possible harms of the minimum wage

In a previous post, I quoted economist Don Bordeaux concerning possible ways employers deal with an increasing minimum wage. One commenter stated that minimum wage employers offer few fringe benefits so it is unlikely that they could decrease fringe benefits to deal with increased costs in compliance with the minimum wage. I do not think this is accurate. Many fringe benefits for workers are largely undetected by the data.

I will use my own work experience as an example. I worked two jobs that would be applicable to this example. I worked a minimum wage job for two years as a dishwasher for a golf course country club ($5.15 per hour), after which time I worked as a server for less than the minimum wage as a family restaurant server for seven years ($3.00 per hour plus tips).

Both these jobs had various “perks” that were undetectable to normal wage data. At the country club (the worst job I ever held), I was given free lunches as part of the lunch buffet and free unlimited pop while I worked. There may or may not have been golfing benefits as well, but my father worked as the accountant so I did not directly realize any that I would have had otherwise. I am sure the servers and cooks were given memberships if not reduced rates for golf fares. For this job I worked heartily for 2 years. This was backbreaking labor; it included dragging around floor mats, moving tables, setting up for events, stocking pantries, and carrying huge amounts of dishes. It took me a couple hard days of labor to purchase a new N64 game (I remember standing in line for Perfect Dark on its release date). Do I think I was overworked for the pay? I do and regret going back to work for the second year.

My next job was as a server. One thing about the server markets in a town of 20 thousand people: there is not much competition for good servers. The market allowed the restaurant for which I worked to use servers for endless menial tasks. I would stay on the clock for 1-2 hours after I was “off the floor” (not taking new tables) in order to clean fridges, fill ketchups, roll silverware and vacuum. The restaurant would use servers for any task they could muster because at $3.00 per hour, we were the cheapest labor they had. The fringe benefits were plenty. Smoke breaks (for the smokers), free food (I never left hungry), half off all meals, half off all bakery items, plenty of time to talk to my fellow waiters and waitresses (this was a perk in itself), unlimited pop, liberal overtime, etc. With tips, I made excellent money.

So both these jobs were subject to labor costs, directly and indirectly. If the minimum wage rose on my dishwasher job, they may have responded by cutting my hours, shifting work from the cooks to the dishwashers (the cooks were paid more), cutting any golfing discounts, requiring me to work harder during the time I was working. Etc.

For my job as a server I actually did experience their reactions to rising costs. They definitely became more cost conscious. I was not allowed to work overtime (unless absolutely necessary), we saw our workload increase (extra menial tasks), they were more likely to send us home on slow days, they were most insistent that we work instead of chat during our working hours, they cracked down on food consumption (even enacting a no-eating rule of mistake food), they increased demands on the servers (mixing our own ranch dressing, baking our own breadsticks, or slicing our own lemons and tomatoes), they eliminated smoke breaks (when the no smoking in restaurants law was enacted), they limited half-off on meals to only days individuals actually worked (then changed it to only during a shift), and they started pressuring sales (hurting my tips by requiring me to charge for what should be free extras, like sides of Ranch).

All this is not captured by the traditional “fringe benefits” calculations. I never had any “health” or “paid leave” benefits. Those things didn’t even mater to me at the time. Talking to waitresses and eating, those were my fringe benefits.

Posted in Economics, Goverment, Labor | Leave a comment

render to caesar reconsidered

Whenever someone wants to show the Bible supporting taxes they will be quick to turn to Mark 12 to point to the time that Jesus stated “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. But, contrary to what they think, this is not the evidence for paying taxes that they wish it to be. Instead, this is Jesus escaping another trap and refocusing on his acopolyptic ministry.

Mar 12:13 Then they sent to Him some of the Pharisees and the Herodians, to catch Him in His words.
Mar 12:14 When they had come, they said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and care about no one; for You do not regard the person of men, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?
Mar 12:15 Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?” But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why do you test Me? Bring Me a denarius that I may see it.”
Mar 12:16 So they brought it. And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”
Mar 12:17 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at Him.

