12 of 13 states that raised minimum wage have almost 50% better job growth than

[Newell Steamer]

Wrong about ACA.

Wrong about min wage.

Wrong about trickle down economics.

You guys sure you want the GOP leading this nation?? They can't seem to get anything righ,.. I mean correct.

 

[rudder]

Wrong about ACA.

Wrong about min wage.

Wrong about trickle down economics.

You guys sure you want the GOP leading this nation?? They can't seem to get anything righ,.. I mean correct.

You sure we want democrats who are voted in by people such as yourself running the country? When I say people such as yourself I am referring to people who are easily manipulated by media.

 

[Matt1970]

Wrong about ACA.

Wrong about min wage.

Wrong about trickle down economics.

You guys sure you want the GOP leading this nation?? They can't seem to get anything righ,.. I mean correct.

I must have went to an alternate universe where the ACA didn't kick millions off their insurance and actually saved the $2500/year.

 

[senseamp]

So we are going to start taking money from people if we think they aren't spending it properly and give it to those we think are. Never mind that the people you "think" will be spending it more wisely will more than likely be spending it at places that Made In America products are nearly impossible to find. But hey, the death of people who think like me are a gift to people like you amirite?

If you want to maximize the size of the economy, yes. Money concentrated at the hands of people who already have everything they want is only going to drive up prices of assets these people own, not create economic growth. You can peddle your trickle down nonsense all day long, it's still not going to work.

 

[Fern]

Of course they would take less pay/profit, depending on the nature of the business and how their wages currently compare to other food establishments, etc.

ie: if you pay all your workers minimum wage and the guy next door doesn't, you have to increase prices to maintain your profit margins while your neighbor doesn't. Econ 101 tells us that assuming you had priced out everything correctly before that you will either lose business as your prices lose competitiveness or will lose profits.

I'm consistently baffled that people believe the rich and corporations are these untaxable, unregulateable super actors.

Seriously?

Like the mom-n-pop franchisees of fast food stores and other independent restaurants are uber wealthy and can't spend all the money they make?

Those people aren't in Warren Buffet's league or that of CEO's etc of large corporations.

Fern

 

[Anarchist420]

glenn and werepossum got it right.

 

[BUnit1701]

No.

All research starts from a position of being unable to reject the null hypothesis, which is "the independent variable had no effect on the dependent variable". If you are going to make a claim that minimum wage laws negatively affect employment, then you need to find sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. You're right that these two events could be independent of each other. That's in fact precisely what the null hypothesis is! (and would be what my previous posts were describing)

No one is saying that this observation is equal to a robust analysis of the employment effects of minimum wage laws, but if states that are raising the minimum wage are having better job growth than states that aren't it is unlikely that such evidence would lead you to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that minimum wage laws decrease employment from this evidence. Feel free to conduct additional analysis on this data if you wish. In addition, this result is broadly in line with a good portion of the academic literature on minimum wage and unemployment.

TL : DR - the burden is on those who wish to show a negative causal effect. This evidence does not appear to support that.

An equal burden would exist for those wishing to show a positive causal relationship...

 

[glenn1]

Sure. As I said, I think the overall picture shows that increasing the minimum wage has a modest negative impact on employment, particularly in certain demographic areas. Overall I think it is worth it as the increase in purchasing power for others is more than enough to offset it, but to each their own.

While I appreciate you acknowledging the impact to the least skilled, what exactly would you do with those who are priced out of the labor market? Just let them be on government assistance the rest of their lives? Would the individual, country, and economy be better or worse if the ex-felon with a low IQ were allowed to work for an employer doing makework at $5/hour vs. mandating he be paid $10/hour and being completely unemployable?

 

[glenn1]

An equal burden would exist for those wishing to show a positive causal relationship...

IMHO it's fair to say this "study" is nowhere near robust enough in its methodology to determine any relationships, causal or otherwise. Which is a shame because with some analysis and rigor applied it might have done a good job demonstrating its main conclusion.

 

[Matt1970]

If you want to maximize the size of the economy, yes. Money concentrated at the hands of people who already have everything they want is only going to drive up prices of assets these people own, not create economic growth. You can peddle your trickle down nonsense all day long, it's still not going to work.

So the more money they have, the more they will raise prices. Makes perfect sense to me. We need to tax the shit out of the rich to keep the money out of the hands that don't deserve it. That way the poor can go spend it at Walmart and it goes right back into the hands of those you so desperately wanted to keep it out of. Do you even think about what you propose or are you just echoing the cries from the left cause it sounds good on paper?

