Left Behind Economics

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison
Less than 2% of the population makes minimum wage and about 1/2 of those still live with their parents.

That's been shown to be bullsh!t many times including posts by many on here actualy making minimum wage in Industry jobs you would not expect to see minimum wage like in IT.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
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.

at 16 cents a KW you probably want to upgrade every appliance in your house. Might want to investigate solar as well, it might be a viable option at that pice. I am lucky enough to get electricity for 5.5 cents a KW hour so that average still could be a good one.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison
Less than 2% of the population makes minimum wage and about 1/2 of those still live with their parents.

That's been shown to be bullsh!t many times including posts by many on here actualy making minimum wage in Industry jobs you would not expect to see minimum wage like in IT.

According the BLS.gov it is not bs, but I dont expect to get any honesty out of you. You have yet to show anyone making minimum wage in IT.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
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. ...

That simplistic model ignores at least two significant mitigating factors. First, you ignore the general trend of increasing productivity. Indeed, that's one of the reasons for today's growing gap between employee wages and corporate profits. Companies are not rewarding employees for their increasing productivity. Second, increased wages mean increased spending, i.e., demand goes up and sales go up. Increased sales can offset increased wages, especially when coupled with increasing productivity: increased sales volume supported by a fixed number of correspondingly higher-paid employees is a win-win.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
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. ...

That simplistic model ignores at least two significant mitigating factors. First, you ignore the general trend of increasing productivity. Indeed, that's one of the reasons for today's growing gap between employee wages and corporate profits. Companies are not rewarding employees for their increasing productivity. Second, increased wages mean increased spending, i.e., demand goes up and sales go up. Increased sales can offset increased wages, especially when coupled with increasing productivity: increased sales volume supported by a fixed number of correspondingly higher-paid employees is a win-win.

Actually I did address increased productiviy. Increased productivity results in fewer hours worked for a given task. The more you increase minimum wage, the more this will happen. This is not a terribly good thing for low skill workers as it limits their options for work.

ANd if the increased wages are offset by increased productiby, no new money as been introduced to the economy. A few people will get a slightly larger share, but that will be offset other losing their jobs or getting less hours because of increased productivity. It is a shell game at best.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison
Less than 2% of the population makes minimum wage and about 1/2 of those still live with their parents.

That's been shown to be bullsh!t many times including posts by many on here actualy making minimum wage in Industry jobs you would not expect to see minimum wage like in IT.

According the BLS.gov it is not bs, but I dont expect to get any honesty out of you. You have yet to show anyone making minimum wage in IT.

link please?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison
Less than 2% of the population makes minimum wage and about 1/2 of those still live with their parents.

That's been shown to be bullsh!t many times including posts by many on here actualy making minimum wage in Industry jobs you would not expect to see minimum wage like in IT.

According the BLS.gov it is not bs, but I dont expect to get any honesty out of you. You have yet to show anyone making minimum wage in IT.

link please?

Goto www.bls.gov and dig though their employment stats. They are not hard to find.

 

[BBond]

This thread started out as an indictment of the bush administration's policies that have led to lower real wages, concentration of wealth at the very, very top, increased poverty, and a society one of the most prosperous countries in the world where it's harder for families to make ends meet as life becomes better and better for a very few. Now it's turned into the usual debate on economics.

I can understand why. None of the bush supporters, as usual, want to discuss the real effects of bush's feed the rich and starve everyone else economic policies.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond
This thread started out as an indictment of the bush administration's policies that have led to lower real wages, concentration of wealth at the very, very top, increased poverty, and a society one of the most prosperous countries in the world where it's harder for families to make ends meet as life becomes better and better for a very few. Now it's turned into the usual debate on economics.

I can understand why. None of the bush supporters, as usual, want to discuss the real effects of bush's feed the rich and starve everyone else economic policies.

And we know that the taxing the rich is the only solution that will bring high wages and prosperity....

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BBond
This thread started out as an indictment of the bush administration's policies that have led to lower real wages, concentration of wealth at the very, very top, increased poverty, and a society one of the most prosperous countries in the world where it's harder for families to make ends meet as life becomes better and better for a very few. Now it's turned into the usual debate on economics.

