition of "value" onto others, which you have no right to do. Only that employer and worker, each one individually, as any right to say what is the "value" of the work or service. No one else.
________________________________

WHISKY:

There is no charity or one-sidedness in this interaction.” A charity will mean that the employer is paying a worker out of kindness or out of a donation, when in reality this is not the case. An employer pays a worker based on the work the worker is doing.
_________________________

Yes, but what that work is worth is determined only by that employer and that worker. And each one sets that "value" individually, without anyone else dictating anything. And each one is free to refuse the other's offer, or the "value" claimed by the other, and can refuse to do the transaction.

So it's impossible for either to be cheated by the other, as long as each is free in making the choice and there is no fraud being committed by either. The pay to the worker is never too low or high, even if the worker is starving and if the employer is a billionaire, as long as they both agree to that wage level.

The wage cannot be too low or too high unless it's higher or lower than what they both agreed to. It can never be too low or high only because you or the gov't or any other outsider makes that judgment.

Lumpenproletariat:

063

WISKY:

34) Addressing your rant & strawman

When I stated: “His inability to pay for the value of the service inputted by workers is not the fault of minimum wage but on his own for running a business that runs at a loss.” I’m not sure how in your mind that translated as “SHUT DOWN THAT BUSINESS, shut down the economy (the dirty capitalist pigs!), crush all competition, destroy the production --- employer-bashing is always the solution.”

It simply means that when running a business, all this is taken into account; the price of labour, raw materials, expenses, etc and the expected gains/profits. This is the responsibility of a business owner. You can settle yourself down. Nothing implies a call for a shut down.
_____________________________________

OK, whatever the above refers to, the point is that minimum wage only makes it worse, not better. (This topic is about whether MW is good or bad.)

Ultimately, a MW law theoretically is to be obeyed, like all laws, and those who violate a law might get "shut down" or whatever. And in some cases a business could survive if it did not have such a law imposed onto it, because MW necessarily drives up the cost of a business.

Any law which drives up the cost could have the effect of putting some companies out of business, by making it too expensive for them to operate.

And some such laws might be legitimate, like anti-pollution laws. If a company cannot comply, it might have to shut down. But in the case of MW law, there is no legitimate purpose for the law, and so if the result of it is that a company has to shut down, that is a net loss for the economy which inflicts net damage onto us all.

In contrast to a legitimate law, like an anti-pollution law which produces more good than harm.

Some laws are beneficial to us, and thus legitimate. But MW is not beneficial but does net harm. And enforcing it onto some employers ends up doing net damage to society, because we need producers and are made worse off when they are suppressed by someone who imagines he's on a mission to do good when in reality he's doing harm with his ideological crusade to dictate the wage level, or dictate the price of anything, which should be set only by the individual buyer and seller.

Lumpenproletariat:

064

35) Personal

I see from your statement : “WHY NOT? You can't give a reason. All you can do is complain for some worker who is whining about his low wage. But meanwhile, here is another job-seeker who is willing to do that job at the lower wage.” That you are arguing from a position of a job-seeker who cannot get a job?
_____________________

We cannot ignore that person who is competing in the economy. Any producer is entitled to offer to do the same service at a lower price. COMPETITION IS GOOD for the economy, so anyone competing at a lower price is offering a benefit to consumers and should not be suppressed, as your MW law does by making it illegal to offer the service at a lower price.

It's for the BENEFIT OF ALL CONSUMERS that we allow producers to compete and never shut down any of them, as long as they obey their contract and are not committing fraud.

You cannot give any legitimate reason for shutting down ANY competitor, even a job-seeker or wage-earner, who offers to do the same job at a lower wage level. That person is offering a benefit to all consumers, so that shutting him down and trashing him is a form of hate and prejudice, done only for the selfish gain of a few at the expense of the many, i.e., all consumers, who could benefit from that producer's contribution.

You have never said what is wrong with this person, except to call him vulgar names. That's all you have, the same as a hate-monger, a racist, etc. If you want to make someone illegal, such as with MW laws or other labor laws, and your only reason is to call that person slanderous names. that puts you in the hate category. You have to come up with something more than just name-calling.

