Left Behind Economics

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp


That's a good thing. People will have to go back to school to learn new skills to get jobs and they will be better off long term.

You must have missed this part of the OP.

""The other revelation is that being highly educated was no guarantee of sharing in the benefits of economic growth. There?s a persistent myth, perpetuated by economists who should know better ? like Edward Lazear, the chairman of the president?s Council of Economic Advisers ? that rising inequality in the United States is mainly a matter of a rising gap between those with a lot of education and those without. But census data show that the real earnings of the typical college graduate actually fell in 2004."
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: senseamp


That's a good thing. People will have to go back to school to learn new skills to get jobs and they will be better off long term.

You must have missed this part of the OP.

""The other revelation is that being highly educated was no guarantee of sharing in the benefits of economic growth. There?s a persistent myth, perpetuated by economists who should know better ? like Edward Lazear, the chairman of the president?s Council of Economic Advisers ? that rising inequality in the United States is mainly a matter of a rising gap between those with a lot of education and those without. But census data show that the real earnings of the typical college graduate actually fell in 2004."

Highly educated, maybe not, but if you aren't even productive enough to deserve $7 minimum wage, you probably need to get some more basic education, maybe GED or professional school.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You cannot lift the wage earner by taking down the wage payer.

You can by increasing the minimum wage to something above the poverty level.

Which will raise price and eventualy leave you right back where you started. It also will reduce job options for those at the low end as automation become cheap enough to replace low skill people.

Because that's exactly what happened the last time it was bumped up??? :roll:


It happens everytime. When the cost of wages go up, there will either be increased prices or decreased hours in labor or both. To deny this reality is foolish.
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You cannot lift the wage earner by taking down the wage payer.

You can by increasing the minimum wage to something above the poverty level.

Which will raise price and eventualy leave you right back where you started. It also will reduce job options for those at the low end as automation become cheap enough to replace low skill people.

Because that's exactly what happened the last time it was bumped up??? :roll:


It happens everytime. When the cost of wages go up, there will either be increased prices or decreased hours in labor or both. To deny this reality is foolish.

Yes, prices will slightly increase but the price increase won't completely offset the gains made in wages. Actually if you could show some evidence of "it happening everytime" that would be nice.

The book Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage actually shows that raises in minimum wage lead to higher wages but no loss of jobs. This would mean the demand for low wage labor is very inelastic.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: senseamp


That's a good thing. People will have to go back to school to learn new skills to get jobs and they will be better off long term.

You must have missed this part of the OP.

""The other revelation is that being highly educated was no guarantee of sharing in the benefits of economic growth. There?s a persistent myth, perpetuated by economists who should know better ? like Edward Lazear, the chairman of the president?s Council of Economic Advisers ? that rising inequality in the United States is mainly a matter of a rising gap between those with a lot of education and those without. But census data show that the real earnings of the typical college graduate actually fell in 2004."

Highly educated, maybe not, but if you aren't even productive enough to deserve $7 minimum wage, you probably need to get some more basic education, maybe GED or professional school.

What does productivity have to do with education? Do you actually believe that a college degree makes someone more productive?

I worked alongside people with college degrees in auto assembly plants and believe me, they weren't among the most productive workers by a LONG shot.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You cannot lift the wage earner by taking down the wage payer.

You can by increasing the minimum wage to something above the poverty level.

Which will raise price and eventualy leave you right back where you started.

It also will reduce job options for those at the low end as automation become cheap enough to replace low skill people.

Good, that means people shouldn't have been doing the job to begin with.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You cannot lift the wage earner by taking down the wage payer.

You can by increasing the minimum wage to something above the poverty level.
The mice vote to bell the cat? The resultant inflation would only put the poor deeper in the hole in the long run.

The majority of the arguments in this thread (including the OP's article) display an astonishing ignorance in economics. Money does not have static value. The amount of wealth in the world is not fixed.

edit: and who actually makes minimum wage in the US besides teenage kids? Even telemarketers in call centers make $10+/hour. Even Wal-Mart pays above minimum wage for starting employees.

Gah! Ignorant knee-jerking populists who think the solution to every problem is a new law. They might as well think ibuprofen is a cure for cancer. :roll:
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You cannot lift the wage earner by taking down the wage payer.
You can by increasing the minimum wage to something above the poverty level.
Which will raise price and eventualy leave you right back where you started. It also will reduce job options for those at the low end as automation become cheap enough to replace low skill people.
Because that's exactly what happened the last time it was bumped up??? :roll:
It happens everytime. When the cost of wages go up, there will either be increased prices or decreased hours in labor or both. To deny this reality is foolish.
While that's certainly the standard retort, I wonder if you can objectively document a material increase in prices after minimum wage increases. Be sure to present your proof in context with inflation prior to the increase, since minimum wage increases are often a response to inflation.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You cannot lift the wage earner by taking down the wage payer.