In verse 13, the Bible points out this is a trap. The Pharisees want to “catch Him in His words”. In order to do that they need to come up with a question, the answer of which is a lose-lose scenario. This is not unlike the woman caught in adultery.

The Jews were very touchy about taxes. In fact one article states that:

During the three hundred years between the rebellion of the Maccabees (164 B.C.) and the Bar Koch rebellion (132 A.D.), there were 62 rebellions by the Jewish People. And every one of those rebellions started over the issue of taxes.

I haven’t been able to find a source for this claim, but I have talked about a tax revolt by Judas of Galilee in the past (the revolts always seemed to start in Galilee). The tax revolt by Judas was well within the memory of the Jewish people and Roman authorities.

If the Pharisees can get Jesus on record supporting taxes to Caesar, then they can stir up the people against him. If the Pharisees can get Jesus on record starting a tax revolt, then they can get the Romans to kill him. No matter how Jesus would answer, he would be vilified.

But Jesus takes a third route. His first action is to ask to see coins “in the Pharisees’ pocket”. This is critical because it turns out that teachers of the law are carrying images of Caesar. In the Jewish culture of the time, this was scandalous. In Josephus’ Antiquities, he describes an instance in which thousands of Jews willingly offered themselves to be massacred by the Romans just because the Romans were trying to bring the image of Caesar into Jerusalem (Ant. 18.59). Jesus’ second action is to shame the question asker. Jesus asks him, in front of others: “Whose image and inscription is this?”

The image was Caesar’s and the inscription read: “Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus”. The inscription is not known from the text, but from archeology.

Jesus then attempts to refocus the issue to the coming Kingdom of God. To Jesus, paying taxes was a non-issue. Jesus’ ministry was that there was an imminent coming Kingdom of God which would supplant all current authority on earth with a divine rule. Why care about paying taxes when the end of the world was nigh?

Instead Jesus tells people to render themselves to God. Because the coins were in the image of Caesar the coins should be given to Caser. Because human beings are in the image of God, they should give themselves to God. That is what Jesus meant by “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” That is why they then marvel, because this was a novel take on the matter and avoided their trap.

One thing that this statement is not is a blanket call to say that all taxes everywhere and always are justified and should be paid.

Here is Bart Ehrman on the issue:

That’s why, for Jesus, the present life holds no real attractions. Life in the present age should be at best a matter of indifference. One shouldn’t be concerned about such trivial matters as what kind of clothes to wear or what kind of food to eat. As he says…”seek first the Kingdom of God, and all its right way of living, and all these things will be added to you” (Matt. 6:33). What does its “right way of living” entail? It entails loving God, the one who brings the Kingdom, and one’s neighbor as oneself. All else should be completely secondary in importance. If thieves want to take your clothes—let them! If bullies want to force you to do their work for them—let them! If the government wants to take your money—let them! If thugs want to beat you— let them! If enemies want to kill you—let them! None of these things matters. You should give away your shirt as well as your coat, you should go an extra mile, you should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, you should turn the other cheek, you should not fear the one who can destroy your paltry body. The Kingdom is coming, and the concerns of this life are trivial by comparison (see Matt. 5:39-42; 10:28; Mark12:17; Luke 6:29-30; 12:4-5)…

For Jesus, since the end of the present order was imminent, taxes were a matter of indifference: “Render unto Caesar the things that belong to Caesar” (i.e., the money Caesar minted that bore his own impression; Mark 12:13-17; G.Thom. 100). Such principles were widely debated among different Jewish leaders.

Posted in Bible, Ehrman, Goverment, History, Jewish History, Morality, Taxes, Theology | 4 Comments

reason.com unreasonable on vaccines

Reason.com really hates people who choose not to vaccinate. In a recent blog post they quote a US Today article on a Measles outbreak. They say it is three times more than usual. From the post:

The USA is experiencing a spike in measles, with 175 confirmed cases and 20 hospitalizations so far this year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That’s about three times the usual number of cases of measles, CDC Director Thomas Frieden said Thursday. The USA has seen nine outbreaks this year, with the largest in New York, North Carolina and Texas.

More than 98% of measles patients were unvaccinated, Frieden said.

