Minimum Wage increase

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Several posters have noted that we don?t have a free labor market. One additional reason our labor markets are not free actually has to do with the actions of the federal government. As a matter of explicit policy, the Federal Reserve board sets interest rates based on employment levels (among many other factors, of course).

When employment levels drop too low, the Fed will increase the Federal Reserve Rate with the explicit intent of raising unemployment. This is done to keep inflation low, since a tight enough labor market becomes inflationary as employers must pay more for labor as they bid for hard to find labor. I personally think this is a reasonable thing to do, as it provides a benefit to everyone.

However, it has the unfortunate effect of depressing low end wages, and the minimum wage helps compensate for this. It is therefore perverse to argue that we should eliminate the minimum wage in the name of reducing the effect of government on the free market when the government itself takes actions with the conscious intent of lowering wages

That's not right at all. Their intent is to keep inflation under control. Nobody knows the exact numbers for what full employment is so it would be silly to try to target that. We did that in the 1970s and what we got was stagflation.

Read again, and understand what 540 said.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Several posters have noted that we don?t have a free labor market. One additional reason our labor markets are not free actually has to do with the actions of the federal government. As a matter of explicit policy, the Federal Reserve board sets interest rates based on employment levels (among many other factors, of course).

When employment levels drop too low, the Fed will increase the Federal Reserve Rate with the explicit intent of raising unemployment. This is done to keep inflation low, since a tight enough labor market becomes inflationary as employers must pay more for labor as they bid for hard to find labor. I personally think this is a reasonable thing to do, as it provides a benefit to everyone.

However, it has the unfortunate effect of depressing low end wages, and the minimum wage helps compensate for this. It is therefore perverse to argue that we should eliminate the minimum wage in the name of reducing the effect of government on the free market when the government itself takes actions with the conscious intent of lowering wages

That's not right at all. Their intent is to keep inflation under control. Nobody knows the exact numbers for what full employment is so it would be silly to try to target that. We did that in the 1970s and what we got was stagflation.

Read again, and understand what 540 said.

It's not so much a matter of lack of reading comprehension. It's just that people don't know what the fed does.

In any event, the fed's purported goal is to control inflation via target interest rates. One of the inputs into inflation is employment rate. As employment rises, workers become scarce and their bargaining power increases. Higher paid employees is inflation as far as the fed in concerned so acting against inflation sometimes translates into reducing employment. As far as knowing what the natural rate of unemployment is, people know what is vaguely is and that's good enough for jazz as far as the fed is concerned. By the way, did you know that Alan Greenspan is a sax player? And besides, it doesn't really matter what the natural rate is since the fed is trying to control rates more than it's trying for full employment. All the fed needs to know to act would be that employment is rising above historic levels and inflation is rising.

The fed is a totally anti-free market institution by the way and it is also a private corporation and not a government institution which many people don't realize.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Read again, and understand what 540 said.

It's not so much a matter of lack of reading comprehension. It's just that people don't know what the fed does.

In any event, the fed's purported goal is to control inflation via target interest rates. One of the inputs into inflation is employment rate. As employment rises, workers become scarce and their bargaining power increases. Higher paid employees is inflation as far as the fed in concerned so acting against inflation sometimes translates into reducing employment. As far as knowing what the natural rate of unemployment is, people know what is vaguely is and that's good enough for jazz as far as the fed is concerned. By the way, did you know that Alan Greenspan is a sax player? And besides, it doesn't really matter what the natural rate is since the fed is trying to control rates more than it's trying for full employment. All the fed needs to know to act would be that employment is rising above historic levels and inflation is rising.

The fed is a totally anti-free market institution by the way and it is also a private corporation and not a government institution which many people don't realize.

Full employment could never be more than a transitory state, and a disastrous one at that. Any person, at any given time can be unemployed without having made any 'poor' choices. If they're still unemployed six months later something somewhere has most likely gone wrong.

