Raise the Minimum Wage

I tend to agree with you normally shitheaded liberals on this idea, raising the minimum wage. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Good for you, even a broken clock gets something right twice a day.

Every time a Liberal starts on the "raise the minimum wage" rant, I ask.. if raising it to $15/hr is good.. wouldn't it be better to just demand that EVERYONE who has a job be paid $250,000 a year? That would solve all the problems, right?

Actually had a few of the liberal economic illiterates agree that such would be an even better idea. Originally Posted by RedLeg505

Studies on cities, states and some countries that have done it have shown it often helps rather than hurts economies (done in a reasonable vs. idiotic manner). No, paying everyone $250K wouldn't solve everything, but what do you expect when you bring this up with "economic illiterates" (your words)? Try having a discussion with an economic literate or are you afraid of getting shown up for the economic illiterate you are?

Try having a discussion with an economic literate or are you afraid of getting shown up for the economic illiterate you are? Originally Posted by austxjr

Ok, show us what an economic expert YOU are. Tell us how raising the minimum wage and INCREASING the number of people put out of work so that the fewer of the people working are paid slightly more makes economic sense.

I'll be fascinated to hear this one. Go ahead, and provide links please. This should be good. Just be aware that every one of your links that I suspect you'll trot out (as I've had this discussion many times over the past 3 decades), can be refuted by counter arguments/links/experts. It all boils down to whose experts you want to rely on.

So.. show me up for the economic "illiterate" you think I am, I'll be amused to read your attempts.

Ok, show us what an economic expert YOU are. Tell us how raising the minimum wage and INCREASING the number of people put out of work so that the fewer of the people working are paid slightly more makes economic sense.

I'll be fascinated to hear this one. Go ahead, and provide links please. This should be good. Just be aware that every one of your links that I suspect you'll trot out (as I've had this discussion many times over the past 3 decades), can be refuted by counter arguments/links/experts. It all boils down to whose experts you want to rely on.

So.. show me up for the economic "illiterate" you think I am, I'll be amused to read your attempts. Originally Posted by RedLeg505

ok red, be fascinated,,,, the EPI , better known as experts,

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib341...-minimum-wage/

Success! A righty calls for facts and data. All I could ever ask.

Thanks

So.. show me up for the economic "illiterate" you think I am, I'll be amused to read your attempts. Originally Posted by RedLeg505

Never claimed to be an economic expert, but at least I'm not pathetic enough to equate a raise in the minimum wage to paying everybody $250,000. That is just stupid. It's like saying football players in pre-season training don't need no water and if they do we should force them to drink 100 gallons rather than giving them a quart or two.

Another tidbit - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...imum-wage.html

"As a 1995 paper in the Journal of Economics Literature put it, “There is a long history of empirical studies attempting to pin down the effects of minimum wages, with limited success.” No one found significant employment losses when President Truman raised the minimum wage by 87% in 1950. When Congress raised the minimum wage by 28% in two steps in 1967, businesses predicted large employment losses and price increases. As the Wall Street Journal reported six months later, “Employment and prices show little effect from $1.40-an-hour guarantee.” Empirical studies even before Card and Krueger’s landmark New Jersey study found no increase in the unemployment rate for teens and young adults from a 10% rise in the minimum wage, while it was clear that higher wages were bringing housewives into the workforce."

More to come when you tell us why CJ7s and my links are so wrong in your opinion. Even the WSJ admitted that the 1967 raise had little to no effect. In any case, wages have not nearly kept up with the rise in productivity so it seems pretty clear that sharing some of the productivity gains with those who are being productive might not be bad public policy, but might be good business strategy for the long run as well.

Bottom line in what I believe from what I've read and experienced in four decades in business is that neo-classical wage theory is far too simplistic and does not explain very well the real world effects of minimum wage policy on employment and spending (a trade off effect that is mainly said to affect teenage and younger workers in low skill industries) so while we should be careful with minimum wage policy, it may be high time and worth a try. This paper and study also seems to support that approach.

http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/stude...ova%202009.pdf

I think red took his ball and went back to the closet .... experts that like to argue do that

It is pretty fuckng obvious that none of you liberals have ever owned or run a business.

It is pretty fuckng obvious that none of you liberals have ever owned or run a business. Originally Posted by rodog44

LMAO ... if you only knew

Where does the money come from to pay the minimum wage? It comes from an employer who took a chance and started a business. Don't talk to me about Starbucks or McDonalds. Most people are employed by a small business. When you start a business you are putting your money, your life, and your sweat into it to make it a success. If you have people milling around outside your door looking for work and they are willing to work for $9 an hour where does it become the governments business what the owner pays. When someone starts working for minimum wage it is assumed that they have little if any job skills. They need to be trained and acquire experience. If an employer believes that a trained, proven employee is still only entitled to $9 an hours is going to spend a lot of time training people instead of working on the business. It is so much smarter and productive to pay a hard working, trained employee $11, 13, or $15 an hour to keep them. Where is government there? If there is no one milling around outside and you need a someone to pick up boxes and sweep up you may have to part with $10 an hour just to get someone inside the door. If there are opportunities down the street and they are a good worker then they have the right to ask for more money....and the owner has the right to say that they would rather look for someone else and train them to lose them later on.
Do you think Bill Gates got to where he is by paying a little more than minimum wage? Gates created thousands of millionaires by paying people what they were worth to him. Any owner who tries to do it on the cheap will not prosper and will always struggle to find good people. An owner who passes his success on to his people will be a success...if the government will get out of the way.

