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

[Matt1970]

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.

I'll agree with you there.

 

[werepossum]

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.

+1 Tariffs should be set by the national trade imbalance, period, on top of 10% used for inspecting and processing goods. And restrictions should be mutual; if any company wanting to purchase land or build a factory in China is required to be majority Chinese-owned, then any Chinese company wanting to purchase land or build a factory in America - or just to sell goods in America - must similarly set up a majority American corporation.

Instead of leveraging our status as the world's most desired market, politicians of both stripes (gratuitous skunk reference intentionally inserted) have continually negotiated trade agreements as a sort of national apology, intentionally accepting systemic and systematic disadvantages. We're fast losing our status as the world's most desired market, so I don't see how continued "free" trade does anything but finish destroying our nation. We're simply losing our leverage before ever using it.

 

[dmcowen674]

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.

Engineer for President!!!

 

[glenn1]

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.

Yeah, because that plan worked so well last time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act

 

[alcoholbob]

Yeah but what kind of jobs are these. The data is meaningless without details. If a company cuts your full-time hours to hire someone else to avoid paying benefits to make up for the increase in minimum wage, the government counts that as 2 jobs even if total working hours did not increase.

 

[Engineer]

Yeah but what kind of jobs are these. The data is meaningless without details. If a company cuts your full-time hours to hire someone else to avoid paying benefits to make up for the increase in minimum wage, the government counts that as 2 jobs even if total working hours did not increase.

How many people work full time at minimum wage (serious question)? Besides, all the full time employees at that level were cut below 30 hours per week to avoid Obamacare. Many on this forum said so.

 

[Zebo]

Republicans are retarded on this issue.

Lets ask a basic question.

If you were gonna open a liquor store what would you want living in neighborhood around you?

1. impoverished people paying full salary in rent and food
2. $15 an hour ppl
3. $35 an hour union ppl

I know which I'd like. I don't sell too many yachts to bazillionaires.

High wages raise all tides.

Min wage should be about $18 hr. OFC you have to have tarrifs like we always had so we dont race to bottom like other losers embracing economic feudalism.

 

[xBiffx]

Republicans are retarded on this issue.

Lets ask a basic question.

If you were gonna open a liquor store what would you want living in neighborhood around you?

1. impoverished people paying full salary in rent and food
2. $15 an hour ppl
3. $35 an hour union ppl

I know which I'd like. I don't sell too many yachts to bazillionaires.

High wages raise all tides.

Min wage should be about $18 hr. OFC you have to have tarrifs like we always had so we dont race to bottom like other losers embracing economic feudalism.

Good luck with getting the $35 an hour union ppl when minimum wage is $18 an hour like you want it. In fact, good luck with anyone making less than about $50,000/yr or so. You'll have a lower class/middle class divide like none other with a wage like that.

 

[realibrad]

+1 Tariffs should be set by the national trade imbalance, period, on top of 10% used for inspecting and processing goods. And restrictions should be mutual; if any company wanting to purchase land or build a factory in China is required to be majority Chinese-owned, then any Chinese company wanting to purchase land or build a factory in America - or just to sell goods in America - must similarly set up a majority American corporation.

Instead of leveraging our status as the world's most desired market, politicians of both stripes (gratuitous skunk reference intentionally inserted) have continually negotiated trade agreements as a sort of national apology, intentionally accepting systemic and systematic disadvantages. We're fast losing our status as the world's most desired market, so I don't see how continued "free" trade does anything but finish destroying our nation. We're simply losing our leverage before ever using it.

Free trade is what built this nation. When France and England were at war, it was the US who stepped in to fill their needs. You might have a point on unfair trade practices, but free trade has historically been the life blood of the US. The US used to make products so far above everyone else, and were so productive that we never had to worry about what other countries did. That time is in the past. The country that has 1.3 billion people are starting to grow their economy. They are becoming more productive and catching the US. Allowing China to grow will produce more innovation, greater efficiency, more goods/services and more demand. The US may not be the world leader economically in the future, but only if China becomes more like the US. China has only started to taste Capitalism and have seen huge growth. The US needs to go back to what made it a powerhouse, instead of protecting what it has.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, because that plan worked so well last time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act

Smoot-Hawley was a disaster because we were a net exporter; therefore the tariff wars hurt us more than they helped us. America is now a net importer, by a hell of a margin. Not exactly the same thing at all.