I can understand why. None of the bush supporters, as usual, want to discuss the real effects of bush's feed the rich and starve everyone else economic policies.

Actually, as you are the one who believes that Bush is some kind of omnipotent monarch who controls every facet of every part of America, when in fact he is nothing but a puppet, it seems much more likely that you are the Bush supporter.

However, your argument has once again reverted to false dilemma. If we're not with you, we must be against you. If the heretics would dare disagree with you, they must be your enemy. Thank you for once again showing just what an ignorant clueless partisan knee-jerker you really are. Not that that makes you in anyway unique here.

The real issue IMO is why must you and your ilk spread your never-ending blanket of negativity everywhere, making people's hard lot in life seem that much harder? Whine whine bitch bitch complain misery loves company. It's no wonder you're a loser and want everyone else to be too.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
This thread started out as an indictment of the bush administration's policies that have led to lower real wages, concentration of wealth at the very, very top, increased poverty, and a society one of the most prosperous countries in the world where it's harder for families to make ends meet as life becomes better and better for a very few. Now it's turned into the usual debate on economics.

I can understand why. None of the bush supporters, as usual, want to discuss the real effects of bush's feed the rich and starve everyone else economic policies.

And we know that the taxing the rich is the only solution that will bring high wages and prosperity....

Of course... we either with him and his socialist agenda 100% or we're with the terrorists.... oops, I mean, Bushites.

:roll:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: alchemize
[
120 examples of partisan hackery by the esteemed Krugman

I also happen to think he's a partisan hack.

I guess the part of the country I live in is much different than where Krugman or some of you others live. Unemployment is practically non-existant, new contruction is everywhere (my construction clients are literally booming), new busineses opening all the time, real estate values are rising an average of 14% per year etc...

Yeah, this economy sucks.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
This thread started out as an indictment of the bush administration's policies that have led to lower real wages, concentration of wealth at the very, very top, increased poverty, and a society one of the most prosperous countries in the world where it's harder for families to make ends meet as life becomes better and better for a very few. Now it's turned into the usual debate on economics.

I can understand why. None of the bush supporters, as usual, want to discuss the real effects of bush's feed the rich and starve everyone else economic policies.

And we know that the taxing the rich is the only solution that will bring high wages and prosperity....

Of course... we either with him and his socialist agenda 100% or we're with the terrorists.... oops, I mean, Bushites.

:roll:

The part that I dont understand is that thase people refuse to beleive that wages are rising without the help of the federal goverment. I would be very hard pressed to find a job that paid minimum wage around here and I dont exactly live in an expensive part of the country.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

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.

Straw man much? Next time we'll all be oh-so-careful to recognize that only you establish the rules of debate here, and which "talking points" are accepted rhetoric and which are not.

The facts remain that: (1) inflation has risen far faster historically since the implementation of the minimum wage than before, (2) the minimum wage has never kept up with actual costs of living, and (3) very very few workers make minimum wage or ever have.

Hey, if you think the teenage kids at McD's need a raise, then go ahead and make yourself feel good. Just try to keep perspective that that's all you'll be doing.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
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. ...

That simplistic model ignores at least two significant mitigating factors. First, you ignore the general trend of increasing productivity. Indeed, that's one of the reasons for today's growing gap between employee wages and corporate profits. Companies are not rewarding employees for their increasing productivity. Second, increased wages mean increased spending, i.e., demand goes up and sales go up. Increased sales can offset increased wages, especially when coupled with increasing productivity: increased sales volume supported by a fixed number of correspondingly higher-paid employees is a win-win.

Actually I did address increased productiviy. Increased productivity results in fewer hours worked for a given task. The more you increase minimum wage, the more this will happen. This is not a terribly good thing for low skill workers as it limits their options for work.

ANd if the increased wages are offset by increased productiby, no new money as been introduced to the economy. A few people will get a slightly larger share, but that will be offset other losing their jobs or getting less hours because of increased productivity. It is a shell game at best.

Not at all. You continue to ignore the fact that an increased minimum wage puts more money in families' pockets, thus increasing demand.

By the way, I notice you've not yet attempted to support your talking point with actual historic data. Is that a concession that reality does not support it?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
This thread started out as an indictment of the bush administration's policies that have led to lower real wages, concentration of wealth at the very, very top, increased poverty, and a society one of the most prosperous countries in the world where it's harder for families to make ends meet as life becomes better and better for a very few. Now it's turned into the usual debate on economics.

