Monday, 30 September 2013

A Question Michael Turton Would Rather Not Answer

"Because the minimum wage is set too low in Taiwan, the "higher" wages that emerge in pockets like this... are lower than they would be otherwise. That is why the government sets the minimum wage low in both the US and Taiwan -- to pull down wages across the board..."
My question to Turton: how does the minimum wage pull down wages "across the board"?

Update - Turton writes in a gmail chat comment: "...that thread is closed." Here is my last comment he wouldn't allow through...



I'm getting annoyed because you won't answer the question I keep putting to you. You always do this.

know waitresses etc on minimum wage get tips - but even then, they're only 40% or so of all the people working minimum wage in the U.S. so the existence of tipping is not why the minimum wage is set so low. It is set low because it is feared that above a certain level (e.g. 45%-50% of the average hourly wage) it will start to increase unemployment to an extent that becomes noticeable in the aggregate figures.

The question I want you to answer for the rest of us mere groundlings is how does the government setting the minimum wage low pull down wages "across the board"? It looks like you're trying to avoid answering this question, which in turn makes me suspect you've just blithely asserted this in a fit of rhetorical pique without having either facts or logic to back it up.



  1. Mike, how can you not understand that? It's basic economics. You're being willfully ignorant. I have been watching you too go at it for a while now and you come across as a pushy, bratty little child. It's no wonder that the object of your trolling has lost patience with your "debates". You need to grow up, and that is probably going to involve retooling your political philosophy.

    1. 1, Turton and Fagan go back as long as I can (electronically) remember. Need to read past exchanges in order to understand current exchanges.

      2. I see what you did there: in order to be a grown up, one must share your political philosophy. Be like me, dirty child. Real mature there.

      3. You must never see how Turton comes across at other places. More like a bully if anything. But since he shares your political philosophy, evidently, he must at least be a mature bully. . . .

    2. 1. I've read some of it. The only reason I'm commenting here at all is because I've already formed the strong opinion that Fagan is annoying and the relationship is mostly one-way harassment.

      2. Fair point, but he does come across as a dick, and again in my admittedly limited though undoubtedly less limited than Fagan's experience people generally grow out of Randism (OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT) unless they are (a) incredibly narcissistic, i.e. a complete asshole or (b) autistic. In the interest of being "fair and balanced" many people also grow out of being paleolibs which is how I would caricature Turton's politics. I did that myself (I am so mature). Anyway see answer (1), I wouldn't be name-calling on this blog if I didn't think it was warranted. Sorry if you disagree with that.

      3. I don't have any idea how Turton comes across when he's not playing the role of a blog owner who's being trolled, but if I see him being a shithead elsewhere I just might have to call him out on it! I don't really have a dog in this fight, except maybe the dog of decency?

    3. 1. I don't need to defend Fagan. I'm quite sure he can do so himself (and probably would not want my defense anyway, something or which I would commend him).

      2. To me, the real "dick" is the one who makes an unsubstantiated claim and then tells others with any form of dissenting view to basically piss off--i.e., they are not worthy of a response.

      3. You will find out the minute you openly disagree with him.

    4. Nate,

      Yes. I was just now taking the piss out of him (Turton).

      What he ought to have done was to immediately hold his hands up and admit that he just gets carried away from time to time. I don't think he really believes that unhinged claim about minimum wage rates holding down other wages, but you know for him admitting mistakes in public must be like taking a shit in front of an audience.

  2. I might be ignorant, but I cannot be "willfully" so since I am asking the question. The question Turton will not answer. Will you answer it for him?

    If not you can fuck off.

    1. Are you sure you know what "willfully" means? One can definitely ask a question in a willfully ignorant manner; maybe you'll understand better if I say that your questions aren't questions, they're just you being a dickhead in the form of a question. You don't want to know or care what the answer is. Why would anyone answer a question like that? You do this because you're an asshole, and because you think you're smart, but you're not. You're a half-educated pedantic little poser.

      And since you're the career troll, why don't you fuck off? I will do myself a favor and stop reading your blog though. Well maybe I'll drop by every now and again and tell you what an irrelevant turd you are, because I feel strongly that you need to hear that from time to time.

    2. "You don't want to know or care what the answer is."

      Yes I do; I have answered it myself (post above) already in liu of the absence of answers from either Turton or yourself.

      "And since you're the career troll, why don't you fuck off?"

      My blog, my rules. You've had three comments on the subject, none of which even attempted to answer the question which was the subject of this post. That makes you the troll and you the one who gets banished. Begone.

  3. Your question seems like a reasonable one to me.
    People getting huffy and shutting down comments and sending condescending comments to you doesn't help any of us. In fact, it actually makes me suspect that the libertarian/objectivist or whatever other alternative viewpoint in favour of freeing up a company or a company owners' ability to pay whatever he or she thinks a person is worth (which might well be the same as what they are making now, is, in fact, correct.
    But then there are whole other facets of things to take into account, including how taxes, lawyer fees (used to protect an employer in case an unsuitable or unmanageable employee needs to be fired or quits unexpectedly). With too much oversight on the part of governments, etc., a lot of the burden falls on the employee, too, who will get paid a much lower salary as a result of a company being bogged down by so many excesses.
    Prices go up across the board, as well.

  4. Well, lots of things like that happen - many, maybe even most of them are wrong. It takes time to get the correct solutions implemented. For how many years did the governments of China and India forsake even the basic idea of trade being less subject to political manipulation? Decades. Stupidity is a force to be reckoned with.


Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:

1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.

2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.

3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.

4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.

5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.