Free trade is what built this nation. When France and England were at war, it was the US who stepped in to fill their needs. You might have a point on unfair trade practices, but free trade has historically been the life blood of the US. The US used to make products so far above everyone else, and were so productive that we never had to worry about what other countries did. That time is in the past. The country that has 1.3 billion people are starting to grow their economy. They are becoming more productive and catching the US. Allowing China to grow will produce more innovation, greater efficiency, more goods/services and more demand. The US may not be the world leader economically in the future, but only if China becomes more like the US. China has only started to taste Capitalism and have seen huge growth. The US needs to go back to what made it a powerhouse, instead of protecting what it has.

It's worth pointing out that the entire time free trade was building this nation, the USA had import tariffs as a matter of policy. In fact, import tariffs and duties were the biggest source of government funding for most of that period.

It's also worth pointing out that when we built this nation through free trade levied with tariffs, there were no nations with structural advantages in production costs, transportation was quite expensive, and even communication was slow and difficult. (In fact, one could say that the United States was effectively Red China economically, as prior to the Great War we had relatively low wages and virtually none of the artificial restrictions with which Europe had customarily burdened labor.) None of that is true today. The price of effectively competing with China is to become China in real wages, human rights, and environmental regulations. Personally I think that's too high a price to get cheap goods.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by realibrad
Free trade is what built this nation. When France and England were at war, it was the US who stepped in to fill their needs. You might have a point on unfair trade practices, but free trade has historically been the life blood of the US. The US used to make products so far above everyone else, and were so productive that we never had to worry about what other countries did. That time is in the past. The country that has 1.3 billion people are starting to grow their economy. They are becoming more productive and catching the US. Allowing China to grow will produce more innovation, greater efficiency, more goods/services and more demand. The US may not be the world leader economically in the future, but only if China becomes more like the US. China has only started to taste Capitalism and have seen huge growth. The US needs to go back to what made it a powerhouse, instead of protecting what it has.


It's worth pointing out that the entire time free trade was building this nation, the USA had import tariffs as a matter of policy. In fact, import tariffs and duties were the biggest source of government funding for most of that period.

It's also worth pointing out that when we built this nation through free trade levied with tariffs, there were no nations with structural advantages in production costs, transportation was quite expensive, and even communication was slow and difficult. (In fact, one could say that the United States was effectively Red China economically, as prior to the Great War we had relatively low wages and virtually none of the artificial restrictions with which Europe had customarily burdened labor.) None of that is true today. The price of effectively competing with China is to become China in real wages, human rights, and environmental regulations. Personally I think that's too high a price to get cheap goods.

I wouldn't argue with that paid Republitard Drone.

Waste of time and keystrokes.

 

[master_shake_]

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

imagine that, paying people for working so they can spend money on goods and services helps the economy...who knew?

 

[realibrad]

It's also worth pointing out that when we built this nation through free trade levied with tariffs, there were no nations with structural advantages in production costs, transportation was quite expensive, and even communication was slow and difficult. (In fact, one could say that the United States was effectively Red China economically, as prior to the Great War we had relatively low wages and virtually none of the artificial restrictions with which Europe had customarily burdened labor.) None of that is true today. The price of effectively competing with China is to become China in real wages, human rights, and environmental regulations. Personally I think that's too high a price to get cheap goods.

I think there is something to be said for your point. My argument is tariffs are not the most effective thing the US can do. There is also the fact that wealth tends to make people want more in life. They are already demanding the air be cleaner, and I believe that will only grow. China is now going through its industrial revolution. When the US did it, it had far fewer people. We look back and think it was horrible, but for those people who left the fields and went into the factories, it was an empirical improvement of life. Society grows and improves, and I would never advocate for the US to go back to that way of life morally or economically. But, it did allow the US to become what it is today, and the standard of living we enjoy now.

 

[werepossum]

I think there is something to be said for your point. My argument is tariffs are not the most effective thing the US can do. There is also the fact that wealth tends to make people want more in life. They are already demanding the air be cleaner, and I believe that will only grow. China is now going through its industrial revolution. When the US did it, it had far fewer people. We look back and think it was horrible, but for those people who left the fields and went into the factories, it was an empirical improvement of life. Society grows and improves, and I would never advocate for the US to go back to that way of life morally or economically. But, it did allow the US to become what it is today, and the standard of living we enjoy now.