You can by increasing the minimum wage to something above the poverty level.

Which will raise price and eventualy leave you right back where you started. It also will reduce job options for those at the low end as automation become cheap enough to replace low skill people.

Because that's exactly what happened the last time it was bumped up??? :roll:


It happens everytime. When the cost of wages go up, there will either be increased prices or decreased hours in labor or both. To deny this reality is foolish.

Higher wages lead to increased spending which leads to increased demand.

This nonsense about wages fueling higher prices is a self fulfilling prophecy concocted by those CEOs who are "earning" 262 times the average worker's wages. Why don't those CEOs take a pay cut? I'm sure they can live just fine off of 100 times the average worker's wages. Or are you claiming those CEO's salaries don't drive up prices??? Is it only workers whose wages drive up prices?

It's the point of the OP. Wealth is being concentrated at the top. Spread that wealth around and watch the economy grow instead of restricting it to the top one percent.




 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You cannot lift the wage earner by taking down the wage payer.
You can by increasing the minimum wage to something above the poverty level.
Which will raise price and eventualy leave you right back where you started. It also will reduce job options for those at the low end as automation become cheap enough to replace low skill people.
Because that's exactly what happened the last time it was bumped up??? :roll:
It happens everytime. When the cost of wages go up, there will either be increased prices or decreased hours in labor or both. To deny this reality is foolish.
While that's certainly the standard retort, I wonder if you can objectively document a material increase in prices after minimum wage increases. Be sure to present your proof in context with inflation prior to the increase, since minimum wage increases are often a response to inflation.
One could easily point to historical inflation rates before and after the original implementation of the minimum wage in 1938.

Granted, there are a multitude of other factors involved (particularly changes in monetary policy), but that (of course) works both ways for what you are asking him to prove. So why don't YOU do us a favor and prove the opposite?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You cannot lift the wage earner by taking down the wage payer.

You can by increasing the minimum wage to something above the poverty level.

Which will raise price and eventualy leave you right back where you started. It also will reduce job options for those at the low end as automation become cheap enough to replace low skill people.

Because that's exactly what happened the last time it was bumped up??? :roll:


It happens everytime. When the cost of wages go up, there will either be increased prices or decreased hours in labor or both. To deny this reality is foolish.

Higher wages lead to increased spending which leads to increased demand.

This nonsense about wages fueling higher prices is a self fulfilling prophecy concocted by those CEOs who are "earning" 262 times the average worker's wages. Why don't those CEOs take a pay cut? I'm sure they can live just fine off of 100 times the average worker's wages. Or are you claiming those CEO's salaries don't drive up prices??? Is it only workers whose wages drive up prices?

It's the point of the OP. Wealth is being concentrated at the top. Spread that wealth around and watch the economy grow instead of restricting it to the top one percent.
I won't argue your very last sentence (as capitalism did create the middle class and that is the capitalistic ideal), but (as to the rest of your post) are you claiming that CEO's salaries drive down wages?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Some of you can't seem to understand what even illegal immigrants have figured out. :roll:

On Dusty Corner, Laborers Band Together for More Pay

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: July 14, 2006

AGOURA HILLS, Calif., July 12 ? The black Lexus stopped just yards from a large, shady oak tree, and eight copper-skinned Guatemalan men rushed over.

For a minute, the woman in the car and the men haggled feverishly before the Lexus drove off ? without any day laborers to help with her gardening.

The woman had offered to pay $10 an hour, not realizing what she had stumbled into: the only day labor site in the nation that has set a $15-an-hour minimum wage.

At a few dozen other sites across the country, day laborers have set minimums, usually $8 or $10. But only at this corner in Agoura Hills, a well-to-do town 40 miles northwest of Los Angeles, experts say, have they been bold enough to insist on $15, nearly three times the federal minimum wage. Some laborers who are particularly skilled at plumbing or hanging drywall get $18 or more.

?There are always employers who look for cheap workers,? said Virgilio Vicente, 47, a Guatemala immigrant who spent the week framing walls for a small contractor. ?But we have an agreement, and no one is going to go for less. We don?t feel bad when someone drives away because we know other clients will always come.?

Their move is a risky experiment, reminiscent of crude unionization efforts of a century ago. It is uncertain if laborers at other sites will join the move to a $15 minimum or even whether the workers at this corner, the intersection of Kanan and Agoura Roads, can make it stick. When they raised their rates last month, the demand for their services went down as some homeowners and contractors began seeking workers at another corner five miles away.

Luis Cap, 32, a stocky Guatemalan immigrant who has been a mainstay of the corner for 14 years, is not worried. ?The employers complain, but we explain that it is very expensive to live in this city,? Mr. Cap said. ?We tell them: ?Gas is expensive. Rent is expensive. Insurance is expensive. Everything is expensive.? ?

