Why do only fools and horses work?

The youth is a red herring as most countries employ a sub-minimum wage, based on the premise that there is a trade-off between pecuniary and non-pecuniary elements (i.e. take less wages and we'll train you).

Consider the re-introduction of minimum wages in the UK (prior to their elimination by Thatcher, they used an industry-level 'wages council' system). Can you show a reduction in firm creation? Can you show a disemployment effects? If not, why not?

 

I am arguing a hypothetical, not our current regime.

Ceteris paribus, why do you believe employers would be worse off, by subsidizing the least efficient with a form of minimum wage that simply provides an opportunity cost for labor market participation purposes?

 

If something does not solve for a natural rate of unemployment, how can it solve forms of poverty or wage disparities that may result from a lack of income that would normally be obtained in a more efficient market for labor?

 

No, you're talking gibberish as you mix up basic terms.

This is an example of gibberish! When you're pushed you come out with a very basic policy: unemployment benefit set at some official poverty rate. In terms of the efficiency wage model that would increase the rate of shirking (i.e. the costs from being sacked falls) and therefore productivity would fall (leading to a further increase in the efficiency wage and therefore unemployment rate)

 

Actually, my references to our current regime are relevant. You may simply not understand it since you are not a US citizen in our political economy. The hypothetical I am advocating merely bears true witness to our own laws; sorry if that confuses you.

I am not sure why you believe what you do, or do you believe Iron Age morals should take precedence over modern Information Age morals? I don't share your opinion that only a fear of being fired is what causes an impetus for an efficiency wage. How does your point of view account for S&P CEOs who may be fired, but may be able to retire afterward and never work again?

Simply subsidizing the least efficient to not provide labor input would have a more beneficial effect in modern economies by better conforming to rational choice theory, instead of conditions available in an Iron Age.

 

You've not made one relevant economic comment

I'm merely able to refer to the economics with a level of validity.

This is nonsense. You've made a big error by misapplying efficiency wages. As I said, you're actually saying something terribly simplistic: i.e. unemployment compensation can be used to cure all economic woes. It is unsupportable of course!

 

I am trying to use simple American English whenever possible.

 

How does your point of view account for S&P CEOs who may be fired, but may be able to retire afterward and never work again?

 

No, you're misapplying economic terms in order to pretend your argument is more complicated than a nonsensical "unemployment compensation can solve economic woes"

 

Why do you believe I am misapplying the efficiency wage concept by stating that simply paying the least efficient labor market participants, a form of minimum wage to not provide labor and not have to compete with more efficient labor market participants who may be able to command an efficiency wage?

 

Supply side economics should not burden our elected representatives or make them feel guilty for their cushy, part time job.

Our mission statement in the US is to secure the Blessings of Liberty; it must be supposed in any market based economy, that such blessings must include economic forms of liberty as well.

Our elected representatives will never be able to legislate something as simple as a rising tide lifting all boats.

 

Already told you. Your standard "unemployment compensation can solve poverty" cobblers is inconsistent with efficiency wage analysis as you would be either reducing productivity (through shirking) or increasing unemployment (by increasing the efficiency wage)

 

I am only advocating solving for official poverty in order to lower our tax burden and the amount of red tape generated by overzealous elected representatives to government.

 

From my perspective, you may be resorting to Iron Age perspectives in a modern Information Age. Such a public policy choice could engender conditions where employers experience lower hiring and turnover costs by not having to hire people who need a job rather than want a job for the equivalent to an efficiency wage.

Also, you may be misrepresenting cause and effect; why would there more shirking with more efficient labor market participants attempting to command an efficiency wage and not just a minimum wage?

 

No, you're making garbage comment over unemployment compensation, throwing in economic concepts randomly to try and make it more complex. The efficiency wage error demonstrates the severity of the erroneous conclusion

 

Again, it doesn't make any sense. We get more sense from Bowie lyrics

 

Non sequiturs and special pleading does more of what you suggest. Why would any employer be worse off by not having to interview and potentially hire someone who would rather not have to work?

 

Why do you believe subsidizing the least efficient to not waste an employers' time would be counter productive to the general welfare of any State?

 

Again, you're not making any sense. The employer hires according to his profit opportunity, as describes by labour demand. The 'reserve army' provides a means to ensure that the employee works rather than shirks, given asymmetric information over effort encourages a moral hazard.

If you understood it you'd know that your "unemployment compensation can solve all our woes" cobblers has been attacked by your own comments

 

The labor demand equation must change if labor is subsidized.

I agree to disagree that simply subsidizing "shirkers" to not shirk, would encourage what you suggest.

 

Labour isn't subsidised; that's merely something you've decided to add to your nonsense

This is also nonsense. You can't agree or disagree; given you don't understand the concept, you can only try and eliminate the knowledge deficiency

 

You may have missed the point of my hypothetical with all of your special pleading. Labor is currently being subsidized in a rather haphazard manner to some extent through social welfare programs. Means tested welfare in the US has a place, but not for actually solving official poverty. Unemployment compensation, merely for being able to claim to be unemployed could solve for official poverty in the US, for those whom solving merely for a poverty of money in our money based markets may be enough.

Are you claiming that shirkers would rather have to bear false witness to an employer instead of being able to pursue Happiness? If not, they why subscribe to your line of reasoning.

 

No its not. Social welfare merely maintains the physical efficiency of the reserve army

You've come out with this cobblers dozens of times. Unemployment benefit cannot solve for poverty.

Again you go for deliberate incoherence! The shirking model is based on the notion of the disutility of effort. You've actually argued for a result that will inflame the problem, given the need to further increase the efficiency wage in order to ensure worker compliance. And it has nothing to do with subsidisation! Its a redistribution effect between workers, with the overall effect negative

 

That is a form of subsidizing labor.

Why do you believe that unemployment benefits cannot solve for official poverty if the wage meets or beats the official poverty wage rate, as a form of minimum wage whenever a person can claim to not be receiving a poverty busting, market based wage by merely providing labor input to the economy?

What disutility of effort would exist, if persons could opt for a form of minimum wage to not be exploited by Capitalism, if a shirker believes it would be moral if not more holy, to not have to bear false witness to an employer, merely for the sake of lucre.

 

No its not. A subsidy would involve supplementing the wage

Because its an idiotic statement that only shows a failure to understand the determinants of poverty and also the impact of changes to welfare benefits on the labour market

Again this is just incoherency.