 

[Engineer]

So the more money they have, the more they will raise prices. Makes perfect sense to me. We need to tax the shit out of the rich to keep the money out of the hands that don't deserve it. That way the poor can go spend it at Walmart and it goes right back into the hands of those you so desperately wanted to keep it out of. Do you even think about what you propose or are you just echoing the cries from the left cause it sounds good on paper?

It's not about deserving, it's about cash flow. If the US doesn't have cash flow (call it trickle down, trickle up, welfare, whatever), the economy dries up, period.*

*I'm not advocating any policy, just simply stating that a consumer economy that has a falling consumer is bound to eventually fail. It becomes a vicious cycle.

 

[Matt1970]

It's not about deserving, it's about cash flow. If the US doesn't have cash flow (call it trickle down, trickle up, welfare, whatever), the economy dries up, period.*

*I'm not advocating any policy, just simply stating that a consumer economy that has a falling consumer is bound to eventually fail. It becomes a vicious cycle.

A temporary redistribution of wealth without fixing some of the flaws in our system fixes nothing. It just looks good around election time. The money ends up right back in the hands of those you tried to keep it out of or it goes overseas.

 

[glenn1]

It's not about deserving, it's about cash flow. If the US doesn't have cash flow (call it trickle down, trickle up, welfare, whatever), the economy dries up, period.*

*I'm not advocating any policy, just simply stating that a consumer economy that has a falling consumer is bound to eventually fail. It becomes a vicious cycle.

So to you it would be better if we took money from people saving to buy a house or send their kids to college, and gave it to homeless people who would spend it immediately on hookers and blow. Because that would improve our "cash flow" cycle.

 

[Engineer]

A temporary redistribution of wealth without fixing some of the flaws in our system fixes nothing. It just looks good around election time. The money ends up right back in the hands of those you tried to keep it out of or it goes overseas.

Who says it will be temporary?

Politics or pitchforks....choose your weapon.

 

[dank69]

So to you it would be better if we took money from people saving to buy a house or send their kids to college, and gave it to homeless people who would spend it immediately on hookers and blow. Because that would improve our "cash flow" cycle.

Billionaires are saving up to buy houses?

 

[glenn1]

Billionaires are saving up to buy houses?

I don't care if it's billionaires or hundredaires, the question remains as some people will have legitimate reasons to save money rather than instantly consume with every dollar they make. Do we want to effectively prohibit them from being able to save, whether the means is by confiscation, taxation, or making savings provide negative real returns?

 

[sandorski]

So to you it would be better if we took money from people saving to buy a house or send their kids to college, and gave it to homeless people who would spend it immediately on hookers and blow. Because that would improve our "cash flow" cycle.

Yup, hopefully the fuckers will starve to death...

Reductio ad absurdum

 

[glenn1]

Yup, hopefully the fuckers will starve to death...

Reductio ad absurdum

No, please illustrate how the principle breaks down. If the economy is better with less savings and more "cash flow" then why would it make a difference who spends the money?

 

[werepossum]

There have been studies by adjoining states that proves if one state raised their minimum wage it didn't cause job losses.

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

Meh. There is literally no way to do an accurate study on such a subject as it is immensely complicated and by its nature inherently without a control group - an adjoining state never has the same economic factors. The most one could conclude is that such a move increased or decreased other aggregate pressures on the number of jobs, which is why I suspect that all such studies find what they set to find. That said, I agree that modest raises in minimum wage have little to no effect on overall employment; I just disagree that it can be robustly proven one way or another.

Billionaires are saving up to buy houses?

While I disagree with Fern on what the uber wealthy will accept at the moment, let's not lose sight of the fact that very, very few minimum wage jobs directly flow from the uber wealthy whose income flows at best from franchises and stocks. Franchise fees don't typically vary with profitability except for major hits and won't disappear unless the franchise loses a significant amount of business and goes tits up, and major stocks may actually become more profitable as franchises out-compete Mom and Pop competitors in this new more expensive labor market. The vast majority of people affected by this will be the little guys, small businesses, and they may or may not be affected adversely. If all their competitors increase prices to accommodate the wage increase, then they too can raise prices and preserve their profit margin. If some competitors absorb the increase, then those who do not or cannot absorb the increase will be hurt in the aggregate, although each business' perceived value in the marketplace will determine whether they can pass along the increase without being harmed.