I don't think the fed is entirely 'anti-free-market'. Their mandate is to manipulate money so that free decision making in the economy produces more beneficial outcomes, based on a definition of 'beneficial' which does not necessarily conform to 'the highest possible net output'.

I don't necessarily thin that they always act in accordance with that mandate, nor do I like the system by which the fed is paid but they are not an unambiguously 'bad' entity in terms of the economy.

 

[Vic]

I have really come to like BMW540I6speed's posts. We need more reasonable and intelligent people like him on this board.

And yes, it's true. The existence of the minimum wage is basically a requirement because of the interventions of the Fed (and for other beneficial reasons as well that I already noted in this thread, like regulatory compliance of employee hours, and protection for low-scale working adults against competition from teenage workers). However, increases to the minimum wage have little to no effect and (for those who triumph them) are basically feel-good measures. The mice voted a small wage increase for 0.25% of the working adult population. Great, pat yourself on the back. Now go do something that will really help the poor like volunteer at your local shelter or food bank please.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Several posters have noted that we don?t have a free labor market. One additional reason our labor markets are not free actually has to do with the actions of the federal government. As a matter of explicit policy, the Federal Reserve board sets interest rates based on employment levels (among many other factors, of course).

When employment levels drop too low, the Fed will increase the Federal Reserve Rate with the explicit intent of raising unemployment. This is done to keep inflation low, since a tight enough labor market becomes inflationary as employers must pay more for labor as they bid for hard to find labor. I personally think this is a reasonable thing to do, as it provides a benefit to everyone.

However, it has the unfortunate effect of depressing low end wages, and the minimum wage helps compensate for this. It is therefore perverse to argue that we should eliminate the minimum wage in the name of reducing the effect of government on the free market when the government itself takes actions with the conscious intent of lowering wages

That's not right at all. Their intent is to keep inflation under control. Nobody knows the exact numbers for what full employment is so it would be silly to try to target that. We did that in the 1970s and what we got was stagflation.

Read again, and understand what 540 said.

While his conclusion may be right, his basis for it is wrong. It is true that higher than full employment can cause inflation thus causing the Fed to raise interest rates but the employment part is not the reason for raising interest rates. The Fed has stuck to targeting inflation like many other central banks have. You can look at other central banks like Japan's to see that the employment rate has nothing to do with the interest rate (Japan has extremely low unemployment and near zero interest rates).

I will agree that the raising of interest rates does depress the wages of lower skilled workers because they are generally the first to go when credit starts to get tightened. I don't think that was made worse by the Fed, however. Real interest rates have been extremely low for the past 15 years or so due to the stability of the money supply. Looking at the time before the Fed, there were periods of fairly low real interest rates but there were also periods of really high real interest rates due to bank runs (roughly once a decade). That is a much worse environment for unskilled, low-paid labor than the current situation.

Personally I don't care if there is a minimum wage or not. I do think that if there is one it should be low and indexed to inflation. Raising the minimum wage does more harm than good and there are more efficient ways to increase the income of the poor.

 

[Kanalua]

All 1.6% of the workforce earning at or below minimum wage will be so grateful!!!

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
All 1.6% of the workforce earning at or below minimum wage will be so grateful!!!

That extra 12 dollars a week will pull them right out of poverty.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Several posters have noted that we don?t have a free labor market. One additional reason our labor markets are not free actually has to do with the actions of the federal government. As a matter of explicit policy, the Federal Reserve board sets interest rates based on employment levels (among many other factors, of course).

When employment levels drop too low, the Fed will increase the Federal Reserve Rate with the explicit intent of raising unemployment. This is done to keep inflation low, since a tight enough labor market becomes inflationary as employers must pay more for labor as they bid for hard to find labor. I personally think this is a reasonable thing to do, as it provides a benefit to everyone.

However, it has the unfortunate effect of depressing low end wages, and the minimum wage helps compensate for this. It is therefore perverse to argue that we should eliminate the minimum wage in the name of reducing the effect of government on the free market when the government itself takes actions with the conscious intent of lowering wages

That's not right at all. Their intent is to keep inflation under control. Nobody knows the exact numbers for what full employment is so it would be silly to try to target that. We did that in the 1970s and what we got was stagflation.

