It seems the local government in San Francisco is determined to drive as much business away from the city as possible. Legislation was introduced Tuesday by Supervisor Tom Ammiano to require all San Francisco businesses with 20 or more workers to pay for health care insurance:
The ordinance, submitted by Supervisor Tom Ammiano, would force businesses not offering medical coverage to their workers to set up health savings accounts and pay $345 a month per employee into them. Businesses would use the savings to buy health insurance for their workforce.
The $345 is what it costs the city government per month to cover each of its workers.
Under the legislation, a task force would be created to examine whether companies that say they can't afford the $345 a month should be allowed to pay a lower, unspecified fee directly to the city -- and the city would provide coverage or direct medical care.
Great. Just what businesses in the city need: another set of government forms to complete and another government audit to comply with, to determine if they can afford this new tax for doing business in SF.
Some people who actually know about running businesses think this may be a bad idea:
"Supervisor Ammiano calls his coverage 'universal,' but the only thing universal about the Worker Health Care Security Act is the universal damage it will do to San Francisco's economy," said Mike Flynn, director of legislative affairs for the Employment Policies Institute in Washington, D.C.
"Expanding insurance coverage is a laudable goal," Flynn added, "but you can't wave a wand and do it by legislative command. His proposal would slap San Francisco's businesses with staggering costs and lead to tremendous job loss among the city's least-skilled workers."
Nathan Nayman, the director of San Francisco's Committee on Jobs, a lobbying group for downtown business interests, echoed the point. "This is going to have a negative consequence on business in the city. There's just no doubt about it," Nayman said.
…
Jot Condie of the California Restaurant Association... said restaurants and other small businesses typically operate at small profit margins. If Ammiano's legislation passes, it would likely drive them out of town, he said. "The fact that it's a city proposal, the notion of flight from San Francisco and its tax base really is a relevant point."
Ammiano doesn't agree:
Businesses that offer health care for their workers have higher productivity, he said, and do better in the marketplace.
And there speaks someone who has never run a business in his life.
Hey Tom, if offering healthcare means higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace, why do we need legislation to force companies to implement it?
I’m from the government: let me tell you how to run your business
The health savings accounts seem like a great idea. I hope this can benefit many individuals with health coverage.
Posted by: Blue Cross of California | November 23, 2005 at 03:50 PM
Blue Cross, I can see where you're coming from, but on the whole, government-mandated health insurance for all businesses with 20+ employers is a bad idea. For one thing, not all employees need it; if you're a kid working a minimum-wage, summer retail job, for example, you're probably already covered by your legal guardians' health care. For another, what exactly gives local (or any) governments the authority to pull a move like this in the first place?
Posted by: ExtinctInstinct | November 23, 2005 at 06:27 PM
This whole article seems so strange to me, being a Canadian resident. I guess we've just had decent medical coverage for so long that the benefits are obvious to us. I just don't get what seems to be an apparent backlash against the *idea* of mandatory health care, which has been shown world wide to be much more useful to the general population than any private health care system.
Skeptico, I generally agree with your viewpoint, but I'm finding this particular post fairly appalling. "[T]here speaks someone who has never run a business in his life"? That sounds fairly ad hominem to me. Most business owners I've seen or talked to have a way less realistic perspective on what's good for the economy than an average university undergrad, as they're interested in one thing only: their bottom line. Judge the arguements based on their own merit, not based on characterizations of the people making them.
ExtinctInstinct, this goes for you too. Just addressing your sentance about kids working minimum wage jobs, you assume that their legal guardians *have* health coverage. I think, given the latest statistics on the large chunk of the American population without any form of health insurance (http://www.cbpp.org/8-26-04health.htm, 45 million people, as of 2004), that this isn't a tennable position. And this doesn't even cover statistics on grown adults working these minimum wage jobs. Look at the number of people over 50 working at McDonald's and you'll see what I mean. ;)
This proposal may be flawed, but it'd be more palatable if you discussed it in a more impartial manner. The entire tone of this post and the comments seems to be not only that this current bit of legislation is fairly inane (which I agree, it is), but that the idea in general of ensuring every worker has health coverage is a bad idea. I can't agree with that at all.
Posted by: Graeme | November 24, 2005 at 07:02 AM
"what exactly gives local (or any) governments the authority to pull a move like this in the first place?"
That's not as simple a question as your use of the rhetorical suggests you believe. Essentially it derives from a combination of the belief that good healthcare should be a human right in a developed country (which is not that off-the-wall a principle) and a conviction that protecting peoples' rights is one of the responsibilities of government (also not that ludicrous a belief).
You may believe that non-intervention is to be preferred, but favouring economical laissez-faire is an ideological, not a logical position (as is belief in social democracy, of course). It has fuck-all to do with scepticism.
Posted by: outeast | November 24, 2005 at 07:15 AM
Re: I just don't get what seems to be an apparent backlash against the *idea* of mandatory health care, which has been shown world wide to be much more useful to the general population than any private health care system.
I’m not necessarily against full publicly-provided healthcare such as that in the UK or Canada. Statistics show that the US spends more per capita than any other country, which may indicate that the private health care system is not the best model. But this proposal is a private health care system - a forced employer-paid one.
Re: Skeptico, I generally agree with your viewpoint, but I'm finding this particular post fairly appalling. "[T]here speaks someone who has never run a business in his life"? That sounds fairly ad hominem to me.
Ammiano made the comment that this measure would make companies more competitive – in effect implying it would pay for itself. I find this idiotic and offensive from someone who has no idea what it is like to run a business, while at the same time he happily introduces legislation that will make business owners’ lives more difficult. SF is already a business-unfriendly city. This measure will drive away more business and consequently reduce the tax base. To have this twit wittering on about how it is really good for business is offensive.. He’s a typical political activist telling business owners what to do when he has no clue about business. It was a fair point.
Posted by: Skeptico | November 24, 2005 at 09:44 AM
Ouch! I see my comment last night was deleted. I said this seemed more political than anything to do with skepticism and suggested it be posted on a blog written by Politico or Libertario. Anyway, I agree with 'outeast' who wrote, "favouring economical laissez-faire is an ideological, not a logical position (as is belief in social democracy, of course). It has fuck-all to do with scepticism." I just don't agree with his spelling of 'skepticism'!
Posted by: GRW | November 24, 2005 at 06:57 PM
Outeast put his finger right on it: "favouring economical laissez-faire is an ideological, not a logical position".
And of course, we have no idea whether skeptico has any authority due to having run a business. Nor whether such authority really applies.
Public policy opponents are always trotting out arguments about how any interference will destroy business. Notice how there are no restaurants or bars anymore now that we have non-smoking policies? Notice how we now have a third-world economy due to handicap access?