It's important as well to keep in perspective the actual magnitude of the cost increase to the consumer. A decade or two ago I read a market study on how much it costs a theater to put a large Coke in your hands. The cost at that time was 6 cents, 5 cents of which was the cup. That extra penny covered everything else - syrup, CO2, plastic top, straw, AND labor. That equation is no doubt obsolete and of course varies wildly according to the product and market, but it's worth keeping in mind that even a huge increase in minimum wage may result in only a small increase to the consumer.

It's also worth pointing out that in the current labor market, employers can get a better grade of employee for minimum wage than eight years ago. That helps remove some of the sting here as smart employers generally prefer a good employee at $12 to a bad employee at $10.

 

[Matt1970]

Who says it will be temporary?

Politics or pitchforks....choose your weapon.

Because you will eventually run out of people to take the money from.

 

[Engineer]

Because you will eventually run out of people to take the money from.

No you won't....well, unless you're talking about middle class.....running out of money already in progress.

It's either jobs that pay ore redistribution of some sort (or the pitchfork). I would rather have the jobs but too damn many people (even here) think it's crazy to try to bring jobs here, even knowing what's down the road if they don't.

*shrugs*....

 

[row]

The end of slavery actually improved the economy... somehow, the right wind seems to forget that

since the "right" was responsible for ending slavery and promoting civil rights i'd hazard to guess they'd be pretty happy about it. progressives on the other hand have done everything in their considerable power to make sure "blackie" stays on the plantation.

what proof could i offer to make such a claim? how about history, which liberals seem to know so little about.

------------------------------------

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it

August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”

September 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud
segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

---------------------------------

"In 2010, Democrats gave their website a facelift and whitewash.

Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.

On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

This is the kind of BS spewed by Democrats on a daily basis, and unfortunately the media and other so-called watchdogs are so apparently ignorant of American history, Democrats continue to LIE through their teeth to their constituents, and via academia, to our kids. Despite the truth being out there for years, it’s probably not going to explode until some big shot news anchor gives us an “explosive expose” bringing us all those facts first, so he/she can proudly receive a Pulitzer…

While I have only scratched the surface (above) of civil rights history, here’s an except from yet another list of historical bullet points that dispute Democrat claims of civil rights support. As you read through it, remember, Democrats claim they “are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws”…

 

[Matt1970]

In 2010, Democrats gave their website a facelift and whitewash.

Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.

On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

This is the kind of BS spewed by Democrats on a daily basis, and unfortunately the media and other so-called watchdogs are so apparently ignorant of American history, Democrats continue to LIE through their teeth to their constituents, and via academia, to our kids. Despite the truth being out there for years, it’s probably not going to explode until some big shot news anchor gives us an “explosive expose” bringing us all those facts first, so he/she can proudly receive a Pulitzer…

While I have only scratched the surface of civil rights history, here’s an except from yet another list of historical bullet points that dispute Democrat claims of civil rights support. As you read through it, remember, Democrats claim they “are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws”…

Seems about the right timing. Hard to spew the kind of bullshit when your top guy in the Senate is a Klansman.

 

[Matt1970]

No you won't....well, unless you're talking about middle class.....running out of money already in progress.

It's either jobs that pay ore redistribution of some sort (or the pitchfork). I would rather have the jobs but too damn many people (even here) think it's crazy to try to bring jobs here, even knowing what's down the road if they don't.

*shrugs*....

You can bring the jobs back and produce stuff here till you are blue in the face but until we change our buying habits it's all for not.

 

[Engineer]

You can bring the jobs back and produce stuff here till you are blue in the face but until we change our buying habits it's all for not.

You're right. I guess I'm about to jump the shark and say it's time to do what the other countries are doing (regardless of the so called bullshit free trade agreements)- 100% protectionism. Tariff the piss out of the stuff until FAIR trade is achieved.

Wonder why a pair of Wranglers (US company jeans made in China) are $17.00 per pair in a Walmart in Mission, TX and right across the border, the same pants costs $100 per pair while the Mexican produced counterpart is under $10?

Economic suicide? Maybe but the bullshit one way trade deals need to fucking stop. Fix the currency manipulation and the protectionism of other countries and get back with me on how well the US can compete and offer US made products at great, competitive prices while providing great paying (as well as skill learning) jobs for the US middle class.