Obama to raise minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011.

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Republican economics and philosophy = MASSIVE FAILURE.

Supply side economics doesn't work and has never worked in this country. Republicans have never shown they are capable of balancing a budget and keeping spending under control. They have no idea how to run an economy. When I see conservatives on here act like they know how to run the economy I laugh. Your party is a failure and your ideologies are a failure.

Is that why GDP has grown from ~$3 trillion in 1980 to $14 trillion today?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jackace
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15227667/

"More than 650 economists, including five winners of the Nobel Prize for economics, called Wednesday for an increase in the minimum wage, saying the value of the last increase, in 1997, has been ?fully eroded.?

http://www.truthout.org/articl...-wage-doesnt-cost-jobs

"My thinking on this has changed dramatically," says Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman who teaches economics at Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey. "The evidence appears to be against the simple-minded theory that a modest increase in the minimum wage causes substantial job loss."

Interesting

And by 2011, that $9.50 will have already eroded. Prices will increase faster than their wage.

Instead of increasing minimum wage, they aught to look at why we even need one anyway. With a stronger, more stable economy, people wouldn't be fighting for work, businesses would be fighting for workers, naturally increasing wages instead of government doing it artificially.

Call me when that happens and is guaranteed to remain that way for eternity.

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jackace
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15227667/

"More than 650 economists, including five winners of the Nobel Prize for economics, called Wednesday for an increase in the minimum wage, saying the value of the last increase, in 1997, has been ?fully eroded.?

http://www.truthout.org/articl...-wage-doesnt-cost-jobs

"My thinking on this has changed dramatically," says Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman who teaches economics at Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey. "The evidence appears to be against the simple-minded theory that a modest increase in the minimum wage causes substantial job loss."

Interesting

Very interesting considering the last increase was passed last year, wasn't it?

I was posting the articles to show people that economists around the country are FOR minimum wage increases as needed and the down-side effects are not as severe as people first thought.

Minimum wage is still a balancing act, just like taxes, but it is one we have to balance and not ignore.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
If an employer needs the work done, he'll hire someone to do it whether it's for $6 or $9.50, unless the margin is so slim that he won't spend the extra 3 bucks.

That's not necessarily true at all. If I own a corner convenience store and hire someone to stock shelves, and then the new min wage is above what I value the employee's service at, I'll just opt to do it myself. Textbook opportunity cost.

That is under the assumption that you have time to do it yourself and that you believe that your time is worth less that the $9.50 it would cost to pay someone else to do it.

That is true in some cases, and untrue in others. Here's a case where it's untrue:

My shelves must be stocked. I place a certain price on my time. If that price is lower than 9.50 an hour, I'll simply work more hours to do the work of the employee(s) I must fire. The work is still being done, but the economy just shrunk.

Mathematically that makes sense but realistically it doesn't exist.

What employer in America feels his time is worth less than $9.50/hr? What is the point of running a business when you believe that the time you spend doing it is worth so little that you can literally get a job pretty much ANYWHERE else that results in your time being worth more? That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
If an employer needs the work done, he'll hire someone to do it whether it's for $6 or $9.50, unless the margin is so slim that he won't spend the extra 3 bucks.

That's not necessarily true at all. If I own a corner convenience store and hire someone to stock shelves, and then the new min wage is above what I value the employee's service at, I'll just opt to do it myself. Textbook opportunity cost.

That is under the assumption that you have time to do it yourself and that you believe that your time is worth less that the $9.50 it would cost to pay someone else to do it.

That is true in some cases, and untrue in others. Here's a case where it's untrue:

My shelves must be stocked. I place a certain price on my time. If that price is lower than 9.50 an hour, I'll simply work more hours to do the work of the employee(s) I must fire. The work is still being done, but the economy just shrunk.

Mathematically that makes sense but realistically it doesn't exist.

What employer in America feels his time is worth less than $9.50/hr? What is the point of running a business when you believe that the time you spend doing it is worth so little that you can literally get a job pretty much ANYWHERE else that results in your time being worth more? That doesn't make any sense at all.

It isnt just $9.50/hr. It also increases the taxes that the employer has to match, as well as increases UI benefits, thus increasing UI premiums employers pay. (at least in this state)

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jackace
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15227667/

"More than 650 economists, including five winners of the Nobel Prize for economics, called Wednesday for an increase in the minimum wage, saying the value of the last increase, in 1997, has been ?fully eroded.?

http://www.truthout.org/articl...-wage-doesnt-cost-jobs

"My thinking on this has changed dramatically," says Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman who teaches economics at Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey. "The evidence appears to be against the simple-minded theory that a modest increase in the minimum wage causes substantial job loss."

