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

[chess9]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: chess9

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."

Shame on you. Shame shame shame. You've posted something intelligent. Go hang your head and stand in the corner. All of these twits have posted NOTHING but stupidity (except for Astra, infra) before you, and you now come here and post professional opinion and facts. Please, don't let this happen again. You might get a reputation for carefulness, thoughtfulness, thoroughness and INTELLIGENCE. STOP I say!

I'd much prefer to hear some graduate of the High School for the Mentally Bereft opine on economic policy. It's so much more, erm, entertaining.

-Robert

yes, posting an article from 2006 about whether to increase the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years has a lot of bearing when the increased minimum wage that came about is still being phased in.


edit: the card-krueger difference-in-differences study mentioned in the second link was about the worst conducted study ever.

Why should we believe YOU?

-Robert

 

[marincounty]

You righties have little knowledge of history.

Ford, who was sworn in as president on Aug. 9, 1974, after the resignation of Richard Nixon, faced inflation that was already surging at a 10.9 percent annual rate in that month. It was thrust into overdrive by the OPEC oil embargo of 1974 and the elimination of wage/price controls instituted in the Nixon administration.
One of Ford's more memorable attempts to restrain inflation at the time was an initiative called Whip Inflation Now. In a televised speech given Oct. 8, 1974, Ford described the plan that was to enable Americans to personally remedy rising costs:

"Here is what we must do, what each and every one of you can do: To help increase food and lower prices, grow more and waste less; to help save scarce fuel in the energy crisis, drive less, heat less.

"Every housewife knows almost exactly how much she spent for food last week. If you cannot spare a penny from your food budget - and I know there are many -surely you can cut the food that you waste by 5 percent."

Buttons with the initials 'WIN' were distributed, and people were encouraged to wear them to help raise the public's awareness of the effort.

The idea was for inflation to be contained and combated on the individual level.

WIN proved to be an ineffective step, "both from the public relations aspect and an economic one," said Daniel Mitchell, professor of management and public policy at UCLA.

"Buttons on lapels weren't going to deal with this sort of thing," Mitchell said.

"Up to that time, we'd never had inflation and higher unemployment," Ratkus explained. "It created a stagnant economy and a term that has since entered into textbooks: 'stagflation.'"

President Ford, who inherited many of the nation's economic problems from the previous administration, was defeated in the following presidential election.

Jimmy Carter was sworn in as president in 1977.

Inflation remained a problem throughout the 1970s, finally peaking at an annual rate of 13.5 percent in 1980.

It wasn't until the early 1980s that inflation was brought fully under control.

Many credit the Federal Reserve, led by Carter-appointed chairman Paul Volcker with his "tough monetary policy," for that.

Volcker limited the growth of the money supply, which resulted in a recession and high lending rates.

Text

So inflation was already at 10.9% when Gerald Ford took office. That sounds like it's all Jimmy Carter's fault to me.

Blaming Jimmy Carter for the massive inflation= Fail

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: jbourne77

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 .

Carter appointed Volcker in 1979, less than 2 years before Reagan took office. Volcker had prime to 20% shortly afterwards.

Reagan usually gets credit for lowering interest rates and reducing inflation but, if anything, Volcker deserves the real credit.

This is my point. I'm not crediting Reagan with anything other than allowing Volcker to tighten the money supply. Carter was vehemently against tightening the money supply and raising interest rates, which is why he couldn't get inflation under control during his term.

I don't know about that. From the horse's mouth.

INTERVIEWER: In your position at the Fed, you were extraordinarily independent. Not many countries' central bankers are quite that independent. Do you think President Carter regretted appointing you?

PAUL VOLCKER: I don't know. I haven't asked him that question directly; he'd probably be polite and answer ["no"]. But he's never really criticized me publicly. I'm sure it made him uneasy. He kind of [appeared uneasy] on one campaign appearance, but only one campaign appearance. I once asked him whether I cost him the election, and he smiled and said there were a few other influences as well. And let us not forget about the Iranian hostages and so forth.

INTERVIEWER: What was President Reagan's stance toward what you were doing?