This is a legitimate competitor in the economy, offering a service at lower cost, which many independent contractors do, and you so far have given no reason why such people should be suppressed or made illegal. Offering something at lower cost is a legitimate role in the market economy. Lower price is a net economic benefit, in basic Economics.
___________________________

WHISKY:

Now it makes some sense your hostility towards wage workers and your pity for job-seekers.
______________________

Not hostility toward ALL wage-workers, but only toward those who want to exclude others who are competing. To exclude anyone is hostile toward them -- no one should be excluded or suppressed, as minimum wage does. All should be allowed to compete on any terms they choose individually. To arbitrarily exclude competitors out of hate, as you want to do, by name-calling those you want to exclude, is hostility toward those who are a benefit to the economy. Whereas those who want to suppress competition and exclude others trying to compete are not a benefit, but a net cost to us.

You have to decide if competition is something good or something bad. In general, economic theory has recognized the benefit of competition in the market economy. Are you rejecting this basic principle of economics?

I plead guilty to being "hostile" toward those who want to suppress others, exclude them, make them illegal, and call them names in order to stir hate against them, even though their contribution would be beneficial if they are allowed to participate and compete.

There are those who have difficulty getting hired or accepted because of non-economic reasons, and it's legitimate for them to find a place by offering their service at a lower price, i.e., by competing. Competition on price, including wage, is a legitimate form of competition, but the MW wage crusade arbitrarily tries to crush these competitors and render them to a lower-class status instead of letting them compete. Those wanting to suppress them are committing aggression and violence against innocent persons whose only crime is wanting to contribute, by competing, as a legitimate form of participating in the economy. The arbitrary exclusion of these is hateful and damaging to the economy, for the selfish benefit of a few.
___________________________

WHISKY:

It seems very selfish to me to demand that others do not have minimum wage because it’s the only way you can lowball and get a job.
_________________________

Again, name-calling is the only way you can state what is wrong with these job-seekers. That this is all you have is the proof that you're wrong.

Those who can compete on wage are offering a benefit to all consumers. You cannot name what benefit is gained by excluding them with MW law. Those workers who experience the higher wage and net gain, do it only at the expense of consumers in general, including the poor, who have to pay higher prices as a result. Until you can state what is the benefit to us all, from imposing a MW onto producers, but can only engage in your "lowball" name-calling, it's clear that your argument is based only on prejudice and hate toward this class of workers/job-seekers who compete on wage -- you hate them and express your hate and prejudice with this name-calling, rather than giving economic reasons.

The economic reason to allow low-wage competition is that it is beneficial to the whole economy, to ALL consumers, because of the lower prices, which are the result of lower production cost.
___________________________

WHISKY:

The job market is hard for everyone right now. Even for the skilled labourer.
_____________________

This is not about the current economy, but about the economy generally, at any time. And it's a principle applying to the rich and poor alike, and to the skilled and unskilled alike, also the educated and uneducated.

It is a general principle of economics, in all nations, all times. It has always been better to allow the market to set the prices, ALL prices, including price for labor. This principle applied also centuries ago when there were MAXIMUM WAGE LAWS in several countries when there was a labor shortage. Such laws then were just as foolish as MINIMUM wage laws are now.

The government has always done poorly when it tried to set the wages or prices for anything.
_____________________________

WHISKY:

Life in general is difficult, why you will feel envious of someone who can have a job and a minimum wage is beyond me.
________________________________

If they gain it through a process that increases total harm, by imposing net costs onto everyone else, then it's OK to criticize it. Suppressing competition is not the proper way for someone to acquire a good job. They ought to be able to "have a job" without screwing others in order to get it, and they are screwing others if they depend on a system which excludes others from competing so they cannot also "have a job."

Those who are excluded arbitrarily, and to the detriment of all society, are entitled to question why they should be excluded. To suppress competition makes everyone worse off.

What if the minimum wage should be increased to $30/hour? In that case, a few higher-paid workers would still "have a job and a minimum wage," but many more would be thrown into the jobless category. Would it still be "beyond" you why some of them would be "envious" of the ones "who can have a job and a minimum wage" of $30/hour?