Interesting

And by 2011, that $9.50 will have already eroded. Prices will increase faster than their wage.

Instead of increasing minimum wage, they aught to look at why we even need one anyway. With a stronger, more stable economy, people wouldn't be fighting for work, businesses would be fighting for workers, naturally increasing wages instead of government doing it artificially.

Call me when that happens and is guaranteed to remain that way for eternity.

Yeah, and let me know when the government effectively manages the economy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Thus jump is a lot bigger than inflation. This is a 31% jump in 2 years.

After Bush hadn't raised it since Clinton.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: jbourne77

And to control inflation, Carter tried strongarming the Fed to bend to his will. Reagan got it under control, but he did it by simply getting the hell out of the way and letting the Fed do its job.

It is incumbent upon you to back up your fallacy which you clearly cannot.

Hey kid, it's not a fallacy just because you say so. The fact that you seem to think otherwise combined with the fact that all you do is troll around telling people they "fail" without giving any hint as to why you think so is precisely why I've gone no further with you. What would be the point; you're a child.

I agree I haven't presented much in terms of a case - no argument there - but you haven't even commenced a real discussion with me. Jimmy Carter interfered with Paul Volcker and the Fed; he in effect tried to make the Fed an arm and tool of the Executive Branch, and this prevented the Fed from doing its job. I'm prepared to go into this as deeply as you'd like, but you need to meet me halfway. Try actually engaging in a discussion rather than firing off one-liners from the hip and then accusing others of lack of thought. Get real. If you think the history is false or you disagree with the case-effect relationship I've described, tell me why and we can get a real back-and-forth going.

But you're not prepared for a real discussion and/or you're ignorant of the subject, so like I said earlier, fuck off.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Very interesting considering the last increase was passed last year, wasn't it?

I was posting the articles to show people that economists around the country are FOR minimum wage increases as needed and the down-side effects are not as severe as people first thought.

Minimum wage is still a balancing act, just like taxes, but it is one we have to balance and not ignore.

Yeah, our economy is in _great!_ shape now.

 

[Schadenfroh]

nevermind

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
If an employer needs the work done, he'll hire someone to do it whether it's for $6 or $9.50, unless the margin is so slim that he won't spend the extra 3 bucks.

That's not necessarily true at all. If I own a corner convenience store and hire someone to stock shelves, and then the new min wage is above what I value the employee's service at, I'll just opt to do it myself. Textbook opportunity cost.

That is under the assumption that you have time to do it yourself and that you believe that your time is worth less that the $9.50 it would cost to pay someone else to do it.

That is true in some cases, and untrue in others. Here's a case where it's untrue:

My shelves must be stocked. I place a certain price on my time. If that price is lower than 9.50 an hour, I'll simply work more hours to do the work of the employee(s) I must fire. The work is still being done, but the economy just shrunk.

Mathematically that makes sense but realistically it doesn't exist.

What employer in America feels his time is worth less than $9.50/hr? What is the point of running a business when you believe that the time you spend doing it is worth so little that you can literally get a job pretty much ANYWHERE else that results in your time being worth more? That doesn't make any sense at all.

I think you're looking at this way too simplistically. An employer can donate, for all intents and purposes, as much time to his business as needs. If, to remain profitable, he must work 80 hours a week instead of 40, he'll do it. That's why it makes sense mathematically and it exists in reality.

When you start forcing employers to provide certain benefits, increase payroll taxes, etc., you put them in a position where they need to reevaluate employee's productivity contributions to their own time; and every time they have to evaluate this, you run the risk of job loss.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Very interesting considering the last increase was passed last year, wasn't it?

I was posting the articles to show people that economists around the country are FOR minimum wage increases as needed and the down-side effects are not as severe as people first thought.

Minimum wage is still a balancing act, just like taxes, but it is one we have to balance and not ignore.

Yeah, our economy is in _great!_ shape now.

Up until a month ago you and your heroes were saying is was strong.

 

[OCGuy]

Here is a great idea!

Lets raise taxes on a business that makes $270K per year. At the same time, lets blast labor costs through the roof! All in an economy where revenues are down already.


Yea, this will help.

 

[mect]

I'm not necessarily opposed to a minimum wage, but why would anyone think that minimum wage should be set at a national level? Let the states handle it themselves, like many do. Why does Kansas, where you can buy a decent home for 100K in many areas, need the same minimum wage as California. Why does everyone want all the problems solved at a level most removed from the people.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I think you're looking at this way too simplistically. An employer can donate, for all intents and purposes, as much time to his business as needs. If, to remain profitable, he must work 80 hours a week instead of 40, he'll do it. That's why it makes sense mathematically and it exists in reality.

