[Vision2020] Minimum wage

[Joe Campbell]

Sorry Austin but you are wrong! (Warning: logic lesson to follow!)

In a reductio ad absurdum argument one tries to argue for a conclusion, P, by first assuming that it is false, not-P, and then showing that under this assumption, a contradiction (or absurdity) follows. Since contradictions cannot be true, this shows that the original assumption must be false and the intended conclusion is true (e.g., not-P is false, so P is true).

Thus, if one wanted to argue against raising the minimum wage via this argument form, one should assume that we raise the minimum wage by some reasonable amount and then show that this would nonetheless have bad consequences. Arguing that an absurdity follows if we raise the minimum wage to $100 per hour only shows that it is absurd to raise the minimum wage to $100 per hour. Of course, we already knew that.

Best, Joe

---- Austin Storm <austinstorm at gmail.com> wrote: 

=============
Dear Joe,

Didn't actually read the whole thing, but it sounds like a sort of reductio
ad absurdum to me.

Cheers!

-Austin

On 8/5/06, Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Chevy,
>
> I just want to make sure that I have the structure of your argument
> correct. As far as I can tell, it is this:
>
> 1) Here is a crazy idea: Suppose we raise the minimum wage to $100 per
> hour.
> 2) That won't work.
> 3) Therefore, it is crazy to raise the minumum wage.
>
> Is that your argument?
>
> As of yet this fallacy has no name. On the other hand, it doesn't need
> one!
>
> Best, Joe
>
> ---- J Chevy <j_chvy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> "Everywhere is freaks and hairies
> Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
>   Tax the rich; feed the poor
>   Till there are no rich no more..."
>
>   Interpret the above as you will.
>
>   Now, in the purest democrat fashion…
>
>   Hey, I got a grand idea; let's skip all the non-livable wage
> propositions and raise the minimum wage in Idaho to $100.00 per worker per
> hour worked. Skilled, unskilled, college educated, black, white, green,
> position in society, blue collar, white collar, high or low intelligence, no
> matter. Better yet, assign everyone identical salaries. We are all equal,
> right?  Why shouldn't we deserve the same pay?  Does any among us think that
> they're better than the other?  Maybe our government should just handle all
> the finances in the United States--issue us all an identical check every
> Monday.  Shoot, why do we even need money?  Or property?  Or the right to
> have a say in the political arena for that matter? (Socialized medicine, at
> this point, is a no-brainer.)  Shant we all fulfill out own niche to society
> and one big utopia will result?  Aw, community, egalitarianism, I love
> it!  Mind you, we need bums, losers, drug addicts, illegal aliens,
> derelicts, miscreants, hippies,
> gypsies, and environmentalists just as we need doctors, engineers,
> teachers, attorneys, chemists, military personnel, law enforcement, and
> authors.  We are all equal, we simply play our own and unique role in the
> societal hub. True? We are all dependant on each other for survival.  The
> drive to earn a bigger wage and live more affluently is no motivation to
> better oneself—or the country for that matter.  Perhaps the ailing Castro,
> Putin, Ill, Hu, or the ghost of Lenin or Marx could help with the logistics
> and implementation of this socioeconomic bit of brilliance. It's a noble
> idea. It will be tough in the beginning. We will have to start on a
> small-scale basis. The first experimental community could be called, say,
> the Socialist Republic of Moscow. Next, when we have successfully worked out
> the bugs, we could fan out to neighboring areas, then to the entire
> state.  How's the People's Republic of Idaho sound?  Catchy, huh?  Apropos,
> I'm suddenly having a deja vu.
>
>   Not funny, you say? Remember the natural progression, according to Marx,
> that Nations typically take? The US is knee deep in Socialism already. The
> last step is communism…and, as we all know, it's track record is flawless.
>
>   Performance, specialization, and supply/demand should dictate salary..
> When all is said and done, no one will work for (or pay) the ridiculous.
> There should be no minimum wage, whatsoever.  Just think, and I'm not
> totally a free market wing nut..
>
>   But, let's say our socialist, Idahoan quixotes have their way and manage
> to get the minimum wage raised to say, $8.00, the highest in the nation. Can
> any of you, without any other state contributions, survive on that?
> Doubtful. So, what then? $9.00? 10.00? 15.00 per hour?
>
>   The answer is to eliminate the minimum wage altogether (and oust the
> aliens that'll work for next-to-nothing).  Any person left who wants
> something for themselves or their family will do what it takes to climb the
> ladder. 'Cause 'meritocracy and the American Dream' ain't no riddle, man; to
> me, it makes good good sense. Good sense.
>
>   J
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Groups are talking. We&acute;re listening. Check out the handy changes to
> Yahoo! Groups.
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================




-- 
Austin Storm
Sky Cow Books
P.O. Box 9128 Moscow, Idaho 83843
208.596.5752 work | 678.550.5503 fax