How do you judge at what wage level an unemployed job-seeker is entitled to be "envious" of the others who are included?
_______________________________

WHISKY:

Leave them be.
_________________________

Yes, leave the workers and employers be -- ALL of them -- stop imposing your subjective judgmentalist dogmas onto them about what the wage level should be. Leave them alone to make their own individual choices.

Your interference into their transaction doesn't do any benefit to society. Stop pretending that you know what's good for them and what their "value" is and what they're entitled to at other people's expense.

No one has ever been made better off by these subjective dogmas of yours or the Leftist or Marxist crusader-ideologues who preached this minimum-wage demagoguery at you.

Lumpenproletariat:

064

WHISKY:

36) Other

You say: “What is gained by crushing a company which could survive with workers who are willing to take that lower-wage job? Just because you or someone you know refuses that wage level doesn't mean no worker is willing to take that job out of desperation. Why can't this be allowed?”

Because someone will get the job and that person who gets the job should have a proper wage, . . .
__________________________

What is the "proper" wage? You have never answered this.

The correct or proper wage is whatever figure is agreed to by the individual employer and individual worker -- not by anyone else.

Either one of these is entitled to reject any figure they think is too low or too high. If they can't agree on one figure, then the transaction should not be done. There is no other way to identify what wage level is "proper" or the right level. Your insistence to impose a number onto the employer is just your expression of hate against employers and nothing more. There is nothing scientific about it, nothing objective, nothing to do with the social good or net benefit to all --- it's based on nothing but your hate against employers who you want to scapegoat because they're an easy target, being in a small minority. This is the only rationale for imposing a wage level higher than what the employer wants to pay.

However, the individual job-seeker is entitled to set any wage level he wants, and has absolute freedom to reject the job offer if the wage is not high enough. Nothing is "proper" other than the individual sovereign choice of that individual employer and that individual worker/job-seeker. All else is phony fraudulent interference from an ideologue fanatic pretending to know what's good for others, pretending to be superior to them.
_____________________

WHISKY:

. . . the minimum wage is already a low wage job that an individual can barely survive on.
________________________

It's the right wage if the individual chooses to do the job at that wage level. That you think it's too low is irrelevant. If it's too low that job-seeker will turn it down. If he accepts it out of "necessity" or for whatever reason, then it's the "proper" wage level for that job, regardless what you or any other outsider thinks of it. You have no entitlement to decide anything about it.

You can't give any reason why you or anyone else should be entitled to interfere in this choice and impose a different wage level than the one agreed to by both the employer and worker. You are no more qualified to make that decision than you are qualified to dictate what the worker should wear, what color his shirt should be, etc.

You are qualified only to make sure that it's a free choice by them both, and that neither is committing fraud in the transaction. Otherwise it's none of your business, or the business of the gov't or any other 3rd party.
__________________________________

WHISKY:

You think I’d demand that that individual does not deserve that job or that wage? Why? Because you can afford to lowball.
____________________________________

I'm demanding that you explain what entitles you to impose onto a buyer or seller what the price should be, instead of letting them set any price they both agree to individually. And you're not giving any answer other than your personal attack on the job-seeker accepting the low wage, with your constant "low ball" name-calling. I'm demanding that you stop this vulgarity and give an economic reason why this job-seeker should be suppressed from making this legitimate offer as part of the basic competitiveness of the market economy, which is beneficial for all consumers.
_________________________

WHISKY:

There is no mass crushing of companies due to minimum wage.
______________________________________

Every interference in the free choices of buyers and sellers is detrimental to the economy.

The damage doesn't have to be massive in order to be undesirable. If the net harm is slightly greater than the net benefit, then it should not be done. You have to give a better argument for minimum wage than simply that the harm is small and it isn't totally destroying the nation.

Over a period of many years the total harm is significant. We'd have a notably higher living standard if there had never been a minimum wage law. But this harm has grown over many decades, gradually.

In American Samoa the minimum wage was increased, in 2007. The harm from it was massive, to such a point that the Democrats in Congress had to rescind that law, and President Obama signed the law rescinding the MW increase, based on the severe damage it did. So it is possible for MW to do severe damage, as in this case, to the point that even those who favored it had to retract it later.