And of course, you cannot make a rational economic argument based on ideology. It takes accounting. And when accounting is done, it might turn out that there's a net savings when workers have insurance over when they end up in emergency rooms and hospitals charge various governments and raise prices for other patients to provide care after the stage where it is cheap.
Posted by: Mike Huben | November 25, 2005 at 07:41 AM
GRW:
I didn’t delete any comments, and I don’t see any other posts from you in my email notices. Are you sure it actually posted? Sometimes Typepad is very slow to post comments – perhaps you logged out before it had actually posted?
All:
My position is both logical and supported by documentation and my own (admittedly anecdotal) experience.
A few years ago I was a partner in a business that moved out of SF to Marin County. Why? High taxes and other bureaucratic costs. I am currently a 50% owner of a company where our aim is to be able to turn down all business in SF and concentrate only in Marin. Why? Bureaucratic costs.
These experiences, which would be confirmed by many people trying to do business in SF, are backed by data. For example, according to a recent survey
Also, according to Cal-Tax Digest
SF has the highest costs in what is already a high cost state. The feeing is certainly not pro-business. Recently Ammiano had to back down on business tax legislation – an increased tax that would have driven more businesses away from the city. It seems Ammiano didn’t learn anything from this: he still thinks it’s a good idea to introduce more costly legislation with the attendant increase in bureaucracy both in government and in the businesses forced to comply with the additional form-filling and audits.
My main objection in my post was to Ammiano’s comment that this legislation would produce “higher productivity” and make firms “do better in the marketplace”. The vacuous nature of that comment was exposed by my rhetorical question: if offering healthcare means higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace, why do we need legislation to force companies to implement it?
A problem with SF is that there are twits like Ammiano in local government, who have not risked one penny of their own money and couldn’t run a business if their life depended on it, who nonetheless feel they have the right to spout what helps businesses to “do better in the marketplace”, and who will force businesses to comply. He has no clue and no basis for saying what he said.
Now, if you have some evidence that SF is a business-friendly low-cost city, or that more legislation like this would be good for business and tax revenues, please present it.
Posted by: Skeptico | November 25, 2005 at 12:48 PM
Mike Huben:
Re: And when accounting is done, it might turn out that there's a net savings when workers have insurance over when they end up in emergency rooms and hospitals charge various governments and raise prices for other patients to provide care after the stage where it is cheap.
You are talking about the economic benefit of overall healthcare paid by government. In this respect you might be right, but I am talking about the costs to individual businesses. Costs both of healthcare and of the bureaucracy.
Posted by: Skeptico | November 25, 2005 at 12:52 PM
I disagree. Big businesses with national markets typically do provide health insurance. Small businesses that typically serve local markets often do not even though they would like to, however, because they can't pass costs that their competitors aren't incurring onto their customers. But, if your competition has to incur the same costs, then everyone in the market raises their costs, something that San Francisco consumers can afford.
San Francisco is also, in many respects, the best possible place for the plan, because it has some of the highest market rates for low skilled labor (the kind which typically doesn't have health insurance) out there. As a result the amount is typically well above minimum wage and the effect is likely to be to shift the compensation mix from straight wage to wage and benefit to some extent.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. One of the great virtues of a local government like San Francisco mandating some health coverage is that people who fail to get health coverage end up forcing the local government to pay for county hospitals, clinics and Medicaid, often in emergency rooms at a far higher cost of health care delivery when problems are acute instead of at the preventative stage in a doctor's office at a lower cost. Thus, the higher cost of business from mandatory health care savings accounts, may be offset by a lower cost of business in terms of taxes to pay for indigent medical care.
Also, if San Francisco is such a business unfriendly place, why does it have the highest per capita income in the nation (or very nearly so)? If you want to be cold and rational and unaltruistic about it, a policy like this encourages low wage, low return marginal businesses that can't afford to provide health care (maybe call centers or factories competing with China) to leave (probably to some place like Alabama or Mississippi where wages are far lower than they are anywhere in California), and freeing up scarce San Francisco real estate for businesses that already provide health care and hence are not impacted by the law, which probably increases the per capita income in San Francisco even more. The main beneficiaries are likely to be service industry workers as they can't be moved to new locations and still service San Francisco residents, and will be in a good position to pass on costs to customers when their competitors must incur the same costs.
Posted by: ohwilleke | November 25, 2005 at 09:14 PM
ohwilleke:
Re: I disagree. Big businesses with national markets typically do provide health insurance. Small businesses that typically serve local markets often do not even though they would like to, however, because they can't pass costs that their competitors aren't incurring onto their customers. But, if your competition has to incur the same costs, then everyone in the market raises their costs, something that San Francisco consumers can afford.
And your evidence that “everyone in the market raises their costs” is… ?
Sorry friend, but unless you can back that up with empirical evidence it is just bullshit. A nice fairy tale from someone who has obviously never run a business. “Something that San Francisco consumers can afford”? LMAO – I'd like you to come with me to my customers and tell them that. I’m sure you would be a great help.
Your theory also ignores all the additional bureaucracy created. You ignore the additional red tape this plan would create. (If you had run a business in SF, or even in CA, you would know what I mean about extra red tape.) Did you not see that SF has over FOUR TIMES the number of government workers per capita than elsewhere? Why do you think that is, and do you think it is a good thing? Why did you completely ignore all my arguments and the reports and statistics I quoted about this?
Re: San Francisco is also, in many respects, the best possible place for the plan, because it has some of the highest market rates for low skilled labor (the kind which typically doesn't have health insurance) out there. As a result the amount is typically well above minimum wage and the effect is likely to be to shift the compensation mix from straight wage to wage and benefit to some extent.
Duh! So what?
Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch. One of the great virtues of a local government like San Francisco mandating some health coverage is that people who fail to get health coverage end up forcing the local government to pay for county hospitals, clinics and Medicaid, often in emergency rooms at a far higher cost of health care delivery when problems are acute instead of at the preventative stage in a doctor's office at a lower cost.
That is an argument for universal healthcare financed by taxation as in Canada, the UK etc, NOT for a forced company paid / privately provided system such as this.
Re: Thus, the higher cost of business from mandatory health care savings accounts, may be offset by a lower cost of business in terms of taxes to pay for indigent medical care.
And your evidence that this will result in lower business taxes offsetting the extra healthcare costs is…
Sorry friend, unless you have empirical evidence for this, it is another nice theoretical fairy tale.
Re: Also, if San Francisco is such a business unfriendly place, why does it have the highest per capita income in the nation (or very nearly so)?
I don’t know, why do you think it is and why is it relevant?
And you still haven’t answered this one:
If offering healthcare means higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace, why do we need legislation to force companies to implement it?