Read again, and understand what 540 said.

It's not so much a matter of lack of reading comprehension. It's just that people don't know what the fed does.

In any event, the fed's purported goal is to control inflation via target interest rates. One of the inputs into inflation is employment rate. As employment rises, workers become scarce and their bargaining power increases. Higher paid employees is inflation as far as the fed in concerned so acting against inflation sometimes translates into reducing employment. As far as knowing what the natural rate of unemployment is, people know what is vaguely is and that's good enough for jazz as far as the fed is concerned. By the way, did you know that Alan Greenspan is a sax player? And besides, it doesn't really matter what the natural rate is since the fed is trying to control rates more than it's trying for full employment. All the fed needs to know to act would be that employment is rising above historic levels and inflation is rising.

The fed is a totally anti-free market institution by the way and it is also a private corporation and not a government institution which many people don't realize.

Correct. When i inform people who dont know this they look at me like im a moron.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Blanco Nino-

Minimum wage increases are peanuts to the recipients,

That extra 12 dollars a week will pull them right out of poverty.

Support it, oppose it, or just want to pooh-pooh it, at least tell the truth.

Raising the minimum from $5.15 to $7.25 could be an $84/wk raise for a full time worker, 40% over 26 months, far from insignificant. It'll buy a lot of groceries.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Kanalua
All 1.6% of the workforce earning at or below minimum wage will be so grateful!!!

That extra 12 dollars a week will pull them right out of poverty.

Most of who live at home with their parents. Woohoo! We're fighting the war on poverty!!

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Blanco Nino-

Minimum wage increases are peanuts to the recipients,

That extra 12 dollars a week will pull them right out of poverty.

Support it, oppose it, or just want to pooh-pooh it, at least tell the truth.

Raising the minimum from $5.15 to $7.25 could be an $84/wk raise for a full time worker, 40% over 26 months, far from insignificant. It'll buy a lot of groceries.

Yeah, my 12 dollars a week was the math with my state's minimum wage increase (30 cents) this year.

Either way, as Vic pointed out, most minimum wage workers live with their parents. Believe me, I work at a restaurant with minimum wage workers, and most do live with their parents. What do they spend their money on? Cell phones, alcohol, video games, CD's, iPods, trendy clothes...which I have no problem with (it's their money), but you have to ask yourself: "Do these people really need more money?"

Not to mention that I personally know somebody who has had a few problems with the law. Washington State's minimum wage is now $7.93. He's fairly young, and really wants to find a job. He needs to start at the bottom and work his way up. The problem? There is no bottom at 8 dollars an hour.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic
How much the rich might have received in a tax cut has nothing to do with what they actually pay, nor anything at all to do with a small increase in the minimum wage. Taxes aren't charity, the rich have still gotten richer despite almost 100 years of progressive income taxation. Why? Because being rich is about assets as well as income. Thanks for trolling though, marin...

I was responding to a poster that said "Name one bill that was a tax cut for the wealthy. Name one. I dare you. The rich pay so much in tax it will make your head spin."
So I pointed out a tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthy.
You're the one who is saying the minimum wage increase is " one of those feel-good-while-doing-nothing kind of agendas". To the people making the minuimum wage-yes this is a feel good measure, they are going to feel good when they get a larger pay check.

quote: "I am so happy, however, that Jhhnn and Craig234 have decided to baselessly insult everyone here who dares to question the actual value of their little feel-good agenda. Heaven forbid they actually get off their lazy asses and do something truly helpful for the poor, they'll just demand that others give them a pathetic little bump in the minimum wage and then wash their hands of it. Oh... but don't tell them that's all they're doing, their massive senses of self-denial will explode into rabid insulting pompousity"

I suppose another tax cut and more welfare "reform" would help the less fortunate in your libertarian fantasyland.