But the only lesson we take from this mistake is to be more cautious in the future and make sure that the MW increase is small enough that the net damage will be small, so that it's not so noticeable. The net damage is still there, but small enough that it goes unnoticed, and the few who benefit are easily recognized, and pro-labor activists use it as an occasion to spew out more of their hate against the hated employer class, to do more scapegoating against employers, and to score publicity points with the ignorant masses who are easily manipulated by the employer-bashing propaganda and stampede to the polls to vote for more of the same.

Lumpenproletariat:

065

WHlSKY:

Here is what you can do since the minimum wage disturbs you:

When you get employed, minus the wage till it reaches below the minimum wage and put it in an envelop and give it back to your employer saying it's a contribution to the company.

There, I solved your little problem.
____________________________

That's the same as saying: If you're in favor of higher taxes, then go ahead and send a contribution to the government -- whatever amount extra you think is fair. But don't impose a tax increase on everyone else.

Or better: If you think there should be any taxes, go ahead and pay what you think is fair, but don't impose taxes onto everyone.

Can we have some serious responses to the topic.

If you think minimum wage law is something silly and not to be taken seriously, then why are you in favor of it?

Lumpenproletariat:

066

WHISKY:

41. Volunteer Work vs Paid Work Addressed pt 2

In my statement: “Volunteer work and paid work is very different. Paid work is a necessity to an individual (and also to society as aids workers in becoming consumers).”
____________

"Paid work is a necessity to an individual . . ."

Not necessarily. In many/some cases a worker takes a low-pay job partly for reasons other than to meet survival needs. Even as a favor to that company, or also in order to get experience. You cannot dictate to every worker what their motive is, or what compels them to take that job. In some cases maybe they like that work atmosphere and the activity, and so they would gladly do it for only half as much, or even less. But still they prefer some compensation rather than zero. And they choose this job because they like it, whereas another job that pays more does not appeal to them.

This especially happens in organizations that do "volunteer work" or a social service to benefit someone, like victims, or children, or the needy, etc., and these paid workers are doing the work partly for charity reasons. So even though they're paid, it's not "necessity" such as a worker for a profit-making company.

And if the paid work is a "necessity" for some workers, that's a reason for the state to not interfere in the individual's choice about doing that work and about the amount of pay. If a worker is desperate s/he should be allowed to decide on the terms rather than having the terms dictated by an outsider. So the low-wage job might be a "necessity" for the desperate worker in cases where s/he couldn't otherwise get hired and so must compete by offering a lower price. This is a legitimate choice which a desperate job-seeker should be allowed to make.
______________________

WHISKY:

I see nothing in what you responded as presenting anything opposing that statement.
_________________

My response is that some paid work is also partly voluntary, not strictly "necessity" but done for reasons other than to acquire money for survival. The two kinds of work cannot be strictly distinguished for all cases. Not everyone falls into line with your neat classifications of them into this category or that.

Your categorizing workers into this designation or that does not justify having the state interfere in their decision of what the wage level should be. Your categorizing might be arbitrary. It cannot be a legitimate reason to impose terms onto someone who might make a different choice if they're left free to choose their own terms individually.
____________________

WHISKY:

After we already agreed on the importance of wage to a worker (even took the time to comb through how volunteers need to sustain themselves).
__________________________

The "importance" includes the need for a desperate worker to compete by offering a lower price. Nothing you're saying gives a reason why the state should overrule the choices of individual workers who wish to compete by offering the same service at a lower price. Or the choice of an employer to put a low value on certain work which might be expendable unless the cost of it is brought lower.

These two -- 1) The marginal utility of certain work which the company might do without (if the price is too high) but wants to keep at a lower cost level, and 2) the individual need of the desperate job-seeker willing to sacrifice in order to get a minimum gain to survive on -- are reasons for the state to leave them alone to make their decisions individually.

And if the paid workers need the extra protection, then one way to provide this to them is to prohibit ALL volunteer work, which competes with the paid workers, and by making ALL work subject to minimum wage, you promote all who want to be paid, increasing their value by adding more jobs they can be paid for. And more job vacancies results in the wage level being driven higher. So if promoting the paid workers is the goal, then ALL volunteer work should be made illegal, and all jobs forced into compliance with minimum wage law.