What else can we do? Granted, the Chinese people are demanding more consumer goods, worker protections, and environmental protections, but by pegging their currency to ours China has assured itself of maintaining lower cost of production for the foreseeable future.

 

[realibrad]

What else can we do? Granted, the Chinese people are demanding more consumer goods, worker protections, and environmental protections, but by pegging their currency to ours China has assured itself of maintaining lower cost of production for the foreseeable future.

In my opinion, dive into capitalism. I don't want anarchy by any means, not for moral, but if people don't trust that they will be reasonably safe, they wont make long term bets. The word that everyone hates is deregulation, but it can do a world of good.

Right now, Chinese labor accepts a lower standard of living, and command lower wages. We cannot do anything about that, but they will eventually. For now, we work on increasing productivity and innovation. China is far more populous, and will have the advantage in labor unless we gain 1 billion people, that is how it will be.

The transportation cost of having China make goods will continue to fall, and we cannot do anything about that either, as you cannot stop innovation. So where does it leave the US?

We must start focusing on competing in the real world. It does not have to mean a reduction in the standard of living, but it likely will for some. We can compete by increasing productivity, so while our labor might be more expensive per hr, we produce a greater amount to make up for it.

We also need to stop inflating the price of US goods. Spending 4 years in school for skills that could have taken 1 year is making everything we do more expensive. There is not a good enough reason to make someone take an art class so they can get an engineering degree. College grads could start to ask for lower wages, because they dont have to pay back loans that are inflated.

 

[werepossum]

In my opinion, dive into capitalism. I don't want anarchy by any means, not for moral, but if people don't trust that they will be reasonably safe, they wont make long term bets. The word that everyone hates is deregulation, but it can do a world of good.

Right now, Chinese labor accepts a lower standard of living, and command lower wages. We cannot do anything about that, but they will eventually. For now, we work on increasing productivity and innovation. China is far more populous, and will have the advantage in labor unless we gain 1 billion people, that is how it will be.

The transportation cost of having China make goods will continue to fall, and we cannot do anything about that either, as you cannot stop innovation. So where does it leave the US?

We must start focusing on competing in the real world. It does not have to mean a reduction in the standard of living, but it likely will for some. We can compete by increasing productivity, so while our labor might be more expensive per hr, we produce a greater amount to make up for it.

We also need to stop inflating the price of US goods. Spending 4 years in school for skills that could have taken 1 year is making everything we do more expensive. There is not a good enough reason to make someone take an art class so they can get an engineering degree. College grads could start to ask for lower wages, because they dont have to pay back loans that are inflated.

I like deregulation, but it's not without its risks. Part of the crash of 2007 was that we had removed the common sense provisions under Glass-Steagall that built a wall of separation between savings and loan banks and investment banks. While that gave us a (relatively brief) period of prosperity, it also allowed a crash in one sector to take down our whole economy. Similarly, de facto deregulation played a big part in the crash itself, from HUD deciding to ignore such "outdated metrics" as income and employment verification and credit history to federal and state regulators ignoring banks and mortgage companies using tame in-house inspectors and appraisers to inflate house values and thereby increase profits. It's easy to say deregulate, but it's extremely difficult to actually evaluate the actual advantages versus risks of removing a particular regulation.

I also like the idea of making higher education more focused, with less fluff. But I think the main reason fewer people are going into engineering is that our engineering jobs are being shipped off-shore or filled with H-1B visa imported workers willing to work for less. Why borrow tens or hundreds of thousands to get an engineering degree with little job security when for the same money you can train for a well-paid government job in the bureaucracy with great pay, benefits, and job security AND they'll pay off your student loans?

 

[yllus]

I've done a lot of reading into the effects of minimum wage, and believe that this is the best-supported conjecture:

Worthwhile Canadian Initiative - When the minimum wage bites

...

Before 1980, the minimum wage fluctuated around 40-45% of the average hourly wage, and researchers found that the minimum wage had a measurable effect on employment. Then came Reagan's minimum wage freeze, and that ratio fell to 33%. When the minimum wage was finally revised upwards in the early 1990's, the effect on employment was insignificant.

...