Posted by: Skeptico | November 25, 2005 at 10:40 PM
First, there's a strong corellation between high costs of business and the most desirable locations for doing business, just as there's a strong corellation between high-tax nations and first world status. So high costs of doing business are not necessarily something wrong, unless you identify specific, wasteful costs.
Second, lots of costs to businesses are perfectly justifiable in terms of discouraging creation of externalities. For example, that's why Walmart is being chastized for gaming the system by discouraging its employees with high insurance costs.
Third, costs of health care and bureaucracy are pretty well known, and already faced by most companies. It sounds to me as if avoiding insurance either unjustly profits employers over employees, subsidizes weaker companies that can't compete, subsidizes overly expensive location decisions, or all three.
"And your evidence that “everyone in the market raises their costs” is… ?" This sort of argument is well answered by two sorts of responses. The voluminous literature on minimum wage increases which shows no significant harm (there's argument about whether there is any change in employment, but if there is, it's statistically insignificant.) And the simple microeconomics arguments (which I generally give little credence.) As I pointed out above, the business community rails about any increase in costs or other regulation generally because they model it as if only their one business had to be placed at this disadvantage. And historically, business copes magnificently and the world is a better place.
The argument that SF has 4 times more government workers per capita than elsewhere proves nothing, as any sensible skeptic would know. There may be perfectly justifiable reasons. But more importantly, that problem doesn't have anything to do with whether any other program is needed. If you're concerned about the combination, then suggest a compromise where fewer workers and lower business taxes are traded off for this increased duty.
"If offering healthcare means higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace, why do we need legislation to force companies to implement it?" There's a two word answer for many cases: Prisoner's Dilemma.
If you want empirical data about the possible savings, take a look at:
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7084.cfm
Posted by: Mike Huben | November 26, 2005 at 09:37 AM
Mike Huben:
Re: First, there's a strong corellation between high costs of business and the most desirable locations for doing business, just as there's a strong corellation between high-tax nations and first world status.
But correlation is not causation, so your point is pure woo woo.
Re: So high costs of doing business are not necessarily something wrong, unless you identify specific, wasteful costs.
First, I have identified wasteful costs. For example, the bureaucracy required to implement and maintain this healthcare program.
Secondly, if you had any experience of doing business in SF you would be able to identify many others.
Third, skeptics look at the data. If costs are much higher (as they are), the burden of proof is with people claiming these higher costs are justified, to show that they are in fact actually justified. So you tell me: explain why the higher costs are necessary. Specifically, please explain why SF requires FOUR TIMES the number of government workers than elsewhere. It’s your claim – you back it up.
Re: Second, lots of costs to businesses are perfectly justifiable in terms of discouraging creation of externalities. For example, that's why Walmart is being chastized for gaming the system by discouraging its employees with high insurance costs.
I never denied that some costs were justifiable, so this is a bit of a straw man. Please keep to the specific costs I am actually complaining about.
Re: Third, costs of health care and bureaucracy are pretty well known, and already faced by most companies.
You are ignoring the point I have made ABOUT FOUR TIMES NOW that the bureaucracy is in the additional work to comply with this government-imposed system: additional government employees PLUS additional work for companies showing they have complied with the plan. These additional costs will be incurred by all companies including those that already provide full healthcare. Why is this point so hard to understand?
Re: It sounds to me as if avoiding insurance either unjustly profits employers over employees, subsidizes weaker companies that can't compete, subsidizes overly expensive location decisions, or all three.
Not adding additional costs to business is not a “subsidy”. Nice piece of framing, though.
Re: "And your evidence that “everyone in the market raises their costs” is… ?" This sort of argument is well answered by two sorts of responses. The voluminous literature on minimum wage increases which shows no significant harm (there's argument about whether there is any change in employment, but if there is, it's statistically insignificant.)
The most respected study on minimum wages would be Do Minimum Wages Raise the NAIRU? By Peter Tulip (.pdf), which concluded “yes” (minimum wages do increase unemployment). It’s a complex subject, but if we’re talking minimum wages, this healthcare proposal represents approximately $2 per hour or an approximate 30% increase on the minimum wage. Suggesting this would have no effect on employment, or that employers would just “pass on” these costs to customers, is absurd.
Re: And the simple microeconomics arguments (which I generally give little credence.) As I pointed out above, the business community rails about any increase in costs or other regulation generally because they model it as if only their one business had to be placed at this disadvantage. And historically, business copes magnificently and the world is a better place.
First, as I said, all business will bear additional costs.
Second, cities outside of SF will not bear the additional cost, and so this move is likely to drive more businesses away from SF, thus reducing the tax base - bad for everyone.
Re: The argument that SF has 4 times more government workers per capita than elsewhere proves nothing, as any sensible skeptic would know. There may be perfectly justifiable reasons.
Any skeptic knows that you look at the data, so unless you can show where the data are wrong (or what these “perfectly justifiable reasons” are – for FOUR TIMES the number, remember), your argument is not that of a skeptic but of a woo woo.
Re: But more importantly, that problem doesn't have anything to do with whether any other program is needed.
True. It an indication of the number of similar programs that have been introduced little by little over the years that add up to a lot of extra cost and an anti-business environment, and therefore an indication of how this scheme will make matters worse.
Re: If you're concerned about the combination, then suggest a compromise where fewer workers and lower business taxes are traded off for this increased duty.
…which would STILL incur the same (or even more) cost to implement for all businesses. No, I suggest dropping the whole idea.
Re: "If offering healthcare means higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace, why do we need legislation to force companies to implement it?" There's a two word answer for many cases: Prisoner's Dilemma.
I’m afraid you have the Prisoner's dilemma back to front on this one.
If insuring my employees means “higher productivity” (etc) for me, I will insure my employees if I think my competitors:
(1) WILL insure theirs – just to stay competitive
(2) WILL NOT insure theirs – to get ahead.
There is no situation where I would not insure my employees, IF insuring them “means higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace” for me.
I think where you’re going wrong is in considering only the costs as part of the prisoner’s dilemma, but not the supposed benefits. Thanks for proving my point though. I had forgotten about the prisoner’s dilemma.
Re: If you want empirical data about the possible savings, take a look at:
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7084.cfm
First, this is a study showing possible benefits of universal healthcare. This proposal is not universal healthcare (what about the unemployed?),
Second, this study shows that “if the country provided coverage to all the uninsured…” money could be saved. This plan is not “the country” providing healthcare (a la Canada, Europe), it is forced employer provision. I have also covered this point several times already.
Posted by: Skeptico | November 26, 2005 at 12:08 PM
But correlation is not causation, so your point is pure woo woo.
But I didn't say or imply that: you fisked away my next logical step so that you could put words in my mouth. Bad form for a fellow skeptic.