You've never answered why volunteer work should be allowed. The same benefits to be gained by imposing minimum wage onto profit-making companies would be gained by imposing this also onto non-profit companies which have volunteer workers.

In both cases, imposing minimum wage level results in less work getting done, reduced production. If it's OK to do this to profit-making production, it should also be OK for non-profit production, because the end result is the same. I.e., higher wage level for all paid work.
__________________________

WHISKY:

You can take the approach that this important part should be ignored because “motives” should be noted. Motives are not important. Didn’t you say that earlier in your postings? Yes.
_____________________

Not sure what your point is.

However, the rule should be: The state should leave all the workers free to make their own individual choices, regardless of their motives.

But also, in the many individual cases, the motives differ from one worker to another. These differing motives, whatever they may be, cannot be overruled by the state. So an unusual motive, differing from the norm, is just as legitimate as a normal motive. The state cannot intervene in ways which overrule an individual worker who might have an unusual motive which the state ignores. The motives of individual workers are all equally legitimate and should be left out of consideration, because it's not for these that the work is being done. The purpose of the work is to provide some benefit, product or service, to consumers, not to take care of the workers' individual problems.

Let them serve the consumers, whatever it takes to incentivize them. Give them whatever they want, within cost restraint, to get them to do the work. But give them only what is necessary -- give the job to whoever will do it at the lowest cost. So their motive is not the issue. But for one who does a needed job out of some goofy motive, it is fine, if that can be satisfied at low cost.
______________________

WHISKY:

I checked you said “The motives or personal problems of the zero-wage workers are irrelevant”. It seems that you move back and forth depending on which suits your arguments.
________________________

The motives are not important. What matters is satisfying the needs of consumers, or the public. The workers are motivated in different ways -- it doesn't matter what their motive is. All that matters is getting them to do the needed work by any means which leaves them free to say "No" if they don't want to do that work or they reject the terms offered. The goal is getting the needed work done at minimum cost.
__________________________

WHISKY:

. . . necessity to an individual (and also to society as aids workers in becoming consumers).”
_______________________

There is no need or necessity for society to aid workers, or anyone, in becoming consumers.

Workers are paid in order to incentivize them to do the needed work. They are not paid in order to aid them in becoming consumers. What they do with their money is of no concern to society. The only concern is to get the needed work done, and the workers are paid only out of the need to get the work done. Not out of any need to make them become better consumers.

freedomfirst1797: As someone who has volunteered at our local hospital for the past 14 years I can confirm that.

Volunteering is a luxury, that you can only do if you DON'T need wages. Most people have jobs because they need the income to pay their bills. And they don't start volunteering for things until AFTER they have retired and are collecting their pensions.

I have not read the entire thread, so please excuse me if I am saying things that have already been said. I think we need a minimum wage but it must really be low... so we have jobs for teenagers and entry level workers, and unskilled workers. If you set a high minimum wage then you are forcing those people out of work. Because automation, or self serve checkouts, or robots, or some other technology will be cheaper than hiring human beings.

I think people make the mistake of thinking that minimum wage "must be a living wage... for a family of four." Virtually every worker in America was once a minimum wage worker, then moved up from there. And they couldn't have moved up if there wasn't an entry point. There might be a few people trying to support a family on minimum wage, but they are exceedingly rare. These are mostly teenagers and part time workers. We should not price them out of jobs.

Lumpenproletariat:

WHISKY:

067

42) Other

You keep repeating: “why we should prohibit low-wage work but not also prohibit ZERO-wage work. Why don't you answer that question, which is relevant to the topic?”

This was already addressed. I also stated that minimum wage is low wage.
______________

That does not address why we should prohibit low-wage work but not also prohibit ZER0-wage work. Suppose the wage is 1 cent per hour. Or $1 per week, by a company doing work which helps the poor? Is that allowed? By Minimum-wage law that is illegal. There are probably some arrangements similar to that, where "volunteer" workers do get some kind of minimal compensation. If we just leave it up to the free choice of the workers and employers, it's no problem, and that work is allowed. But with MW law in effect, that sounds illegal. So you want to make that kind of "volunteer" work illegal? And what about where the workers get some benefit, at a very low level, but still above ZERO. MW makes that illegal also. So, MW law either has to be set aside, violated in those cases, or you have to prohibit some volunteer work, where the volunteers are given some benefit which has a low value. Do you want to allow this exception to MW law and allow the law to be violated in cases of some companies, or make them an exception? How do you decide which companies should be excepted?