“This isn’t the failure of a vaccine; it’s the failure to vaccinate,” Frieden said….

So, 175 people infected, 20 hospitalizations, and no deaths. This is out of a population of 300 million people! I think football injuries is a bigger American problem than measles outbreaks. Reason.com is spending a disproportionate amount of time condemning hundreds of thousands of people for not injecting stuff into their bodies to prevent a minuscule amount of hospitalizations. When they downplay crime statistics because they are over-hyped, I wonder if they see the irony.

About their claim that the measles trend is “three times” more than usual. From XKCD, “A large increase of a small risk is still a small risk”:

Posted in Statistics | Leave a comment

the unseen harms of the minimum wage

Don Boudreaux lists out some various possible effects of an increase in the minimum wage, all of which hurt low skilled workers:

First, neither I nor any other economist insists “that the minimum wage must raise unemployment.” Raising unemployment is a possible – indeed, likely – effect of a higher minimum wage; it is not, however, a necessary effect. The argument is that a higher minimum wage reduces the full range of the attractiveness of employment options open to low-skilled workers. The effects of a higher minimum wage might play out exclusively in the form of more-intense demands on workers – that is, a demand by employers that workers work harder and produce more output per hour. The effects of a higher minimum wage might play out exclusively in the form of reduced fringe benefits for workers. The effects of a higher minimum wage might play out exclusively in the form of fewer paid hours of work per year for low-skilled workers who nevertheless all keep their jobs (and who continue to be hired). The effects of a higher minimum wage might play out exclusively in the form of fewer jobs for low-skilled workers.

In a previous post, he explains why these effects (especially disemployment) might not be visible in the data:

Bryan is correct. And not only might a minimum-wage hike that was anticipated not result in any observable layoffs at the time it kicks in, but also the unemployment rate of low-skilled workers might not jump noticeably or detectably as a result of the higher minimum wage. The reason is that, once employers anticipate the looming hike in the minimum wage, they then – before the actual hike – start trimming their workforces (probably mostly through attrition and reduced hiring). Some, perhaps many, low-skilled workers, discouraged by the increasing difficulty they face when searching for jobs, respond by dropping out of the workforce before the minimum-wage hike actually happens. By the time the minimum-wage hike does occur, the resulting increase in the measured rate of unemployment of low-skilled workers might well be genuinely small.

And a skilled commentor explains why the most famous pro-Minimum Wage study might fall prey to these reasons:

This would apply to Card and Krueger as well, the legislation in NJ was passed in 1990 but the increase didn’t take place until 1992.

Posted in Economics, Price Controls, prices | 3 Comments

interpretation of languages

I’ve linked to this in the past but it is worthy of its own post. In this video Joel Hoffman explains a few points about interpreting foreign languages. Although I dont totally agree with him on everything, he makes very good points about how language morphs. It should give pause to those who wish a static and dictionary definition of words in the Bible.

Posted in Bible, Figures of Speech, Textual Criticism, Theology, videos | Leave a comment

false brethren as used by paul

Commenter Carrierwave writes:

The term “false brethren” is found TWICE in the KJV and identical Greek terms are used in each case. Once in Galatians 2:4 and in once in 2Cor.11:26. “ψευδάδελφος” In the Greek it is ONE WORD comprised of ‘compound words’ (two Greek terms) in English it is translated as “two words”. The first Greek word is “psuedo”; in the Greek this means a “pretender”, “erroneous”, “spurious”, “fake”. The second word “adelphos” translated “brother”. It’s root “delphos”– Greek meaning “the womb” denoting “a birth”. Brothers in Christ are those who have been “born again” “birthed” by the same agent: the Holy Spirit. A “false brethren” is one who is a “pretender”, “fake,” “spurious” brother.in Christ. It can only mean an “unsaved” person pretending to be a saved person.