I can understand why. None of the bush supporters, as usual, want to discuss the real effects of bush's feed the rich and starve everyone else economic policies.

And we know that the taxing the rich is the only solution that will bring high wages and prosperity....

Of course... we either with him and his socialist agenda 100% or we're with the terrorists.... oops, I mean, Bushites.

:roll:

The part that I dont understand is that thase people refuse to beleive that wages are rising without the help of the federal goverment. I would be very hard pressed to find a job that paid minimum wage around here and I dont exactly live in an expensive part of the country.

Socialist whiners -- for the most part -- tend to be losers who never got properly weaned from their mama's tit. Very similar to religious fundamentalists, they must believe that something somewhere controls everything and grants all prayers. They reject the true reality, that nothing and no one is in actual control or authority, because it fills them with terror. All they really know is that all is not well and gubdamnit someone must be held responsible!

To put it a bit more nicely, they're externalists. Someone else must be the change they wish to see in the world.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

This concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite few and the tranfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy has been brought to you by...

Global Labor Wage Arbitrage:

Foreign Outsourcing
Foreign Work Visas (like the H-1B and L-1)
Mass Immigration

Yes, there is in fact a Law of Supply and Demand, and when the demand of able labor increased relative to the supply, the price point (wages) must decrease. Amazingly, only a tiny fraction of the American people, including many economists, seem to understand that.

Consequently, the U.S. is now on the fast track to merging with and joining the rest of the third world. Soon the U.S. will be a third world country. Heck, we already have the world's third largest population and its only increasing at a rapid rate.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

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.

Straw man much?

I'd suggest you go look up the meaning of the term "straw man" and give you duhversion another try. The fact that you don't like what I said doesn't make it a straw man.

Next time we'll all be oh-so-careful to recognize that only you establish the rules of debate here, and which "talking points" are accepted rhetoric and which are not.

For example, that is much more of a straw man argument. I did not attempt to "establish the rules of debate here". I simply pointed out that your example was irrelevant to the question at hand. Again, the fact that you don't like what I said doesn't make it a straw man. Sorry.

The facts remain that: (1) inflation has risen far faster historically since the implementation of the minimum wage than before,

That's nice. Ignoring the countless other economic changes since then that affect inflation and ignoring the fact that correlation does not prove causation, your "fact" remains irrelevant to the question at hand. Does an increase in the minimum wage invariably cause a material increase in inflation? You and charrison suggest it does, yet you continue to avoid offering evidence to support your claims.

It may be time for a little introspection. If you have no evidence to support your claim, perhaps you believe it only because it fits your preexisiting bias. Perhaps it's time to take an objective look at facts instead of blindly repeating something you heard on the radio. Just a thought.

(2) the minimum wage has never kept up with actual costs of living, and (3) very very few workers make minimum wage or ever have.

Those are called red herrings. They have nothing to do with the original premise, that increasing the minimum wage causes inflation and/or a reduction in worker hours.

Hey, if you think the teenage kids at McD's need a raise, then go ahead and make yourself feel good. Just try to keep perspective that that's all you'll be doing.

If you can show that the only people earning minimum wage are "teenage kids at McD's", you might have a point. Get back to me when you can, k?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
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. ...

That simplistic model ignores at least two significant mitigating factors. First, you ignore the general trend of increasing productivity. Indeed, that's one of the reasons for today's growing gap between employee wages and corporate profits. Companies are not rewarding employees for their increasing productivity. Second, increased wages mean increased spending, i.e., demand goes up and sales go up. Increased sales can offset increased wages, especially when coupled with increasing productivity: increased sales volume supported by a fixed number of correspondingly higher-paid employees is a win-win.

Actually I did address increased productiviy. Increased productivity results in fewer hours worked for a given task. The more you increase minimum wage, the more this will happen. This is not a terribly good thing for low skill workers as it limits their options for work.

ANd if the increased wages are offset by increased productiby, no new money as been introduced to the economy. A few people will get a slightly larger share, but that will be offset other losing their jobs or getting less hours because of increased productivity. It is a shell game at best.