I have identified wasteful costs. For example, the bureaucracy required to implement and maintain this healthcare program.No, you haven't identified these as wasteful. For them to be wasteful, they'd have to total (with the employer payments) more than the costs of existing healthcare and its bureaucracy for those uninsured. Even private companies have bureaucracy: they value it more than the alternatives. Bureaucracy is not automatically wasteful.
You keep harping on please explain why SF requires FOUR TIMES the number of government workers than elsewhere. That's irrational: no justification for a new program has to explain all other government activity. I tell you what: next time you want to start a business, we'll demand you explain Enron and other business crimes and demand you stop them before we allow you to start your business.
Not adding additional costs to business is not a “subsidy”. Nice piece of framing, though. Yet if a landlord exempted some tenents from obligations that others had taken up, you wouldn't hesitate to call it a subsidy. Tax exemptions are subsidies. Exemptions from responsibilities, such as providing insurance from employees, are subsidies also.
As for framing, the presumption that costs to business are harmful is classic framing.
The most respected study on minimum wages would be Do Minimum Wages Raise the NAIRU? By Peter Tulip (.pdf), which concluded “yes” (minimum wages do increase unemployment) I believe you have misinterpreted this study, which literally begins with "Maybe yes." NAIRU is >>>NOT<<< unemployment: it is a relationship between unemployment and inflation based on wages. NAIRU is controversial, and the author concludes with admissions that his results may not stand up to further analysis. Even if his result is true, a change in NAIRU is not a change in unemployment: it might result in a change in inflation. And he points out that the change is very small: 1/2% change in NAIRU for a 10% rise in minimum wage. So I believe you are misrepresenting the meaning of this study.
this healthcare proposal represents approximately $2 per hour or an approximate 30% increase on the minimum wage. Suggesting this would have no effect on employment, or that employers would just “pass on” these costs to customers, is absurd. Considering that the minimum wage is currently down roughly 20% from its historical high (due to inflation), there's no absurdity involved at all.
Any skeptic knows that you look at the data, so unless you can show where the data are wrong (or what these “perfectly justifiable reasons” are – for FOUR TIMES the number, remember), your argument is not that of a skeptic but of a woo woo. Any skeptic should know that you cannot assume data is ceteris paribus. By your silly standard of "consider only the data", if you make 4 times what I do, your claim that there are "justifiable reasons" would be woo woo. All data requires context for interpretation. It may well be that SF hasn't privatized some services, or some other simple reason that makes sense. Or it may be that there's featherbedding. Your one figure will not show that, and anybody who thinks you've made a competent argument by shouting "four times" over and over is not a skeptic.
It an indication of the number of similar programs that have been introduced little by little over the years that add up to a lot of extra cost and an anti-business environment, and therefore an indication of how this scheme will make matters worse. Now THERE's a hand waving woo woo argument. All emotion and assertion.
I think where you’re going wrong is in considering only the costs as part of the prisoner’s dilemma, but not the supposed benefits. Thanks for proving my point though. I had forgotten about the prisoner’s dilemma. You're right, when it comes to employers. But the majority of the benefits are received by employees. Ammiano may still be right that "Businesses that offer health care for their workers have higher productivity, he said, and do better in the marketplace." If they don't do enough better to pay for the added expenses though, then we have a prisoner's dilemma when we add the benefits to the employee. We don't get the high social payoff of small benefits to the employer and large benefits to the employee exceeding the costs of the insurance because no employer wants to be the only one that faces this cost.
And finally, I suggested that web site because it showed proportions of medical costs due to uninsured. Those costs are more expensive than they need to be because of the generally late delivery in emergency rooms. And those costs are generally born locally: they are one of the reasons why taxes are high and medical care is expensive in San Francisco. Employers not providing insurance are essentially getting everybody else to pay for them.
Posted by: Mike Huben | November 26, 2005 at 05:53 PM
Skeptico, I believe you've met your match. Now get off this political topic and get back to real skepticism.
Posted by: GRW | November 26, 2005 at 07:25 PM
No no, don't get off this topic. I am genuinely finding this argument fascinating, even though it's gotten a bit arcane with phrases like "ceteris paribus" being thrown around (and I'm going to go look that one up as soon as I'm done typing this.) I doubt that any resolution or common ground will be found, but I'm still finding the thrashing-out of the issues quite entertaining and, dare I say, enlightening.
Posted by: Eric | November 27, 2005 at 12:58 AM
Mike Huben:
Re: But I didn't say or imply that: you fisked away my next logical step so that you could put words in my mouth. Bad form for a fellow skeptic.
Then it seems to me your whole first sentence was redundant.
Re: No, you haven't identified these as wasteful. For them to be wasteful, they'd have to total (with the employer payments) more than the costs of existing healthcare and its bureaucracy for those uninsured. Even private companies have bureaucracy: they value it more than the alternatives. Bureaucracy is not automatically wasteful.
They are in addition to the current bureaucracy – they will apply to all business INCLUDING THOSE WHO ALREADY INSURE THEIR EMPLOYEES. Don’t you get that? They all will have additional audits and reports to complete, and there will be additional government workers to administer it all for ALL EMPLOYERS. Business will be made more difficult as everyone has to comply with the additional government requirements. All businesses. You have to be pretty perverse to insist this will not be additional cost.
And in addition, higher costs force some businesses away / stop some new ones coming to SF. This reduces the tax base, which hurts everyone.
Re: You keep harping on please explain why SF requires FOUR TIMES the number of government workers than elsewhere. That's irrational: no justification for a new program has to explain all other government activity. I tell you what: next time you want to start a business, we'll demand you explain Enron and other business crimes and demand you stop them before we allow you to start your business.
Oh please – HUGE false analogy. Comparing one city government’s expenditure with another is a legitimate comparison. Saying that if I start a business I need to explain Enron and other business crimes and stop them is just plain stupid. There is no comparison. That’s not even comparing apples and oranges. It’s comparing apples and windsurfing.
Re: Yet if a landlord exempted some tenents from obligations that others had taken up, you wouldn't hesitate to call it a subsidy. Tax exemptions are subsidies. Exemptions from responsibilities, such as providing insurance from employees, are subsidies also.
If it was the tenant’s obligation (eg through their lease agreement), you would be right. You are assuming it is the employer’s obligation to pay for healthcare. As this is also your conclusion this is circular reasoning.
Re: As for framing, the presumption that costs to business are harmful is classic framing.
I didn’t presume they are harmful. I implied that it is reasonable for companies to control costs, and try to avoid adding costs that are not necessary to the business. You framed this practice as a “subsidy”. For it to be a subsidy you have to show medical costs are necessary for the business. Your prisoner’s dilemma shows it is not (see below).