Many volunteer companies, charities, etc., do hire paid workers, some at high salary levels but others at low wage. These are covered by labor law and must comply with MW. And yet they also recruit volunteers who are paid ZERO, but also some volunteers who are paid in some manner, with benefits to attract them.

There are probably thousands of examples. I know of community and school orchestras which have mostly volunteers, but also have a few players who were paid very low compensation, while others were actually union members paid union wage level. Those low-paid players in some cases did the job because they were desperate for a few bucks. Would you contact the police because of MW violation and crack down on those community orchestras struggling to survive?

MW law makes no sense unless ALL volunteer work is made illegal. You're not giving a reason why such work should not be prohibited by MW law. I.e., ALL work which doesn't pay minimum wage or higher, i.e., ALL work which pays ZERO or anything less than MW.
______________________

WHISKY:

I also stated that wage is not the concern of volunteer work.
_______________________

It is the concern of ALL citizens if any wage level is dictated by law. Every citizen is entitled to demand an explanation why people are denied their free choice in what wage they will pay or be paid. Every citizen is entitled to oppose an arbitrary interference into people's private lives which dictates to them any personal choices they make, and it must be determined whether this interference does more harm than good, as gov't interference into free choice often does do more harm than good. MW law is a case in point, because this interference into business decisions results in less production taking place, because it drives up the cost of production. Higher cost of production -> higher prices and higher cost of living for ALL consumers, which is bad for the economy, hurting everyone including ALL POOR people who are made to suffer the increasing costs.

So this is the concern of everyone, all consumers, all volunteers and all poor and all rich people.
_____________________________

WHISKY:

Wage is the business of the wage-worker.
_______________________

No, the law is everyone's business, and the cost of production is the business of every consumer, not just certain wage-workers. If a labor law drives up the cost of production, as MW does, that is everyone's business. It is against everyone's interest for any cost of production to be arbitrarily driven up higher. If you drive it up, you are obligated to explain what is the benefit or harm to society in doing this.
____________________

WHISKY:

Once wage is involved, minimum wage will be applies to it.
_______________________

But there are other forms of compensation, and you're giving no reason why similar law should not also apply to them. There are independent contractors who are not paid a wage, and many of them are struggling to survive and are exploited just as the wage worker. And even some volunteer workers are paid some form of compensation, even a small payment which MW overlooks. Why? Why don't you crack down on ALL workers who don't receive minimum wage, including volunteer workers and others also? Why not prohibit ANY WORK whatever which does not pay minimum wage? You can't give a reason. Because this is just arbitrary and is not done to benefit society. Society is made WORSE OFF as a result of minimum wage law and any other law which interferes with the free choice of employers and workers to make their own decision about what compensation to pay or to demand in return for the work.

No one is giving any reason why there should be any law whatever which presumes to interfere with the free choice of buyers and sellers -- employers and workers -- thus curtailing some production, reducing the GDP = lower supply and higher prices and lower standard of living for all.
__________________________

WHISKY:

People who volunteer do not want a wage for the work they are applying for.
______________________

You don't know what all of them want or don't want. Some of them do want a wage and would choose this work at a low wage. Some are desperate for a paying job and hope this volunteer work will give them experience they can put on a job application. You cannot psychologize about what some workers or employers want or don't want as a reason to impose your theories onto them about what someone's wage level should be.