This is a good argument about the term “false brethren”, although I do not think it is way in which Paul uses the term “false brethren”. Strong’s dictionary lists an alternative meaning “pretended associate”. Brother, in many cultures and counties, often means close companion. As such, when the Greeks used the word they probably meant what Americans understand as “backstabbers”. There is nothing to point to Paul not using the word in this sense, and this interpretation works very well in the surrounding context of the verse:

Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Paul talks about “spies” and being “secret” and being “stealth” (unawares). This is all backstabbing terminology. It seems like Paul is saying that these people came in, pretended to be nice to Paul and the Gentiles, and then subtly began teaching the law. This fits the context of Galatians well.

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, Theology | Leave a comment

why was Jesus baptized

On rightnerve there is an incredibly interesting article on tearing shirts. Here is a snippet:

So Pop Quiz Time!
Why was Jesus baptized?

1. Baptism was better than tearing John’s shirt
2. For the remission of His sins
3. To be saved
4. As an outward sign of an inward faith
5. To be a member of the local church
6. To be an Elder of the local church

Understanding why Jesus was baptized is probably very important for any systematic theology. Here is from John’s verbal exchange with Jesus:

Mat 3:14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?”
Mat 3:15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.

Greg Perry’s article is worth consideration for understanding this.

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, Theology | Leave a comment

voting for oppression

I remember early in November driving past intersections filled with children waiving colorful signs. They were advocating voting for a new school. After seeing this, my own children asked me what I thought. I explained that it was morally wrong to vote for a new school.

To my 5 year olds this was confusing. What could be wrong with a new school? Everyone loves new things.

I took this opportunity to explain to them something that my children will never learn in school. The vote was not actually about “building a new school”; whether I personally wanted a new school was irrelevant. The vote was actually about if it is proper for a majority of people to extract money from a minority who did not support their goals. In this case, “was it moral for 54% of people to force 46% of people to pay for something that the 46% did not support?”

When people originally moved to town, taxes were one cost that they considered. They designed their lives around their home, invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, but at any time their lives can be uprooted by the 54% of the population. That is not democracy; that is mobocracy.

Childless individuals and homeschoolers will now see more of their money being taken for a service they do not use. The increased taxes will further limit the brand new school’s access for the poor, as the cost of living increases (due to taxes).

I asked my children if there were any moral funding alternatives. They instinctually understood that the people who wanted the school should be the ones paying. If the law was changed to read that only those voting for a tax increase would pay that tax increase or if the proponents started a Kickstarter campaign, we could have avoided mobocracy.

Posted in Goverment, Morality, Taxes | Leave a comment

obfuscation and illustrations

When in debates, especially concerning theology, there is a tendency for each side to accuse the other of trying to switch topics. In a field as wide as theology, where different people have a wide number of interconnected beliefs which all build on and contribute to each other, having a discussion veer off course is to be expected. We should default to being gracious and not assuming malevolent intent, but not everyone does.

Obfuscation

When one side accuses the other of intentionally using this strategy to ignore evidence, it may or may not be the case and it may or may not be intentional. One very quick way to figure out if it is intentional and deliberate is to refocus the conversation. If the individual refuses to refocus, then it is good indication that the matter is difficult for them to handle. They may be using obfuscation to avoid answering questions.

A good example of this would be when individuals try to debate about 1 Kings 22, a passage in which God uses deception to kill King Ahab. Someone trying to obfuscate will try to override the text by saying “God doesn’t lie” and may even point to verses that suggest as much. But the problem is that this does not clarify or explain the events in 1 Kings 22. Instead, the argument is “ignore the events in 1 Kings 22 because it contradicts what I believe from elsewhere.” That is obfuscation. Even if God never ever used deception, the events of 1 Kings 22 still need to be explained. On top of that, now the individual needs to explain it in a way in which God does not use deception. It complicates the text!

To deal with obfuscation, the best debate strategy is to continually refocus the individual to the text until it becomes readily apparent that they are avoiding it (note: this debate strategy will not win you any friends). If their obfuscation complicates the text, just tell them for the sake of the discussion that you will assume they are correct about their other beliefs. This doesn’t allow them to obfuscate and returns them to the original text, now having to deal with the text in the context of their belief (the original thing they wanted to avoid!).

