Not exactly. If the market-clearing price for low-skill labor is already above the minimum wage, it will have no effect. If the market price is far below the minimum wage, it will have a large effect - positive for the workers with jobs, negative for the ones who are priced out or have their hours cut.
But there is an effect. We're telling people "you both want to enter into this contract, and there's nothing illegal or fraudulent about it, but if you do it, at least one of you is going to jail." That's morally indefensible.
Grand schemes to fix society by making an income distribution curve on a spreadsheet look pretty don't mean squat compared to your neighbors' rights.
I hate when people use this metaphor. Not because it's inaccurate to say that speech can cause imminent harm in some circumstances. But because its origin was a Supreme Court opinion that argued against the right to speak out against the draft in WW1, which I don't think too many people using this analogy today would agree with. Also, this legal argument has been rejected since then.
Point is, this exact argument could be (and has been) used to justify some pretty bad ideas.
uch... what a headache when a user needs to change their email. The mania for "schema-less" KV stores is so puzzling to me. It just takes all the stuff that used to be handled natively and seamlessly by the DB engine and forces you to reimplement it in code, only with more bugs, less efficiency, and less flexibility. I fought this battle on my current team and lost, and we have been paying a steep price ever since.
LGBT being a protected class or not was not at issue in the cake shop decision, since they were not denied service in general (they had been regular customers of that shop, and were always served). The issue was whether designing a custom cake for their wedding was considered artistic expression, and as such he had a right to refuse under the 1st amendment since you cannot compel speech.
poke111, I looked at your other posts and I belive you really needn't be convinced with a source as such.( if by source you meant a research paper) I noticed that you have already figured out that there differences in IQ among races.
Anyway - my 'source' is my observation over the years, the smartest people that I'm aware of, both among developers or otherwise are disproportionately male. As a corollary some dumbest people are also disproportionately male. Never in my circle of acquaintances have I seen women being discriminated solely based on their gender. Infact I have on occasions seen a clear discrimination against men.
I did do a quick search to see if there were research papers on the subject, I could not find it. The few that I could find did not show significant differences. Now ofcourse the broader question to ask is, do we take main stream science at it's word always, ? No, is my answer. A large proportion of mainstream science is biased and rigged. I have heard/read that any research paper that shows difference in IQ among genders or race is unlikely to be published by journals.
I propose a new law that people with my SSN don't have to pay taxes. It would help me out a lot.
Every policy helps some people at the expense of others. Concentrated benefits, diffuse costs. You need to weigh both sides, not just the benefits.
(edited)