Re: I believe you have misinterpreted this study, which literally begins with "Maybe yes." NAIRU is >>>NOT<<< unemployment: it is a relationship between unemployment and inflation based on wages. NAIRU is controversial, and the author concludes with admissions that his results may not stand up to further analysis. Even if his result is true, a change in NAIRU is not a change in unemployment: it might result in a change in inflation. And he points out that the change is very small: 1/2% change in NAIRU for a 10% rise in minimum wage. So I believe you are misrepresenting the meaning of this study.
The study shows that the gradual fall in the value of the minimum wage in the 20 year period is responsible for a 1.5% fall in the equilibrium rate of unemployment. You are wrong about the minimum wage: the weight of evidence continues to support the view that higher minimum wages reduce overall employment. And you still haven’t shown one shred of evidence that “everyone in the market raises their costs”.
Re: Considering that the minimum wage is currently down roughly 20% from its historical high (due to inflation), there's no absurdity involved at all.
Yes there is, according to my previously referenced study.
Re: Any skeptic should know that you cannot assume data is ceteris paribus. By your silly standard of "consider only the data", if you make 4 times what I do, your claim that there are "justifiable reasons" would be woo woo.
And I would show you reasons for that differential. Sorry, this is just another false analogy. Instead of reasoning by analogy, why don’t you show some data that shows there are justifiable reasons for the high numbers in SF?
Re: All data requires context for interpretation. It may well be that SF hasn't privatized some services, or some other simple reason that makes sense. Or it may be that there's featherbedding. Your one figure will not show that, and anybody who thinks you've made a competent argument by shouting "four times" over and over is not a skeptic.
Blah blah “may well be” – more hand waving. Just tell me why it’s 4 times higher. I see no reason for it but the kind of waste I’m objecting to and that I see on a regular basis. If you disagree it’s up to you to justify why. Four times the number requires more than “all data requires context” hand-waving. It’s a perfectly reasonable question – 4 times higher requires a justification; the position that this looks high does not. Get real.
Re: Now THERE's a hand waving woo woo argument. All emotion and assertion.
Now THERE's a hand waving woo woo argument. All emotion and assertion.
Re: You're right, when it comes to employers. But the majority of the benefits are received by employees.
Whoa, stop right there. OF COURSE we are talking about employers. The quote was:
He was saying the BUSINESSES do better – and, according to the prisoner’s dilemma, if this were true the BUSINESSES wouldn’t need legislation to force them to insure. This was my point and the purpose of my question. You said the prisoner’s dilemma answers the question. Clearly it doesn’t. This was the main point of my post, a point you have in reality now conceded.
Although you apparently want to redefine the question:
Re: Ammiano may still be right that "Businesses that offer health care for their workers have higher productivity, he said, and do better in the marketplace." If they don't do enough better to pay for the added expenses though, then we have a prisoner's dilemma when we add the benefits to the employee. We don't get the high social payoff of small benefits to the employer and large benefits to the employee exceeding the costs of the insurance because no employer wants to be the only one that faces this cost.
That’s not prisoner’s dilemma any more. Anyway, you’ve changing the meaning of what Ammiano said and of my question. Intellectually dishonest. (Bad form for a fellow skeptic.) You can’t answer my question though (the one I actually asked), can you?
Re: And finally, I suggested that web site because it showed proportions of medical costs due to uninsured. Those costs are more expensive than they need to be because of the generally late delivery in emergency rooms.
Where does it say that in the study? I didn’t see that anywhere - is that just your opinion? If so, on what basis?
Re: And those costs are generally born locally: they are one of the reasons why taxes are high and medical care is expensive in San Francisco.
Is this one of the reasons why taxes are higher and medical care is more expensive in San Francisco than elsewhere in the US?
If “yes”, then please justify that claim.
If “no”, then please explain the relevance.
Re: Employers not providing insurance are essentially getting everybody else to pay for them.
But you are still assuming it is the job of employers to do this, and it is still circular reasoning.
Posted by: Skeptico | November 27, 2005 at 09:06 AM
Actually, businesses might only do better if everyone's insured - because the thing that drives business is the money spent by the consumer.
Which will go up if the consumer has more money, which is a plausible consequence of everyone having health insurance, as I believe has been shown repeatedly earlier.
Oh, by the way, Skeptico?
Re minimum wage?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Employment_Policies_Institute
Your source is, um, unreliable.
Posted by: Sotek | November 27, 2005 at 10:31 AM
Well, I could argue this at great length, but the holiday is over, and I haven't the time for it. Just time for a few parting shots.
First, many skeptics have the same problems doubting their political views as other true believers, and for much the same reasons. We're none of us angels. And to accomodate their beliefs, they will credit the most ridiculous, biased sources. For example, Skeptico above links the Joint Economic Comittee "The Minimum Wage" report. If you take a brief look at that report, the "Joint" does not mean bipartisan. The folks on the heading are ONLY republicans. If you look at the web site (http://www.house.gov/jec/), the only reference to democrats is a tiny link labelled "Minority". Apparently, they issue separate series of reports. And as Sotek pointed out, the source is a mere briefing by a rightwing thinktank, citing a 12 year old study it published to refute early results of Card and Krueger. The C&K results have stood the academic test of time very well. Really, Skeptico might as well be citing a self-published UFOlogist. If you'd like an extensive overview of the conflicting claims showing the differences in methodology, see: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp150
The study shows that the gradual fall in the value of the minimum wage in the 20 year period is responsible for a 1.5% fall in the equilibrium rate of unemployment.
As I said before, you have misunderstood the study. Because you did not actually cite from it, it took me some time to find what you're probably talking about: "Comparing the late 1970s with the late 1990s, the lower minimum wage reduced the NAIRU by about 11⁄2 percentage points." Your obvious mistake is that NAIRU is not "the equilibrium rate of unemployment". You show no understanding of what NAIRU means.
I suspect that you underestimate the sophistication of skepticism required for modern political issues. They are nowhere as clear-cut as debunking religions or UFO's: the social sciences are not nearly as firm a ground to stand upon. In a while, when you've cooled down, you might look back at this exchange ruefully, as I have in many other exchanges in the past. You may still prefer your position, but you may admit to yourself that your own arguments were not good. I've sent and received apologies years later along those lines.
Posted by: Mike Huben | November 27, 2005 at 01:02 PM
Mike Huben:
Re: Skeptico above links the Joint Economic Comittee "The Minimum Wage" report. If you take a brief look at that report, the "Joint" does not mean bipartisan. The folks on the heading are ONLY republicans…
To which I reply: pure ad hominem. A skeptic would have stated what was wrong with the actual data. You just smeared the source: fallacious and meaningless.
Re: The C&K results have stood the academic test of time very well.