When you start forcing employers to provide certain benefits, increase payroll taxes, etc., you put them in a position where they need to reevaluate employee's productivity contributions to their own time; and every time they have to evaluate this, you run the risk of job loss.

Has increasing minimum wage ever proven to be the reason behind job loss ever in our history? It sounds to me like it is just an excuse to cover up the real problems that involve poor business plans and middle class working America from not spending as much.

Look at Circuit City. Circuit City failed because of their business model, firing every single one of their long-time salespeople to hire the usual pimple-faced minimum wage workers that don't know crap, focusing on monster cables, and being terrible overall.

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jackace

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Very interesting considering the last increase was passed last year, wasn't it?

I was posting the articles to show people that economists around the country are FOR minimum wage increases as needed and the down-side effects are not as severe as people first thought.

Minimum wage is still a balancing act, just like taxes, but it is one we have to balance and not ignore.

Yeah, our economy is in _great!_ shape now.

What's that supposed to mean? Are you now trying to say our current economic problems are due to the government increasing minimum wage in the last couple years?

 

[jackace]

http://crookedtimber.org/2008/...-and-the-minimum-wage/

More information on minimum wage and the models economists use to try and predict it's effects.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
That is not what he is saying at all.

Then what is he saying? All I'm seeing is that dissenting opinions are being considered republican opinions and not people having an issue with the matter at hand.

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Greeeaaaattttt....

Hey, don't blame me that people make poor choices that lead to a dysfunctional family unit. Personally, I don't like welfare much in the state that it's in... there's not enough oversight and that leads to abuse. But, as humans, are we not supposed to help our fellow man when he (or she) is in dire straights? Although, I do get a bit annoyed when I see that I put effort into getting and education and with that a good job... yet people that just live their life skimming by and get free monies. I want free monies too .

Originally posted by: jackace
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15227667/

"More than 650 economists, including five winners of the Nobel Prize for economics, called Wednesday for an increase in the minimum wage, saying the value of the last increase, in 1997, has been ?fully eroded.?

That's from 2006.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jackace
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15227667/

"More than 650 economists, including five winners of the Nobel Prize for economics, called Wednesday for an increase in the minimum wage, saying the value of the last increase, in 1997, has been ?fully eroded.?

http://www.truthout.org/articl...-wage-doesnt-cost-jobs

"My thinking on this has changed dramatically," says Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman who teaches economics at Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey. "The evidence appears to be against the simple-minded theory that a modest increase in the minimum wage causes substantial job loss."

Interesting

And by 2011, that $9.50 will have already eroded. Prices will increase faster than their wage.

Instead of increasing minimum wage, they aught to look at why we even need one anyway. With a stronger, more stable economy, people wouldn't be fighting for work, businesses would be fighting for workers, naturally increasing wages instead of government doing it artificially.

wtf i thought you were an obamabot

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I think you're looking at this way too simplistically. An employer can donate, for all intents and purposes, as much time to his business as needs. If, to remain profitable, he must work 80 hours a week instead of 40, he'll do it. That's why it makes sense mathematically and it exists in reality.

When you start forcing employers to provide certain benefits, increase payroll taxes, etc., you put them in a position where they need to reevaluate employee's productivity contributions to their own time; and every time they have to evaluate this, you run the risk of job loss.

Has increasing minimum wage ever proven to be the reason behind job loss ever in our history? It sounds to me like it is just an excuse to cover up the real problems that involve poor business plans and middle class working America from not spending as much.

Look at Circuit City. Circuit City failed because of their business model, firing every single one of their long-time salespeople to hire the usual pimple-faced minimum wage workers that don't know crap, focusing on monster cables, and being terrible overall.

Oh, there's no question that business models in corporate America are lax. Companies (thought they) were making money hand over fist in the 90's, and they lost their fiscal discipline as a result.

But do I think minimum wage measures hurt places like Circuit City? Not directly. Do they hurt employment in the small business sector? I absolutely believe they do. But at the very least, they increase the price level (inflation). They don't increase anyone's purchasing power ("real" earnings) - they decrease it. Aren't "real wages" what we should be truly interested in?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: Xavier434
That is not what he is saying at all.

Then what is he saying? All I'm seeing is that dissenting opinions are being considered republican opinions and not people having an issue with the matter at hand.

I have already presented my argument about that in previous posts in this thread. Basically, what is happening here is that people are drawing conclusions and trying to drive doubt and lack of confidence in America when NOTHING has even happened yet. This country works a heck of a lot better when its people are confident and motivated to put in 100%. That is what we should be promoting right now as we wait for Obama to show us what he is made of. We are only hurting ourselves by being so cynical.

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Greeeaaaattttt....