The increase may have slowed business somewhat, but many workers are still hired for four or five days each week. Others find work only two or three days, but that is still lucrative enough to persuade some to make the 80-minute bus trip from Los Angeles.

On Monday and Tuesday, about half the 50 laborers who showed up were hired to paint, garden, dig swimming pools, lay foundations or hang drywall. In the spring, regulars on the corner said, the percentage of those hired is greater.

Abel Valenzuela Jr., a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who did a nationwide study of day laborers, said it was not surprising that the Agoura Hills workers were ahead of the pack.

?It?s a unique site,? Professor Valenzuela said. ?It?s one of the older sites. It?s remote. It has a sense of stability for employers. These workers have high skill levels. They?ve gone through a lot. They?ve been chased by helicopters. They are very disciplined.?

The Agoura Hills site seems straight out of a Cézanne painting ? a dry, sun-beaten spot with a sharp-peaked mountain as a backdrop. In summer, some men ? mostly illegal immigrants ? sit hour after hour under the generous-limbed oaks.

In 1991, Agoura Hills became one of the first communities to prohibit day laborers from soliciting work. Some residents complained of litter and of day laborers sleeping on the mountain?s slopes.

After a state court upheld the ban in 1994, the police began arresting workers and fining them $275. Police helicopters chased those who tried to escape up the mountain.

?I must have been arrested at least 20 times,? Mr. Vicente said. ?And I paid thousands of dollars in fines.?

The number of laborers, meanwhile, plunged to a hearty dozen from around 100. After a federal judge, citing the First Amendment, invalidated a Los Angeles ordinance restricting day laborers in 2000, the police stopped enforcing this town?s ban, and the number of day laborers started to balloon again.

The laborers who stuck it out here have developed a strong sense of community that is reflected in their slogan: ?First, it?s God. Then it?s our mother. Then it?s this corner.? Mr. Vicente called it ?a place that feeds us and feeds our families.?

When the workers here decided last month to adopt the $15 minimum, up from the $12.50 they set in 2003, the process resembled a New England town meeting held in a dirt-covered Western lot.

On a Saturday morning, 100 men gathered, with several arguing that the higher minimum would chase away employers. Others argued that laborers who spoke only Spanish would be at a disadvantage. ?Some workers who don?t speak good English were against $15,? said Victor González, 20. ?It?s harder for them to negotiate to get work.?

Despite such arguments, the vote was 85 to 15 in favor of the $15 minimum. Marvin Martínez, a Salvadoran immigrant, said, ?We sweat our butts off, and they were only paying us $100 a day.?

Gesturing toward the gas station across the street, he said: ?Every single day it seems they add three cents to the price of gas. I think $15 an hour is only fair.?

Pablo Alvarado, director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, applauded the vote. ?It?s a wonderful thing when impoverished people take a step like that,? Mr. Alvarado said.

Discipline is taken seriously on the corner. Some veteran laborers have bought trash cans and chained them to trees. They browbeat anyone who litters or drinks.

They also try to chase away laborers who do inferior work and hurt the corner?s reputation. And anyone who tries to accept work for less than $15 faces the wrath of dozens.

Mr. Cap and his fellow laborers applaud the new minimum. ?We?d like to see $15 spread to every corner,? he said

But Professor Valenzuela said that was unlikely, given the lower skill levels at other corners. ?At other sites, many of these guys would easily undercut $15,? he said. ?They?d be happy to go out for $12 or for $10.?

Around 10:30 a.m., Marie Caupisch drove up in a Mercedes-Benz 300D Turbo Diesel, offering to hire one or two men for $10 an hour ? and a free lunch. But she left empty-handed when the workers insisted on $15.

?Fifteen dollars an hour, I can?t afford it,? Ms. Caupisch said. ?They?re not going to get work at that price.?

As she drove away, Mr. Cap glanced at the Mercedes and nodded knowingly. ?She could afford $15,? he said.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Way to McOwen-ize. Thank you for supporting my argument that free markets are stronger than legislation.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic

I won't argue your very last sentence (as capitalism did create the middle class and that is the capitalistic ideal), but (as to the rest of your post) are you claiming that CEO's salaries drive down wages?

Just the opposite. I'm saying that if workers' wages drive up prices then CEOs' wages, which now average 262 times workers' wages, drive up prices too -- yet no one seems to complain about those CEO wages that have risen at incredible rates while real workers' wages have actually DECLINED -- and still PRICES HAVE RISEN!
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,765
10,074
136
Compared to wealth redistribution via government, I consider minimum wage a much better choice to use. At least government doesn?t have its hands involved then, taking percentages off the top to manage it.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Way to McOwen-ize. Thank you for supporting my argument that free markets are stronger than legislation.