Your interference into their personal lives, to dictate these personal choices onto them, has to be based on your certainty that you are making the society -- all of us -- better off as a result of this interference. Your musings over what some of them want to don't want is irrelevant to this. Tell us why you think this interference will make society better off. How are you improving the lives of people by denying them their free choice about what is the right level of compensation to pay or be paid? How are we made better off by having the level of production reduced by these higher production costs, which have to be paid for by consumers in the form of higher price for the same unit of production?
__________________

WHISKY:

However, when someone is applying for “money-earning employment”, they want a wage.
______________________

But even many doing non-wage work also want compensation, even if it's not technically "wage" work. Why are they any different? They'd like a wage job, but are unable to get hired, so they do some other kind of work instead. They do want a wage and are also applying for wage jobs, but at the same time they do "volunteer" work or independent contractor work, and other forms of working in order to gain a benefit.

Regardless what someone wants, the question is: Why do you interfere into the choices being made by workers and employers, dictating to them what the terms have to be? How is anyone being made better off by this interference, which affects many others besides only the particular worker or employer you're imposing your terms onto?

Why do you want to interfere only for low-paid work but not also for volunteer work (ZERO-paid)? What benefit is there to society by denying free choice to paid workers, or paying employers, but not also denying free choice to volunteer workers, or companies doing charity work? Isn't the work to be done just as legitimate and needed, regardless whether it's paid work or volunteer work?

Don't you do the same damage to society by suppressing paid work as you would do by suppressing volunteer work? Either way you are interfering with needed production getting done for the benefit of the consumers, or the public, or society. Why should you interfere into this needed work being done by imposing such higher cost onto the company, thus forcing them to curtail their production? How is the damage you're doing any different, whether it's volunteer work you're suppressing or paid work? whether it's a company performing some "charity" function or a company serving the market demand? Either way workers are needed, and costs have to be paid, and someone in the society is dependent on the work getting done and is better off if you leave the producers alone to make their necessary decisions.

Why should the high-paid administrator of the charity company be subject to different rules than the owner of a private company struggling to survive in the market by serving thousands/millions of consumers struggling to survive?
__________________________

WHISKY:

And should expect to enter that job with a minimum worth.
___________________________

Why should you be the one to dictate that worth? or anyone other than that worker applicant and that employer? If that worth or cost is too high, why can't the worker applicant and employer be left free to settle on a lower price? Why do you instead choose to suppress that work if the worth level is different than you dictate? Why can't you let the worker be free to accept a lower level if that's better for him/her than the alternative of no job at all? If the job-seeker figures -- "A low-paying job is better than no job at all" -- what entitles you to overrule that and impose your own judgment of no job at all? How is society made better off by suppressing that work and that production which otherwise could take place if you did not interfere?
____________________

WHISKY:

Now proceed to tell me about some obscure little Dj who goes against this generalisation.
__________________________

There are thousands of examples of individuals who do not fit into your classifying schemes of categorizing and branding people and herding them into this or that category.

There are hundreds of ways companies use workers and make agreements with them which circumvent the phony labor laws which gov't tries to impose onto them. If all the labor laws were strictly enforced, it would shut down a large percent of the economy.

Vast amounts of required paperwork are never filled out and submitted. Laws are violated constantly, out of necessity, in order for companies to operate. Workers and companies routinely neglect to report the transactions, breaking rules as needed, failing to pay fees, violating zoning laws and licensing laws, concocting phony figures rather than the real numbers.

Though some regulations are needed and should be enforced, the economy, all consumers, people, are better off as a result of disregarding labor laws and many other business regulations, where possible. And MW law is no exception. The whole economy would be far worse off if such laws were strictly enforced. Strict enforcement would mean many small companies forced to shut down and vast reduction in the GDP.

(Some regulations, e.g., to protect the environment, actually need to be more strict and better enforced, but not labor laws, which serve mostly for symbolism rather than substance.)

What is the point of MW law? If it's to make workers better off -- driving up their wages -- and we believe that it accomplishes that, then we have every reason to apply MW to volunteer work also, because the effect would be the same. Because if charities had to pay minimum wage to all their workers, this would drive up the wage level, making the competition for workers go up higher, so employers would have more difficulty finding the labor they need, with the result that wages generally would go higher. Though it's true that charities would have to reduce their production in order to comply, still it's the case that they would have to pay many workers and thus drive up the competition and the wage level generally.

So how can you insist that MW should not apply to volunteer workers, since it would produce the same desired result intended by MW, i.e. increasing those supposed beneficial results?