Hardly. Neumark and Wascher reviewed the C&K study and concluded C&K were wrong – the min. wage had increased unemployment. C&K then revised their earlier figures to show the higher min. wage actually had no effect. (Previously they claimed the min. wage reduced unemployment.) Thomas Michl (Eastern Economic Journal, Summer 2000) then suggested that the min. wage resulted in the same number of workers (which would explain C&K), but that they each had reduced hours, showing that increased min. wages did, in fact, reduce demand for labor. Then along comes Peter Tulip. He concludes that higher min. wages mean unemployment will rise in other parts of the economy (ie not among the people on min. wages). He theorizes this happens because pay differentials are squeezed.
Your cite ignores the last two studies I quote above, but does demolish the straw man that arguments against min. wages rest “on the simplistic observation that some of the states with high minimum wages also have high unemployment rates”. Talk about a biased source.
Also, the NAIRU most certainly is:
So go argue with Malcolm Sawyer of The Jerome Levy Economics Institute.
In layman’s terms, the NAIRU is the rate of unemployment theoretically consistent with stable inflation. And regarding what this means, Tulip states, page 2:
So I think I understood the study, and NAIRU, pretty well. As far as I know, there have been no serious rebuttals to Tulip’s study.
FWIW I agree the issue of min. wages is far from clear, but it seems likely to me that low min. wages do not affect unemployment very much, but that high min. wages would. None of which is strictly relevant to the discussion regarding healthcare. No one has yet shown that businesses would just be able to “pass on” these costs to their customers. I guess it would be difficult to show that empirically, but that’s hardly my fault. Since no one can come up with anything on this, you’ll just have to rely on my view, from being in this market daily, that it would not be easy to do this in my business anyway. Argument from authority, I know. Bite me.
As for whether I may admit to myself that my own arguments were not good, I can only respond that you should look at your own arguments. They have consisted of little but: assertion; hand-waving; argument from analogy; logical fallacies. I realize economics is not a precise science, and data is conflicted and confusing. Which is why I find your apparent claim that the literature on min. wages is clear, to be rather strange. At least I have drawn to your attention a couple of studies that you probably hadn’t seen before, that I think conflict with your view. I hope you will look at them again.
Conclusion
I wrote this article mainly in response to Ammiano’s ridiculous piece of rationalization:
I don’t know if Ammiano really believes this, although it’s clearly not the reason for the bill. But as a business owner I find this kind of trite blather offensive from an elected representative. Clearly health insurance does help retain good staff, which is why my company now offers it after a qualifying period. But equally clearly, business owners are the best ones to make the decision as to whether and when this is true for them. Which is why I asked my question:
No one has been able to answer that. So if someone can, please post the answer below. Otherwise I suggest my point is made and this topic has run its course.
Posted by: Skeptico | November 27, 2005 at 10:44 PM
I already gave an answer, Skeptico.
Universal healthcare means better productivity for everyone - even factoring in the costs.
But if any individual organization offers healthcare, they take the costs and do not get the benefits reaped from a healthier society - including workers able to make a more regular income, and thus spend more of their money on useful things.
Posted by: Sotek | November 27, 2005 at 10:54 PM
Sorry, that's not an answer to the question. In fact your last paragraph doesn’t even make sense.
Perhaps you’re having trouble with the question. I’ll try asking it a different way:
If offering healthcare meant higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace, all companies would have done it already. So why haven’t they?
Posted by: Skeptico | November 27, 2005 at 11:02 PM
Skeptico, if you read the whole abstract carefully, you wouldn't say "most certainly is", because the next thing Sawyer does is talk about alternative models with different interpretations and more inputs than that simple model, inputs such as aggregate demand. For example, "The adjustment of aggregate demand can take place through a variety of routes, such as the real balance effect and fiscal stance used to avoid accelerating inflation." So we do not have the simple cause/effect relationship you're looking for, nor do we have unquestionable models.
As for your repeated question If offering healthcare meant higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace, all companies would have done it already. So why haven’t they?, it is strangely reminiscent of the bigot's question about how if non-discriminatory hiring meant higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace, all companies would have done it already. So why haven’t they? Please explain to me if that argument is significantly different than yours.
Posted by: Mike Huben | November 28, 2005 at 02:24 PM
Re: Skeptico, if you read the whole abstract carefully, you wouldn't say "most certainly is", because the next thing Sawyer does is talk about alternative models with different interpretations and more inputs than that simple model, inputs such as aggregate demand. For example, "The adjustment of aggregate demand can take place through a variety of routes, such as the real balance effect and fiscal stance used to avoid accelerating inflation." So we do not have the simple cause/effect relationship you're looking for, nor do we have unquestionable models.
You love to redefine the argument when you’ve lost it, don’t you. I referred to NAIRU as the equilibrium rate of unemployment - a perfectly normal colloquial phrase. You made a big deal about how I clearly didn’t know what I was talking about with your arrogant little:
Well it is. I show that this is a reasonable phrase to describe the NAIRU and then you slither over to “cause/effect relationships”, as though that was the thing I have just proven you to be so stupidly and arrogantly wrong about. It was not. Get over it. You were wrong.
Re: As for your repeated question If offering healthcare meant higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace, all companies would have done it already. So why haven’t they?, it is strangely reminiscent of the bigot's question about how if non-discriminatory hiring meant higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace, all companies would have done it already. So why haven’t they? Please explain to me if that argument is significantly different than yours.
It’s different because the reason for non-discriminatory hiring was not higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace, it was social justice. Nice of you to play the race card though.
You’re beginning to be a real prick. I’m actually tired of your crap now – answer my actual damn question or don’t post here again. Any more crap like the last post and I’ll summarily delete it.
Posted by: Skeptico | November 28, 2005 at 02:59 PM
Wow, I've lost a lot of respect for Skeptico. Throughout this whole debate, Skeptico is the one who has been arrogant and dismissive and full of cheap shots. I thought Mike Huben has been even-handed and rather polite, the way one should be in a civilised debate. I wish you had never brought this political debate onto your blog, as entertaining as it has been for the most part.
Posted by: GRW | November 28, 2005 at 08:40 PM
Wow, I've lost a lot of respect for GRW. Either GRW hasn’t been paying attention to what has been debated, or he’s letting his own political views cloud his judgment. He certainly couldn’t have read our last two posts and understood them. Either way, I will not stand for the dishonest techniques used by Mike Huben in his last post.
GRW, if you don’t like this thread don’t read it. No one’s forcing you. But this is my blog, and I will post about and debate whatever the hell I want to, not only the subjects that GRW thinks I should stick to.
If anyone wants to answer the rhetorical question I asked, please do so. Any other comments from anyone will be ruled off-topic and will be deleted.