To the first part, no... you originally trolled that issue up and got spidey07 to take the bait. This threads are not verbal conversations, so don't act like they are. The posts are even time stamped.
Next, just as long as their paychecks are not as big as yours, right?
Finally, I like the "fantasyland" dodge. It reveals how pathetic you are. For one thing, I didn't bring up any support for such items, nor are they relevant to this discussion. For another, when you take into account the fact that I rubbed your nose into the reality that your little feel-good measures do little to nothing to actually help the poor, and you still refuse to even address that, it really shows just who is living in the fantasyland, now doesn't it?
You want to help people, then help them. This isn't it. Do you make $15,080/yr? Could you survive off that? In the meantime, I think we've had enough of the pompous false nobility here.

I have explained how the minimum wage increase actually does help the poor, it increases their wages, how is that not helping them?
And seeing how a large part of the economy is based on consumer spending, isn't putting more money in the hands of consumers beneficial to the economy?
Actually, I lived on less than $15k per year in California for many years, what does that have to do with anything?
Vic, I think many of us have had enough of your admitted trolling here.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic
How much the rich might have received in a tax cut has nothing to do with what they actually pay, nor anything at all to do with a small increase in the minimum wage. Taxes aren't charity, the rich have still gotten richer despite almost 100 years of progressive income taxation. Why? Because being rich is about assets as well as income. Thanks for trolling though, marin...

I was responding to a poster that said "Name one bill that was a tax cut for the wealthy. Name one. I dare you. The rich pay so much in tax it will make your head spin."
So I pointed out a tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthy.
You're the one who is saying the minimum wage increase is " one of those feel-good-while-doing-nothing kind of agendas". To the people making the minuimum wage-yes this is a feel good measure, they are going to feel good when they get a larger pay check.

quote: "I am so happy, however, that Jhhnn and Craig234 have decided to baselessly insult everyone here who dares to question the actual value of their little feel-good agenda. Heaven forbid they actually get off their lazy asses and do something truly helpful for the poor, they'll just demand that others give them a pathetic little bump in the minimum wage and then wash their hands of it. Oh... but don't tell them that's all they're doing, their massive senses of self-denial will explode into rabid insulting pompousity"

I suppose another tax cut and more welfare "reform" would help the less fortunate in your libertarian fantasyland.

To the first part, no... you originally trolled that issue up and got spidey07 to take the bait. This threads are not verbal conversations, so don't act like they are. The posts are even time stamped.
Next, just as long as their paychecks are not as big as yours, right?
Finally, I like the "fantasyland" dodge. It reveals how pathetic you are. For one thing, I didn't bring up any support for such items, nor are they relevant to this discussion. For another, when you take into account the fact that I rubbed your nose into the reality that your little feel-good measures do little to nothing to actually help the poor, and you still refuse to even address that, it really shows just who is living in the fantasyland, now doesn't it?
You want to help people, then help them. This isn't it. Do you make $15,080/yr? Could you survive off that? In the meantime, I think we've had enough of the pompous false nobility here.

I have explained how the minimum wage increase actually does help the poor, it increases their wages, how is that not helping them?
And seeing how a large part of the economy is based on consumer spending, isn't putting more money in the hands of consumers beneficial to the economy?
Actually, I lived on less than $15k per year in California for many years, what does that have to do with anything?
Vic, I think many of us have had enough of your admitted trolling here.

Oh really, when have I "admitted" to trolling? As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, these are documented discussions. Prove it with a link or shut up with your unfounded accusations (read: you're a liar).

To directly counter your statements though, equalization of assets (read: buying power) represents economic equilibrium and thus a healthy economy. A regulated marginal increase in income (not assets) of the lowest rung does not achieve that goal. If it did, then it would have been successful when it was first introduced decades ago, now wouldn't it? But no, the rich keep getting rich and the poor poorer. How can that be?

marincounty, I think many of us have had enough of your economic ignorance and political arrogance.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic
How much the rich might have received in a tax cut has nothing to do with what they actually pay, nor anything at all to do with a small increase in the minimum wage. Taxes aren't charity, the rich have still gotten richer despite almost 100 years of progressive income taxation. Why? Because being rich is about assets as well as income. Thanks for trolling though, marin...