As Chris Dillow never tires of pointing out, one country where current research finds a significant effect of the minimum wage on employment is the UK. The current minimum wage there is something like 49% of the average, so it may be that this conclusion can be extended beyond North America as well.

On to Ontario. Currently, the minimum wage is about 38% of the average, so a moderate increase in the minimum wage is likely to have a negligible effect. But going from 7.75$/hr to 10$/hr is not a moderate increase: it would bring the minimum wage to 48% of the average, well into the range in which the employment effects are significant.

So what have we learned from all this?

• When minimum wages are 'low' - say, less than 40% of the average hourly wage - then moderate increases won't have a significant short-run effect on employment.
• When minimum wages are around 45% of the average, they significantly reduce employment.
• No-one has been able to find any evidence to suggest that increasing the minimum wage has a measurable effect on reducing poverty.

I see that Washington state is one of those named as having no adverse effect on employment. Their minimum wage appears to be $9.32, while their average hourly wage is $25.04. That's just 37.2% of the average. WA so could theoretically raise their minimum wage all the way to $11.27 before adverse effects would be seen.

 

[Cozarkian]

Republicans are retarded on this issue.

Lets ask a basic question.

If you were gonna open a liquor store what would you want living in neighborhood around you?

1. impoverished people paying full salary in rent and food
2. $15 an hour ppl
3. $35 an hour union ppl

I know which I'd like. I don't sell too many yachts to bazillionaires.

High wages raise all tides.

Min wage should be about $18 hr. OFC you have to have tarrifs like we always had so we dont race to bottom like other losers embracing economic feudalism.

Do you want the $15 an hour ppl working as your store clerks, or the $35 hour union ppl?

 

[Matt1970]

Republicans are retarded on this issue.

Lets ask a basic question.

If you were gonna open a liquor store what would you want living in neighborhood around you?

1. impoverished people paying full salary in rent and food
2. $15 an hour ppl
3. $35 an hour union ppl

I know which I'd like. I don't sell too many yachts to bazillionaires.

High wages raise all tides.

Min wage should be about $18 hr. OFC you have to have tarrifs like we always had so we dont race to bottom like other losers embracing economic feudalism.

Republicans are actually not retarded on this issue. We do it time and time again raising the min wage. Next thing you know all the wages above that go up as well as prices. Next thing you know we are right back where we started. If I were wrong then the vast majority of workers in the US would all be making minimum wage.

 

[Zorkorist]

You can play with fake Monopoly Money, for a long time. But eventually, real life with smack you in the face.

-John

 

[werepossum]

I've done a lot of reading into the effects of minimum wage, and believe that this is the best-supported conjecture:

Worthwhile Canadian Initiative - When the minimum wage bites

I see that Washington state is one of those named as having no adverse effect on employment. Their minimum wage appears to be $9.32, while their average hourly wage is $25.04. That's just 37.2% of the average. WA so could theoretically raise their minimum wage all the way to $11.27 before adverse effects would be seen.

That makes a lot more sense than what I've read from both sides of the aisle here.

Do you want the $15 an hour ppl working as your store clerks, or the $35 hour union ppl?

lol He wants what we all want - $15 per hour employees serving $35 per hour customers. Preferably drunk and happy $35 per hour customers without a care in the world.

Republicans are actually not retarded on this issue. We do it time and time again raising the min wage. Next thing you know all the wages above that go up as well as prices. Next thing you know we are right back where we started. If I were wrong then the vast majority of workers in the US would all be making minimum wage.

If government forcibly raises a person's economic cost above their economic value, then the market will compensate one way or another. Either those jobs will be cut, or prices must increase. As everyone's prices increase, the low skills worker will resume his normal economic value.

But as Yllus' link shows, if the raised economic cost is still sufficiently low, then there is little perceptible effect. I'm assuming that is because the low skilled worker's economic cost is still at or below his economic value. Nothing inherently magical about the free market, and it's perfectly possible for one's market cost to be at or below one's economic value. If for instance we had a few million new doctors, then doctors' economic cost would tend to plummet even though their economic value would remain quite high.