Hey, don't blame me that people make poor choices that lead to a dysfunctional family unit. Personally, I don't like welfare much in the state that it's in... there's not enough oversight and that leads to abuse. But, as humans, are we not supposed to help our fellow man when he (or she) is in dire straights? Although, I do get a bit annoyed when I see that I put effort into getting and education and with that a good job... yet people that just live their life skimming by and get free monies. I want free monies too .

No one is blaming you and this is why welfare exists. My point was that welfare is not the preferred solution when others are available. If you are not making ends meet but will be if min wage is increased then you don't need to be on welfare. People fear that prices will rise too much and jobs will be lost as a result, but that is debatable. Otherwise, this thread wouldn't be as long as it is.

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: jackace
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15227667/

"More than 650 economists, including five winners of the Nobel Prize for economics, called Wednesday for an increase in the minimum wage, saying the value of the last increase, in 1997, has been ?fully eroded.?

That's from 2006.

Indeed, but the content applies in some ways to the arguments being presented in this thread.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: jbourne77

And to control inflation, Carter tried strongarming the Fed to bend to his will. Reagan got it under control, but he did it by simply getting the hell out of the way and letting the Fed do its job.

It is incumbent upon you to back up your fallacy which you clearly cannot.

Hey kid, it's not a fallacy just because you say so. The fact that you seem to think otherwise combined with the fact that all you do is troll around telling people they "fail" without giving any hint as to why you think so is precisely why I've gone no further with you. What would be the point; you're a child.

I agree I haven't presented much in terms of a case - no argument there - but you haven't even commenced a real discussion with me. Jimmy Carter interfered with Paul Volcker and the Fed; he in effect tried to make the Fed an arm and tool of the Executive Branch, and this prevented the Fed from doing its job. I'm prepared to go into this as deeply as you'd like, but you need to meet me halfway. Try actually engaging in a discussion rather than firing off one-liners from the hip and then accusing others of lack of thought. Get real. If you think the history is false or you disagree with the case-effect relationship I've described, tell me why and we can get a real back-and-forth going.

But you're not prepared for a real discussion and/or you're ignorant of the subject, so like I said earlier, fuck off.

You are a liar.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: jbourne77

And to control inflation, Carter tried strongarming the Fed to bend to his will. Reagan got it under control, but he did it by simply getting the hell out of the way and letting the Fed do its job.

It is incumbent upon you to back up your fallacy which you clearly cannot.

Hey kid, it's not a fallacy just because you say so. The fact that you seem to think otherwise combined with the fact that all you do is troll around telling people they "fail" without giving any hint as to why you think so is precisely why I've gone no further with you. What would be the point; you're a child.

I agree I haven't presented much in terms of a case - no argument there - but you haven't even commenced a real discussion with me. Jimmy Carter interfered with Paul Volcker and the Fed; he in effect tried to make the Fed an arm and tool of the Executive Branch, and this prevented the Fed from doing its job. I'm prepared to go into this as deeply as you'd like, but you need to meet me halfway. Try actually engaging in a discussion rather than firing off one-liners from the hip and then accusing others of lack of thought. Get real. If you think the history is false or you disagree with the case-effect relationship I've described, tell me why and we can get a real back-and-forth going.

But you're not prepared for a real discussion and/or you're ignorant of the subject, so like I said earlier, fuck off.

You are a liar.

At least you've put in enough thought to change your mantra from one baseless, juvenile insult to another. Once again, you've proven you have nothing of value to add to what has otherwise been a rather civil discussion.

Thanks for showing us all what you're made of .

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Has increasing minimum wage ever proven to be the reason behind job loss ever in our history? It sounds to me like it is just an excuse to cover up the real problems that involve poor business plans and middle class working America from not spending as much.

Look at Circuit City. Circuit City failed because of their business model, firing every single one of their long-time salespeople to hire the usual pimple-faced minimum wage workers that don't know crap, focusing on monster cables, and being terrible overall.

Oh, there's no question that business models in corporate America are lax. Companies (thought they) were making money hand over fist in the 90's, and they lost their fiscal discipline as a result.

But do I think minimum wage measures hurt places like Circuit City? Not directly. Do they hurt employment in the small business sector? I absolutely believe they do. But at the very least, they increase the price level (inflation). They don't increase anyone's purchasing power ("real" earnings) - they decrease it. Aren't "real wages" what we should be truly interested in?

You are forgetting about market competition and its ability to keep prices reasonably in check. This is also why it is good that such a proposal will not happen until at least 2011. Obama is smart enough to understand that we need to get this market rolling again better than it is now first.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Do you really think Obama is going to implement any of this shit until the market starts to settle down again in a few years? He's not that dumb. Look at his economic advising team for christ sakes, Warren Buffet would not support Obama if he thought his policies would send our economy further into the shitter.