I was responding to a poster that said "Name one bill that was a tax cut for the wealthy. Name one. I dare you. The rich pay so much in tax it will make your head spin."
So I pointed out a tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthy.
You're the one who is saying the minimum wage increase is " one of those feel-good-while-doing-nothing kind of agendas". To the people making the minuimum wage-yes this is a feel good measure, they are going to feel good when they get a larger pay check.

quote: "I am so happy, however, that Jhhnn and Craig234 have decided to baselessly insult everyone here who dares to question the actual value of their little feel-good agenda. Heaven forbid they actually get off their lazy asses and do something truly helpful for the poor, they'll just demand that others give them a pathetic little bump in the minimum wage and then wash their hands of it. Oh... but don't tell them that's all they're doing, their massive senses of self-denial will explode into rabid insulting pompousity"

I suppose another tax cut and more welfare "reform" would help the less fortunate in your libertarian fantasyland.

To the first part, no... you originally trolled that issue up and got spidey07 to take the bait. This threads are not verbal conversations, so don't act like they are. The posts are even time stamped.
Next, just as long as their paychecks are not as big as yours, right?
Finally, I like the "fantasyland" dodge. It reveals how pathetic you are. For one thing, I didn't bring up any support for such items, nor are they relevant to this discussion. For another, when you take into account the fact that I rubbed your nose into the reality that your little feel-good measures do little to nothing to actually help the poor, and you still refuse to even address that, it really shows just who is living in the fantasyland, now doesn't it?
You want to help people, then help them. This isn't it. Do you make $15,080/yr? Could you survive off that? In the meantime, I think we've had enough of the pompous false nobility here.

I have explained how the minimum wage increase actually does help the poor, it increases their wages, how is that not helping them?
And seeing how a large part of the economy is based on consumer spending, isn't putting more money in the hands of consumers beneficial to the economy?
Actually, I lived on less than $15k per year in California for many years, what does that have to do with anything?
Vic, I think many of us have had enough of your admitted trolling here.

I've explained several times why a minimum wage increase is a horribly inefficient way to help the poor.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic
How much the rich might have received in a tax cut has nothing to do with what they actually pay, nor anything at all to do with a small increase in the minimum wage. Taxes aren't charity, the rich have still gotten richer despite almost 100 years of progressive income taxation. Why? Because being rich is about assets as well as income. Thanks for trolling though, marin...

I was responding to a poster that said "Name one bill that was a tax cut for the wealthy. Name one. I dare you. The rich pay so much in tax it will make your head spin."
So I pointed out a tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthy.
You're the one who is saying the minimum wage increase is " one of those feel-good-while-doing-nothing kind of agendas". To the people making the minuimum wage-yes this is a feel good measure, they are going to feel good when they get a larger pay check.

quote: "I am so happy, however, that Jhhnn and Craig234 have decided to baselessly insult everyone here who dares to question the actual value of their little feel-good agenda. Heaven forbid they actually get off their lazy asses and do something truly helpful for the poor, they'll just demand that others give them a pathetic little bump in the minimum wage and then wash their hands of it. Oh... but don't tell them that's all they're doing, their massive senses of self-denial will explode into rabid insulting pompousity"

I suppose another tax cut and more welfare "reform" would help the less fortunate in your libertarian fantasyland.

To the first part, no... you originally trolled that issue up and got spidey07 to take the bait. This threads are not verbal conversations, so don't act like they are. The posts are even time stamped.
Next, just as long as their paychecks are not as big as yours, right?
Finally, I like the "fantasyland" dodge. It reveals how pathetic you are. For one thing, I didn't bring up any support for such items, nor are they relevant to this discussion. For another, when you take into account the fact that I rubbed your nose into the reality that your little feel-good measures do little to nothing to actually help the poor, and you still refuse to even address that, it really shows just who is living in the fantasyland, now doesn't it?
You want to help people, then help them. This isn't it. Do you make $15,080/yr? Could you survive off that? In the meantime, I think we've had enough of the pompous false nobility here.