 

[realibrad]

I like deregulation, but it's not without its risks. Part of the crash of 2007 was that we had removed the common sense provisions under Glass-Steagall that built a wall of separation between savings and loan banks and investment banks. While that gave us a (relatively brief) period of prosperity, it also allowed a crash in one sector to take down our whole economy. Similarly, de facto deregulation played a big part in the crash itself, from HUD deciding to ignore such "outdated metrics" as income and employment verification and credit history to federal and state regulators ignoring banks and mortgage companies using tame in-house inspectors and appraisers to inflate house values and thereby increase profits. It's easy to say deregulate, but it's extremely difficult to actually evaluate the actual advantages versus risks of removing a particular regulation.

I also like the idea of making higher education more focused, with less fluff. But I think the main reason fewer people are going into engineering is that our engineering jobs are being shipped off-shore or filled with H-1B visa imported workers willing to work for less. Why borrow tens or hundreds of thousands to get an engineering degree with little job security when for the same money you can train for a well-paid government job in the bureaucracy with great pay, benefits, and job security AND they'll pay off your student loans?

Deregulation has been done in very stupid ways in the past. Shocks to the system are never a good idea, even if those shocks are supposed to be good. We need to allow for the market to make adjustments over time, and not overnight. This would also allow for those who have invested under the current regulation to not feel like their investment was an unfair expense. You also don't scare people away from investing in the future.

For federal regulation, there is a break down in incentives that I think industry regulation would better handle. There can still be room for regulation mind you, but I think it would be better to split the task, so there is more skin in the game for everyone.

For the school issue, its the chicken or egg question. Did people leave the industry because they were priced out, or were they priced out because foreign workers cam in? Its honestly a little of both I'm sure. But, having said that, I think my idea would still go a long way to at the very least, keeping people employed by making them more competitive. As for government positions paying off loans, this is still not optimal to me. The government is in reality paying people more than they bring in value, at the expense of taxpayers. Its becomes a tax that is very had to follow.

I also have some ideas on how colleges should be making their money vs paying upfront. The incentive is for the college to provide you with any degree, regardless of what that degree will pay. I think there are ways to tie the cost of the degree, with the actual income people will make, but that is a whole other story.

 

[werepossum]

Deregulation has been done in very stupid ways in the past. Shocks to the system are never a good idea, even if those shocks are supposed to be good. We need to allow for the market to make adjustments over time, and not overnight. This would also allow for those who have invested under the current regulation to not feel like their investment was an unfair expense. You also don't scare people away from investing in the future.

For federal regulation, there is a break down in incentives that I think industry regulation would better handle. There can still be room for regulation mind you, but I think it would be better to split the task, so there is more skin in the game for everyone.

For the school issue, its the chicken or egg question. Did people leave the industry because they were priced out, or were they priced out because foreign workers cam in? Its honestly a little of both I'm sure. But, having said that, I think my idea would still go a long way to at the very least, keeping people employed by making them more competitive. As for government positions paying off loans, this is still not optimal to me. The government is in reality paying people more than they bring in value, at the expense of taxpayers. Its becomes a tax that is very had to follow.

I also have some ideas on how colleges should be making their money vs paying upfront. The incentive is for the college to provide you with any degree, regardless of what that degree will pay. I think there are ways to tie the cost of the degree, with the actual income people will make, but that is a whole other story.

I agree with most of that. But if by industry regulation you mean self regulation, I haven't been impressed with that. Seems to me it's always economically advantageous to skirt or even blatantly break the law and/or good practices, then lawyer up and get a small fine if and when caught.

 

[realibrad]

I agree with most of that. But if by industry regulation you mean self regulation, I haven't been impressed with that. Seems to me it's always economically advantageous to skirt or even blatantly break the law and/or good practices, then lawyer up and get a small fine if and when caught.

In all seriousness, how is that any different now. The fines that the federal government levy are small and very close to arbitrary. What ever the solution is, the government regulation is not in alignment with what should be done. I think splitting the work load would be better than what we have now.

I don't mean to say that Company A regulates Company A. I mean Companies A-Q work together to regulate the entire industry.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Another report on how raising the min wage was a good thing; http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...inimum-wage-see-faster-job-growth-report-says

Looks like the defective minds that opposed this were indeed proven wrong: their cave man alarmist sensationalism does not belong in today's world. They are wrong.

EDIT: whoops - it looks like it is the same report,.. never mind. Or, should I edit it and pretend I wasn't being a fucking asshole for posting shit without reading it,.. what to do, what to do,..