Not at all. You continue to ignore the fact that an increased minimum wage puts more money in families' pockets, thus increasing demand.

By the way, I notice you've not yet attempted to support your talking point with actual historic data. Is that a concession that reality does not support it?

My original point was that in end it changes little as higher wages must be paid with higher productivity or higher prices. I could probably find specefic examples of each, but I can guarantee you will not find a single example of business owner swallowing the cost of the increased cost of wages. If you do, let me know.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Hey, if you think the teenage kids at McD's need a raise, then go ahead and make yourself feel good. Just try to keep perspective that that's all you'll be doing.

If you can show that the only people earning minimum wage are "teenage kids at McD's", you might have a point. Get back to me when you can, k?

This is backed up by bls stats. It has been posted and ignored here before.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

This concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite few and the tranfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy has been brought to you by...

Global Labor Wage Arbitrage:

Foreign Outsourcing
Foreign Work Visas (like the H-1B and L-1)
Mass Immigration

Yes, there is in fact a Law of Supply and Demand, and when the demand of able labor increased relative to the supply, the price point (wages) must decrease. Amazingly, only a tiny fraction of the American people, including many economists, seem to understand that.

That's because labor supply and demand is only a small part of the picture. The real issue IMO is the regulated central banking system that provides the overwhelming majority of loaned capital to only half of the equation and that mostly by fueling additional funds into the economy (via fractional reserve banking). This allows to wealthy to benefit from inflation, something that would otherwise erode their the value of the assets.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic
Socialist whiners -- for the most part -- tend to be losers who never got properly weaned from their mama's tit. Very similar to religious fundamentalists, they must believe that something somewhere controls everything and grants all prayers. They reject the true reality, that nothing and no one is in actual control or authority, because it fills them with terror. All they really know is that all is not well and gubdamnit someone must be held responsible!

To put it a bit more nicely, they're externalists. Someone else must be the change they wish to see in the world.

Nice troll. Here's your .

Let me try:

Wealth-worshipping whiners -- for the most part -- tend to be greedy losers who never got properly weaned from their patron's tit. Very similar to religious fundamentalists, they must believe that they are entitled to have more than anyone else, and that the government is responsible for rigging the playing field so they can. They reject the true reality, that wealth is built upon the backs of the working class, because the thought of sharing their success with those who helped make it fills them with terror. All they really know is that they want more and gubdamnit someone must be held responsible!

How's that?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Hey, if you think the teenage kids at McD's need a raise, then go ahead and make yourself feel good. Just try to keep perspective that that's all you'll be doing.

If you can show that the only people earning minimum wage are "teenage kids at McD's", you might have a point. Get back to me when you can, k?

This is backed up by bls stats. It has been posted and ignored here before.

No, it's not. Read all the words this time.


Edit: By the way, I notice you've not yet attempted to support your talking point with actual historic data. Is that a concession that reality does not support it?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

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).

?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Vic
Socialist whiners -- for the most part -- tend to be losers who never got properly weaned from their mama's tit. Very similar to religious fundamentalists, they must believe that something somewhere controls everything and grants all prayers. They reject the true reality, that nothing and no one is in actual control or authority, because it fills them with terror. All they really know is that all is not well and gubdamnit someone must be held responsible!

To put it a bit more nicely, they're externalists. Someone else must be the change they wish to see in the world.

Nice troll. Here's your .

Let me try:

Wealth-worshipping whiners -- for the most part -- tend to be greedy losers who never got properly weaned from their patron's tit. Very similar to religious fundamentalists, they must believe that they are entitled to have more than anyone else, and that the government is responsible for rigging the playing field so they can. They reject the true reality, that wealth is built upon the backs of the working class, because the thought of sharing their success with those who helped make it fills them with terror. All they really know is that they want more and gubdamnit someone must be held responsible!

How's that?

Hilariously way off the mark. Of course the system is rigged. I not only agree with that, I state it here often. And you're the one who thinks the solution is to increase the power and authority of the system. That's why I make fun of you.

Even funnier is that you think the desire to live one's own ideal life makes one greedy and selfish, but your desire to force other people to live YOUR ideal life makes you charitable and unselfish.

I love you people. Laugh a minute!