I have explained how the minimum wage increase actually does help the poor, it increases their wages, how is that not helping them?
And seeing how a large part of the economy is based on consumer spending, isn't putting more money in the hands of consumers beneficial to the economy?
Actually, I lived on less than $15k per year in California for many years, what does that have to do with anything?
Vic, I think many of us have had enough of your admitted trolling here.

Oh really, when have I "admitted" to trolling? As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, these are documented discussions. Prove it with a link or shut up with your unfounded accusations (read: you're a liar).

To directly counter your statements though, equalization of assets (read: buying power) represents economic equilibrium and thus a healthy economy. A regulated marginal increase in income (not assets) of the lowest rung does not achieve that goal. If it did, then it would have been successful when it was first introduced decades ago, now wouldn't it? But no, the rich keep getting rich and the poor poorer. How can that be?

marincounty, I think many of us have had enough of your economic ignorance and political arrogance.

Yes, Vic , these are documented discussions. Here is a quote from the trans fat thread:

"BTW, now that I hate children, is anyone going to back up the claim that I am somehow knee-jerking against this ban beyond the fact that I said I think it's unnecessary and probably foolish? I know you radicals like to play your little straw man games that I am evil Satan himself because I dare to disagree with you, but I think (as this does grow a little bit tiresome after a while) that you should wake up and realize that I've been fscking with you just to make you look like the fools you are. And yes, I do this often, and yes, I am proud of the fact that I give you just enough rope to hang yourselves with. You whine and lie and generalize your prejudices and label both yourself and others what you (and they) are not and destroy all intelligent discussion on this board, so I think it's the least you deserve. "

You basically admit you are a troll. Care to deny it now?
I think many of us are tired of your libertarian mumbo jumbo, please go away now.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Yes, Vic , these are documented discussions. Here is a quote from the trans fat thread:

"BTW, now that I hate children, is anyone going to back up the claim that I am somehow knee-jerking against this ban beyond the fact that I said I think it's unnecessary and probably foolish? I know you radicals like to play your little straw man games that I am evil Satan himself because I dare to disagree with you, but I think (as this does grow a little bit tiresome after a while) that you should wake up and realize that I've been fscking with you just to make you look like the fools you are. And yes, I do this often, and yes, I am proud of the fact that I give you just enough rope to hang yourselves with. You whine and lie and generalize your prejudices and label both yourself and others what you (and they) are not and destroy all intelligent discussion on this board, so I think it's the least you deserve. "

You basically admit you are a troll. Care to deny it now?
I think many of us are tired of your libertarian mumbo jumbo, please go away now.

:roll:

Hardly an admission of trolling there. That was my response because you said I wanted to kill children. Like I said (and you quoted), you destroy all intelligent discussion on this board with your ridiculous ignorance and outrageous arrogance. So when I get frustrated at your ridiculous whining doublethinking, making you look stupid is indeed the least you deserve. Maybe if you woke up and smelled the reality, then we could have more civil discussion.

What you're sick of, it seems, is that I'm right. You're whining bags of hot air. You pat yourself on the back that you're helping the poor when you have other people throw them tiny dimes of extra income. You're "saving lives" by passing draconian laws instead of working on education. You love government and democracy but hate elected leaders that aren't members of your party. On and on and on.
That's not mumbo-jumbo, you're just partisan blind, ignorance, and stupid. You think how you're told to think.