Posted by: Skeptico | November 28, 2005 at 10:47 PM
Yes, you're right, Skeptico. I think I let my political beliefs cloud my judgment. I don't really know much about the topic and don't have a strong opinion on the matter. I just thought it had little to do with classic skepticism -- but I admit I was fascinated reading it, like looking at a car crash. But I don't think my political beliefs clouded my opinion that Skeptico didn't handle himself with as much class as usual and that your main opponent did. When trying to change minds, it's better to take the high road, I think. Anyway, glad it's all over with -- for now!
Posted by: GRW | November 29, 2005 at 11:35 PM
Well, before Skeptico goes and hurts himself congratulating himself, we can all read this one: Differences between the Natural Rate of Unemployment and the NAIRU. (Natural Rate of Unemployment = the equilibrium level of unemployment.) But before I injure myself likewise, I must note that this really isn't an important point: I think in retrospect that Skeptico interpreted the Tulip article more correctly than I did.
But looking back, I've realized that Skeptico emploed a shifting middle term that I hadn't noticed. I said "NAIRU is >>>NOT<<< unemployment". Then Skeptico started talking about "equilibrium rate of unemployment", quoting the study. I was talking about unemployment: the EMPIRICAL measure. NAIRU is a theoretic quantity which is very difficult to determine accurately from the real world. Skeptico says I referred to NAIRU as the equilibrium rate of unemployment - a perfectly normal colloquial phrase. But it's not colloquial like an unemployment rate from the government: it is a term of art for economists, for an abstract theoretic quantity that is generally not measured, and certainly isn't common parlance among the unwashed, such as myself.
Now which interpretation is to be preferred in our political thinking? Measured empirical rates? Or controversial theoretic entities? As I said before, many people choose based on ideology. For example, many people make microeconomic or "rational choice" arguments based on theory that sounds plausible. Until you realize that there are some really gross real-world problems with these theories, usually based on real-world violations of their assumptions. For example, stagflation in the 70s and high employment in the 90s make me question the relationship of NAIRU to the real-world employment we care about.
That's why I would stick with the many studies that show no significant change in unemployment when the minimum wage is raised. And why I wouldn't worry much about health care costs effectively raising the minimum wage.
It’s different because the reason for non-discriminatory hiring was not higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace, it was social justice.
And healthcare and liveable minimum wage for the lowest earners aren't social justice? The education I'm getting here! But of course advocates of non-discriminatory hiring were pointing out that it would result in higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace, because you could hire a more qualified person to fill the job of a less-qualified preferred group. Now, perhaps Skeptico wants to trot out some study that shows this hasn't come to pass. Probably it also has increased the NAIRU. :-)
Oh, and is that "the race card"? Could be. Or could be the gender card. Doesn't matter. What matters is that the situation is analogous. There was a prisoner's dilemma involved in being the only one to open up hiring and promotion: everybody opposed to equal treatment discriminated against you. Same would happen for businesses: the ones needing the most expensive medical plans would flock to you, giving you particularly expensive medical plans. That's why deductable medical expenses were instututed: to allow the middle class access to group medical care, which greatly reduces the adverse self-selection by the sickly.
There, does that answer your rhetorical question?
Posted by: Mike Huben | December 01, 2005 at 03:39 PM
Mike Huben:
First, let me remind you why we even started this discussion about the minimum wage. I originally asked a different commentator:
You replied
Unfortunately:
1) You failed to show this “voluminous literature” exists, and
2) Even if you had, this still would not demonstrate that “everyone in the market raises their costs”.
Either one of these points by itself would mean you have failed to answer the question.
1) Voluminous literature?
Hardly. You mentioned one study from Card & Krueger. I explained how Thomas Michl had exposed errors in this study – errors that explained how they could get the result they did although the effect of the increased wage on the demand for labor is exactly as predicted by standard economic theory. You haven’t explained what is wrong with Michl (or Tulip for that matter).
In support of your “voluminous literature” claim you cited only Evidence from Recent State Labor Market Trends - which is a simplistic comparison of states’ minimum wages with their unemployment rates (although it also talks about C&G. Think about that: this is the one and only study that is always brought up by people who claim minimum wages don’t raise unemployment. Why no others after all this time?) Of course, you ignored the discussion of several studies and the issues I posted, on the ridiculous basis that the authors were biased, as though a biased author means the data are actually wrong! (Although suppose I should thank you for the opportunity to demonstrate a little critical thinking, namely that you shouldn’t rely on the ad hominem fallacy.)
You are saying that increasing the price (of labor) does not decrease the demand for it – an extraordinary claim you have not even come close to supporting. Of course demand is reduced. This manifests in elimination of jobs as employers automate, send jobs abroad, or go out of business. Admittedly, small increases in the minimum wage will have small effects – possibly too small to measure ceteris paribus (which is why those comparisons of states’ minimum wages you linked are meaningless). But you haven’t demonstrated they are not there, which was your claim.
2) Everyone in the market raises their costs
Even if minimum wages do not reduce employment, this still would not mean that all costs would be passed on to customers. Many employers would instead reduce wages to compensate (or put-off wage increases, or hire at reduced rates), and/or would reduce their profits. Consequently, the whole minimum wage discussion is moot to the question.
The claim “everyone in the market raises their costs” was trite, and has not been backed up. (I recognize this wasn’t your claim originally, but you did choose to support it.)
Re: in reply to” It’s different because the reason for non-discriminatory hiring was not higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace, it was social justice.”, you wrote:
And healthcare and liveable minimum wage for the lowest earners aren't social justice?
False analogy again. By social justice I clearly meant no group (eg race) should be discriminated against. You are taking it to mean minimum standards should be applied. (In fact, I’m not sure that isn’t equivocation too.) It would have been a correct analogy if the proposed law was to prevent healthcare being offered only to white workers – but we are not talking about this
Re: Oh, and is that "the race card"? Could be. Or could be the gender card. Doesn't matter. What matters is that the situation is analogous.
Yes it could apply to gender too, I didn’t think of that until later. Still, the situation is not analogous. Some companies had to be forced to implement non-discriminatory hiring because they were racists (or sexists or whatever). Those were the reasons companies didn’t introduce the non-discriminatory policies. You have not provided an equivalent reason for a law to force employers to offer healthcare. One group of people (race, gender etc) is NOT being discriminated against when some companies do not offer healthcare.
As an aside, you rely too much on reasoning by analogy. Analogies can be useful to help explain complex issues, or to get people to think rationally about things they have irrational views about. But analogy is rarely a reliable method to arrive at a conclusion because the analogy often fails. Reasoning by logic, evidence and facts is more robust.