That's not a free market at work. Those workers are a microcosm of society. They banded together, took a vote, and "legislated" their minimum wage. ;)
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Compared to wealth redistribution via government, I consider minimum wage a much better choice to use. At least government doesn?t have its hands involved then, taking percentages off the top to manage it.

Text
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Vic
Way to McOwen-ize. Thank you for supporting my argument that free markets are stronger than legislation.

That's not a free market at work. Those workers are a microcosm of society. They banded together, took a vote, and "legislated" their minimum wage. ;)

Put. the. crack pipe. down.

The principal difference between free market actions and government legislation is that government legislation is backed by the use of violent force whereas free market actions are not. If you don't know this simple fact, then you don't know this topic. Period.
 

mithrandir2001

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
6,545
1
0
PECO/Exelon Corp slid their current electric rate sheet in with my July bill. Funny they didn't mention that the rates went up (of course); I refered to the previous rate sheet that I had kept and compared. Rates are going up at least 8%.

Now, my summertime rates will end up at $0.1602/KWh. Funny that those "Energy Comparison" stickers on appliances still use some ridiculous "national average" KWh rate of like 8 cents. Last century, people!

If I was a conspiracy-freak I'd say the government is lying on the inflation/CPI figures. Inflation is not 3-3.5% year-over-year. I don't care that the costs of televisions have dropped. I have to heat my house first and fuel up the car, then buy the damn TV.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,765
10,074
136
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Compared to wealth redistribution via government, I consider minimum wage a much better choice to use. At least government doesn?t have its hands involved then, taking percentages off the top to manage it.

Text

Naive
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Vic

I won't argue your very last sentence (as capitalism did create the middle class and that is the capitalistic ideal), but (as to the rest of your post) are you claiming that CEO's salaries drive down wages?

Just the opposite. I'm saying that if workers' wages drive up prices then CEOs' wages, which now average 262 times workers' wages, drive up prices too -- yet no one seems to complain about those CEO wages that have risen at incredible rates while real workers' wages have actually DECLINED -- and still PRICES HAVE RISEN!

You ignore the fact that workers outnumber CEO's by more than 100,000-to-1.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Compared to wealth redistribution via government, I consider minimum wage a much better choice to use. At least government doesn?t have its hands involved then, taking percentages off the top to manage it.

Text

Naive

Yes, I would say that is also an appropriate description of your arguments. You accept the limited choices that the "authorities" give you.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Vic
You ignore the fact that workers outnumber CEO's by more than 100,000-to-1.
When you can show the average company has 100,000 employees, your comment might be credible. Of course you'd also need to demonstrate that only CEOs receive exorbitant compensations (as opposed to presidents and officers and other executives).
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You cannot lift the wage earner by taking down the wage payer.
You can by increasing the minimum wage to something above the poverty level.
Which will raise price and eventualy leave you right back where you started. It also will reduce job options for those at the low end as automation become cheap enough to replace low skill people.
Because that's exactly what happened the last time it was bumped up??? :roll:
It happens everytime. When the cost of wages go up, there will either be increased prices or decreased hours in labor or both. To deny this reality is foolish.
While that's certainly the standard retort, I wonder if you can objectively document a material increase in prices after minimum wage increases. Be sure to present your proof in context with inflation prior to the increase, since minimum wage increases are often a response to inflation.

Minimum wage increases do not mean prices have to go up, but it does mean the increased costs have to dealt with. That means fewer worker or increased prices or both. According to a recent NYT article a 4 lane self checkout for a grocery store costs $125k. You tell me how a wage increase will be good for these low skill workers. This automation is happening all over this country and a minimum wage increase will only increase the speed at which these jobs are eliminated. Good for IT, bad for low skill workers.

But in the end, the market is regulating wages without too much problem. Less than 2% of the population makes minimum wage and about 1/2 of those still live with their parents.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
It happens everytime. When the cost of wages go up, there will either be increased prices or decreased hours in labor or both. To deny this reality is foolish.
While that's certainly the standard retort, I wonder if you can objectively document a material increase in prices after minimum wage increases. Be sure to present your proof in context with inflation prior to the increase, since minimum wage increases are often a response to inflation.
One could easily point to historical inflation rates before and after the original implementation of the minimum wage in 1938.
One could, though it would be meaningless. In order to support that talking point, one would need to show that increases in the minimum wage have consistently been followed with material increases in inflation, beyond what can be explained by other factors at the time of the increases.


Granted, there are a multitude of other factors involved (particularly changes in monetary policy), but that (of course) works both ways for what you are asking him to prove. So why don't YOU do us a favor and prove the opposite?
Because he made the claim, he bears the burden of proof.