And oh, BTW, this isn't your board to tell me to go away. I was here years before you joined. I didn't ruin your board with my freethinking libertarian "mumbo-jumbo", you ruined mine with your blind partisan hackery.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty
Yes, Vic , these are documented discussions. Here is a quote from the trans fat thread:

"BTW, now that I hate children, is anyone going to back up the claim that I am somehow knee-jerking against this ban beyond the fact that I said I think it's unnecessary and probably foolish? I know you radicals like to play your little straw man games that I am evil Satan himself because I dare to disagree with you, but I think (as this does grow a little bit tiresome after a while) that you should wake up and realize that I've been fscking with you just to make you look like the fools you are. And yes, I do this often, and yes, I am proud of the fact that I give you just enough rope to hang yourselves with. You whine and lie and generalize your prejudices and label both yourself and others what you (and they) are not and destroy all intelligent discussion on this board, so I think it's the least you deserve. "

You basically admit you are a troll. Care to deny it now?
I think many of us are tired of your libertarian mumbo jumbo, please go away now.

:roll:

Hardly an admission of trolling there. That was my response because you said I wanted to kill children. Like I said (and you quoted), you destroy all intelligent discussion on this board with your ridiculous ignorance and outrageous arrogance. So when I get frustrated at your ridiculous whining doublethinking, making you look stupid is indeed the least you deserve. Maybe if you woke up and smelled the reality, then we could have more civil discussion.

What you're sick of, it seems, is that I'm right. You're whining bags of hot air. You pat yourself on the back that you're helping the poor when you have other people throw them tiny dimes of extra income. You're "saving lives" by passing draconian laws instead of working on education. You love government and democracy but hate elected leaders that aren't members of your party. On and on and on.
That's not mumbo-jumbo, you're just partisan blind, ignorance, and stupid. You think how you're told to think.

And oh, BTW, this isn't your board to tell me to go away. I was here years before you joined. I didn't ruin your board with my freethinking libertarian "mumbo-jumbo", you ruined mine with your blind partisan hackery.

My ridiculous ignorance and outrageous arrogance? You claim that I said you want to kill children, when it is not true. What I said was "In other words, Vic is in favor of poisoning children".
I'm passing draconian laws? I knew I was powerful but I didn't realize I was responsible for legislatures and congress passing laws.
Vic, your continued name calling, trolling, and lying needs to stop. Perhaps some professional can help with your many problems.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: brandonb

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
How could it possibly be a bad thing? It's a good thing and long overdue

As stated in my OP. Why is it a good thing? I can't see it. Even reading all the responses to this discussion I still can't see it. Just "Its needed, and long overdue, and it's good" but no real concrete evidence how its good. Just speculation and "Kumbaya" feelings.

Agree! All the craps that has been mentioned is nothing but as such. There isn't and there will never be anything good in raising the minimum wage. In a country with a strong economy, min wage is never a topic. Because there are so many jobs, thus demand for workers, companies are the one raising the wage to hire employees because of high demand in emlpoyess. Which basically puts us back to the holy grail of economics, The law of supply and demand.

When you think of minimum wage think about our competitiveness in the international market. Remember, the higher the cost of manufacturing, the higher will be the selling price of the product. If we cannot sell to others then we cannot survive. For companies cannot just continue making products and not be able to sell them. Good example of our lost competitiveness, Customer Support Reps now mostly outsourced to India. Nurses mostly imported from Asia, Steel Manufacturing mostly gone instead we just import it since it's cheaper to buy from Asia then make our own, Ship building the only ships we build now are Military ships and only because of the military secrecy involve, otherwise we would just import or buy this from Asia too. We do not even build commercial ships anymore! When was the last time you own an American made TV? How much do you think of your car is actually made in US? Boeing used to enjoy monopoly in airline business, now Airbus makes more commercial aircraft then Boeing.

We do not need a force increase in min wage. Instead we should focus on being more competitive in the international market. By doing so, we increases demand in manufacturing, thus increase in number of jobs. Increase in jobs corresponds to higher demand for workers, thus higher wages. If you keep your focus just to your own neighborhood, and/or maybe to your State, then you'll conclude min wage increase is good. But the long term effect will always be negative.

As mentioned, in WA State, the min wage is at $7.00 something. Yet, the State unemployment rate is still higher than the national average. So higher domestic spending power does not necessarily correlate with a strong economy. It's one factor but never entirely.