I just have to assume that no one here is a small business owner. Like CJ you can tell us of how you financially raped your employees with your greed.

It is pretty fuckng obvious that none of you liberals have ever owned or run a business. Originally Posted by rodog44

Its hard to take economic advise from a party that has a leader who believes that every dollar given in food stamps returns a 1.79$ in economic spending. Not to mention a Pres who thinks its ok to have an almost 17 trillion $ debt with no need to cut spending.

8$ an hr jobs were never ment to provide a living wage they are for high school kids first jobs. These jobs were to learn the value of having a job and some spending money on the weekends. During the Bush yrs the dems didn't even want to count a job flipping burgers in the employment #'s, saying they weren't real jobs. With this Pres they are highly valued jobs that should pay 18$'s an hr.

Success! A righty calls for facts and data. All I could ever ask.

Thanks



Never claimed to be an economic expert, but at least I'm not pathetic enough to equate a raise in the minimum wage to paying everybody $250,000. That is just stupid. It's like saying football players in pre-season training don't need no water and if they do we should force them to drink 100 gallons rather than giving them a quart or two.

Another tidbit - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...imum-wage.html

"As a 1995 paper in the Journal of Economics Literature put it, “There is a long history of empirical studies attempting to pin down the effects of minimum wages, with limited success.” No one found significant employment losses when President Truman raised the minimum wage by 87% in 1950. When Congress raised the minimum wage by 28% in two steps in 1967, businesses predicted large employment losses and price increases. As the Wall Street Journal reported six months later, “Employment and prices show little effect from $1.40-an-hour guarantee.” Empirical studies even before Card and Krueger’s landmark New Jersey study found no increase in the unemployment rate for teens and young adults from a 10% rise in the minimum wage, while it was clear that higher wages were bringing housewives into the workforce."

More to come when you tell us why CJ7s and my links are so wrong in your opinion. Even the WSJ admitted that the 1967 raise had little to no effect. In any case, wages have not nearly kept up with the rise in productivity so it seems pretty clear that sharing some of the productivity gains with those who are being productive might not be bad public policy, but might be good business strategy for the long run as well.

Bottom line in what I believe from what I've read and experienced in four decades in business is that neo-classical wage theory is far too simplistic and does not explain very well the real world effects of minimum wage policy on employment and spending (a trade off effect that is mainly said to affect teenage and younger workers in low skill industries) so while we should be careful with minimum wage policy, it may be high time and worth a try. This paper and study also seems to support that approach.

http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/stude...ova%202009.pdf Originally Posted by austxjr

As I've said, I've done this debate many times before. For every pro raise you offer, I can offer a counter citation:

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/...imum-wage-laws

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/...m-wage/?iid=EL If raising the minimum wage is GOOD economically, then why is California with an $8.00 minimum wage not doing better with a lower unemployment rate than Texas with $7.25?

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/12/news...age/index.html
From the CNN article "The last time lawmakers approved such a bill was in 2007, when they agreed to a three-step increase from $5.15 per hour to the current rate of $7.25 by July 2009." Care to guess what ELSE happened from 2007 when the bill was passed until 2009? Hmmmm? What happened to unemployment during that time? Not any of that was due to the increase in minimum wage? Where's your proof?

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...g-minimum-wage
A quote from the above, citing Christina Romer, President Obama's previous Chairwoman on his Council of Economic Advisors "wrote last week that the economics of the minimum wage are complicated and the potential economic results are far from obvious. She also said that there are better ways of achieving more targeted relief for the working poor and better ways to have policy that is an incentive for businesses to create jobs."

Shall I continue?

I think red took his ball and went back to the closet .... experts that like to argue do that Originally Posted by CJ7

ROFL.. sorry CJ, but unlike some, I actually have stuff to do which takes me away from here for many hours a day.

Speaking of closets.. are you FOR or AGAINST more transgender/gender identity problem children like Bradley/Chelsea Manning being enlisted in the military?

ok red, be fascinated,,,, the EPI , better known as experts,

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib341...-minimum-wage/ Originally Posted by CJ7

CJ, just out of curiousity.. if raising the minimum wage to $10.10 is "good" but raising it to $250,000 a year is bad.. what is the number in between right at where the raise in minimum wage stops being good and become bad?

$249,000?
$30/hr?

Where? Since of course, raising it endlessly as you and austxjr have already admitted with my silly $250,000 a year suggestion is not a good idea.

Tell us, oh great and wise economic experts. where is the cut off point? And why all this inching forward? Why not just slam the rate up to that cut off point and be done?

I give to you the great liberal newspaper, the Kansas City Star. In 2006 they campaigned for an increase in the minimum wage. They got out the vote with numerous opinion pieces and interviews about how good increasing the MW would be. Their efforts got enough low information voters to elect democrat Claire McCaskill by .2 % of the vote and she still sits in office promoting first a community organizer from Chicago and now a failed Secretary of State from Chicago. Funny thing happened after the election. The Star ran three front page articles within a week of the election predicting how jobs would be lost because of the MW increase. I called one reporter in question (because that is what I do, get the real story) and asked about the sudden change of heart. He told me that he had written the story three weeks earlier but the editor didn't want to print it until after the election.

http://www.epionline.org/wp-content/...rief_final.pdf

Simple fact, increasing minimum wages increases prices for goods and services; hence, the anecdote regarding the "carrot on a stick" applies. Regardless of how many steps (minimum wage increases) are taken towards the desired goal, the net result is that the goal is kept beyond reach by those very same steps.