Re: There was a prisoner's dilemma involved in being the only one to open up hiring and promotion: everybody opposed to equal treatment discriminated against you.
Your analogy is wrong again for two reasons, either of which by itself is good enough to break the analogy:
(1)Most companies already do offer healthcare, so this version of the prisoner’s dilemma doesn’t apply, and
(2)The fact that most companies do offer healthcare shows the prisoner’s dilemma didn’t apply in the past either – if it did no company would have been the first to offer health care and so none would offer it now.
Re: Same would happen for businesses: the ones needing the most expensive medical plans would flock to you, giving you particularly expensive medical plans.
Again, you are wrong here for several reasons: (1)It’s pure speculation on your part, (2)Company health plans don’t work like that, (3) companies can manage this effect anyway.
Prisoner’s Dilemma
As I said before, the real version of the prisoner’s dilemma, if Ammiano is right, is:
If insuring my employees means “higher productivity” (etc) for me, I will insure my employees if I think my competitors:
(1) WILL insure theirs – just to stay competitive
(2) WILL NOT insure theirs – to get ahead.
There is no situation where I would not insure my employees, IF insuring them “means higher productivity and doing better in the marketplace” for me.
The Answer
I’ll answer my own question, since no one else has been able to. The answer to “why do we need legislation to force companies to implement it?”, can only be that Ammiano knows more about running the various businesses in SF than the owners of those businesses. I suggest therefore that Ammiano gives up his political job – he clearly has a lucrative career awaiting him in business consulting.
It should be obvious to everyone that the people running the businesses – the people who have their own money on the line – are in a better position to judge what will deliver higher productivity etc, than a career politician with no money in the game at all. Ammiano’s comment was just a trite rationalization that shows he really has no concept of what it means to run a business. If you recall, that was my point.
Posted by: Skeptico | December 04, 2005 at 09:04 PM
"One group of people (race, gender etc) is NOT being discriminated against when some companies do not offer healthcare."
Couldn't it be argued that the group being discriminated against is the poor?
"Ammiano knows more about running the various businesses in SF than the owners of those businesses. I suggest therefore that Ammiano gives up his political job"
A politician has to look out for more than one group in society. He has to have everyone's interests in mind when implementing policy and the overall good of everyone, not just business owners.
PS How do you get the quotes in bold?
Posted by: GRW | December 05, 2005 at 02:40 PM
GRW:
Re: Couldn't it be argued that the group being discriminated against is the poor?
No. The poor are getting the same healthcare / lack of healthcare as anyone else working for a given company. Company health policies require you to offer it to everyone, not just the higher paid employees – discrimination is not allowed.
Re: A politician has to look out for more than one group in society. He has to have everyone's interests in mind when implementing policy and the overall good of everyone, not just business owners.
Yes, but Ammiano wasn’t talking about his job; he was making a claim about how businesses would benefit if they did their job differently. If he just said “I am doing this for the benefit of the low paid” (or whatever), you would have a point. What he said was “Businesses that offer health care for their workers have higher productivity, and do better in the marketplace”. Surely you see the difference?
Re: PS How do you get the quotes in bold?
If you type the following
But replace the square brackets "[ ]" with diagonal brackets "< >", you will get:
It also works the same using “I” for italics, and “blockquote” to indent the paragraph. Remember to type the “/” to end the formatted piece, and make sure you don’t leave any spaces. It should work.
Posted by: Skeptico | December 05, 2005 at 08:28 PM
Skeptico:
Looking at the argument: 'I run a business and therefore have better judgement than someone who does not' is similar to the argument 'I have disease X and therefore know more about it than someone who does not' commonly found as an alt-med defense. It's called the 'Argument From Arcane Knowledge', or 'Argument from Personal Testimony', neither of which should be used by a good skeptic.
In the case of business, business have consistently opposed rest break laws, limits on working hours, limits on child labour, minimum wages, pollution controls etc, etc. In many cases the introduction of such laws has actually increased productivity and led to business making mnore money - yet those laws were certainly NOT voluntarialy introduced, and the claim 'we would be doing this already' is simply a red herring.
My personal experience is that small businesses especially will often focus on saving minor amounts of cash even at quite drastic costs in productivity, simply because cash in the bank can be measured. And losses due to staff sickness, low morale, exhaustion et. al. are far easier to blame on the staff themselves than on lack of healthcare, excessive hours or poor pay - even where these things would cost less. You need quite extensive comparative studies to determine these things, not just the say-so of a small business owner.
Posted by: AndyD | December 06, 2005 at 06:21 AM
'I run a business and therefore have better judgement than someone who does not'
I wanted to stay away from this one since I'd be tempted to bust out the anecdotes and arguments from authority too (I'm an insurance marketing director). But I don't believe that the above is what Skeptico's argument is. I believe (f*ck all, I'm damn sure) his argument is this:
He adds his opinion and experiences to his argument, but the question remains...and no one has answered...
Posted by: Rockstar Ryan | December 06, 2005 at 07:05 AM
AndyD
Re: Looking at the argument: 'I run a business and therefore have better judgement than someone who does not' is similar to the argument 'I have disease X and therefore know more about it than someone who does not' commonly found as an alt-med defense.
False analogy. The sick alt.med believer does not have access to or ignores the scientific data (double-blind studies, other scientific papers) that doctors and medical scientists have read. For your analogy to work, Ammiano would have to be relying on published scientific data that the business owners are ignoring. Can you show me he is doing this? Of course you can’t: Ammiano has no such information, it was just a piece of trite rationalization on his part.
A “good skeptic” should be able to spot errors in analogies, btw.
As an aside, is ANYONE capable of debating this subject without argument from analogy?
Re: In the case of business, business have consistently opposed rest break laws, limits on working hours, limits on child labour, minimum wages, pollution controls etc, etc. In many cases the introduction of such laws has actually increased productivity and led to business making mnore money
Evidence please that each of the following:
• rest break laws,
• limits on working hours,
• limits on child labour,
• minimum wages,
• pollution controls
…was both consistently opposed by business owners and yet has increased productivity.
Re: My personal experience is that …
Ooh, this wouldn’t be the start of an Argument from Personal Testimony, that should not be used by a good skeptic, is it? Nah, couldn’t be.
Re: small businesses especially will often focus on saving minor amounts of cash even at quite drastic costs in productivity, simply because cash in the bank can be measured. And losses due to staff sickness, low morale, exhaustion et. al. are far easier to blame on the staff themselves than on lack of healthcare, excessive hours or poor pay - even where these things would cost less. You need quite extensive comparative studies to determine these things, not just the say-so of a small business owner.
You need quite extensive comparative studies to determine these things, not just the say-so of a politician.
Posted by: Skeptico | December 06, 2005 at 09:32 AM