Illustration

But in some cases, accusations of “switching topics” are levied against people who are using other texts to clarify or illustrate points. Using other texts to clarify or illustrate points is perfectly valid, and would be no different than using hypotheticals to illustrate points. In a sense, using Biblical examples is better than hypotheticals because opponents feel much worse trying to dismiss the point. Hypotheticals should not be dismissed but regularly are. Biblical illustrations (in place of hypotheticals) make the debate strategy of dismissing evidence much harder.

Illustrations clarify the text. For example, a Calvinist might quote Ephesians 1:11 that God does “all things”. To show the Calvinist that “all things” does not have to mean “everything always”, 1 Corinthians 15:27 might be used in which Paul clarifies that “all things” does not include Jesus. The point is that in normal human communication, “all things” is limited to the context and doesn’t have to mean “everything always”. Although it does not “prove” that “all things” in Ephesians 1:11 does not mean “everything always” it does prove that “all things” does not have to mean “everything always”.

This shows the Calvinist that it is not unreasonable to believe something else about their proof text. It illustrates.

Detection

So what is the difference between using illustrations and obfuscation? How can we know whether someone is trying to obfuscate or illustrate?

The main “tell” is if the other person’s additional text clarifies or complicates the original text. If the person’s narrative complicates the text, they most likely have a strategy of trying to make people ignore the text due to the implications of the text. They are obfuscating. If the person’s narrative clarifies the text (makes the events easier to understand in context), then they are more likely using an illustration.

A second “tell” is if the person is actively trying to return the conversation to the original text. Someone who obfuscates will be very hesitant to try to refocus the conversation on the original text. Their entire point of pulling in other considerations was to detract and distract from the text. They will not use their other sources to clarify the original text. On the other hand, if someone is actively trying to return the conversation to the original text, then they are clarifying or illustrating.

A third “tell”, and maybe the most important, is if the clarification actually answers an objection by critics. It could be the case that the additional verses do not even speak to the original objection. If two children were having a debate over a box of cereal, one child may be arguing that the box is filled with Cheerios although the outside of the box says it is Lucky Charms. If the second child was to argue that it was not filled with Cheerios because every previous box of Lucky Charms he ever opened was filled with Lucky Charms, then this does not even address the original contention. It is a non-issue. So if one person claims that the “men from Judea” in Acts 15 considered themselves Christians, were disciples of the 12 apostles, and under the authority of the 12 disciples (arguing that they up-channeled the matter to the 12 disciples for resolution), then a proper response is not: “They were heretics because they preached something different than the 12 disciples”. That response ignores the original point.

When debating people, it is important to watch their strategies. Obfuscation is just one sign of intellectual dishonesty.

Posted in Bible, critical thinking, Figures of Speech, Human Nature, Textual Criticism, Theology | Leave a comment

when God sought to kill moses

Exo 4:24 And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the LORD met him and sought to kill him.

In Exodus 4 we read about the time that God was going to kill Moses. The passage actually just starts out by saying it. We only learn the reason (why God wanted to kill Moses) by extrapolation. It was about circumcision:

Exo 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses’ feet, and said, “Surely you are a husband of blood to me!”
Exo 4:26 So He let him go. Then she said, “You are a husband of blood!”—because of the circumcision.

God wants to kill Moses. Moses’ wife circumcises Moses’ son (something traumatizing for her to do). And then curses Moses. God proceeds to “let Moses go” (not kill him). God was angry that Moses was not circumcising his son. Moses seems to have been pressuring his wife to circumcise, but she was resisting. When in danger, she finally decided to go through with it, but then curses Moses and throws the foreskin at him!

This is all because God took seriously His requirement that all Jews be circumcised:

Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

The only long break in this practice was during the Exodus. But (painfully), that was remedied as soon as they reached the promised land:

Jos 5:3 So Joshua made flint knives for himself, and circumcised the sons of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.
Jos 5:4 And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: All the people who came out of Egypt who were males, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness on the way, after they had come out of Egypt.
Jos 5:5 For all the people who came out [of Egypt] had been circumcised, but all the people born in the wilderness, on the way as they came out of Egypt, had not been circumcised.

Joshua made a hill of foreskins… ick!

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, God, Theology | 2 Comments