PAUL VOLCKER: I saw him from time to time, but I was not a close intimate of President Reagan's. His entourage in the White House, or certainly in the Treasury, were very critical at times. They were... kind of a funny mixture. They had monetarist doctrine, supply-side doctrine, libertarian doctrine all mixed together, so some of it wasn't terribly coherent, which helped me a bit. There was unhappiness because there was a big recession early in his term, and things were not really stable. But he himself never criticized me directly in public, certainly. I always had the feeling that he was urged to do so. [It seemed] that every time he had a press conference somebody was urging him to take a slap at the Federal Reserve, but he never did, and I don't know why. I speculate that he was not a highly sophisticated economist. I'm sure he didn't understand all the arguments his own people were giving him. He did understand that he didn't like inflation, and I think he had some kind of a feeling that the Federal Reserve was trying to deal with inflation.

For being "vehemently" against the tightening of money supply and Volcker's actions, it surely doesn't seem like much was said.

Also, from The Historical Journal:

Burns?s replacement, William Miller, proved too soft on inflation when administration priorities changed. In early 1979 Schultze warned that the federal
reserve was ? exerting very modest restraint ?, the first ever expression of concern
by any Democratic CEA chair that monetary policy was not tight enough.49
Eventually in August 1979Miller was persuaded to become treasury secretary and
was replaced by Paul Volcker, an inflation hawk who had won the confidence
both of Wall Street and the international currency markets as president of the
New York federal reserve bank. Before accepting the post, Volcker made plain to
Carter his convictions about ?the importance of an independent central bank and
the need for tighter money?.

Carter?s oft-stated determination to conquer inflation meant that he had no
option but to be publicly supportive of Volcker despite the consequences of restraint
for his reelection. The president?s sole deviation from this line was an
impromptu comment during the election campaign that the federal reserve had ?put too much of their eggs in the money supply basket ?. Otherwise the
administration always defended Volcker to Democratic sceptics and the party?s
various constituencies.

Looks like Carter appointed Volcker knowing that he was going to tighten the money supply.

I think until you have any evidence to support your position, this is case closed.

I actually wrote a research paper on this very subject about 2 years ago, so I'm trying to round up my sources. Most were other research papers from a site with privileged access, so I'm currently working with some colleagues to regain temporary access so I can get my hands on them again.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
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.

Yes, it will help get rid of the greed.

How will it get rid of poor people's greed? Explain.

Keeping what you earn and deserve = not greedy

Wanting what other people earn and you dont deserve = greedy

Hopefully this is simple enough for Dave to grasp.

 

[chess9]

"Fortunately, though, the old-fashioned theories about labor markets that Murphy and others hold are gradually being displaced. A 2000 survey showed that less than half economists agreed that an increase in the minimum wage will always increase unemployment among young and unskilled workers; just ten years before, over 60% of economists believed that. And in 2006, over 650 economists, including Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz, Kenneth Arrow, Robert Solow, Lawrence Klein, and Clive Granger, signed a statement supporting an increase in the minimum wage. They wrote, ?We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have claimed.?

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

-Robert

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: marincounty
So inflation was already at 10.9% when Gerald Ford took office. That sounds like it's all Jimmy Carter's fault to me.

Blaming Jimmy Carter for the massive inflation= Fail

It's not quite that cut and dry. I don't think anyone is blaming Carter for inflation, some (including myself) are blaming him for the duration of it. Volcker's tight monetary policy did, in fact, lead to a predictable recession, but it was a calculated move.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: chess9

Why should we believe YOU?

-Robert

BA economics from Texas, 2001. anyone who has taken a labor economics course in the past ~15 years knows about that study. it's THE textbook example of how not to conduct research.

a study was done that used payroll data instead of the ridiculously poor methodology of card-krueger and found that the NJ increase in minimum wage decreased the hours worked by 5%, which, with an 18% increase in the minimum wage, meant that increase was good.

i'd like to see similar good methodological studies to find out whether the increase currently being implemented is doing what it should (increasing the wage by more than it decreases hours worked) or if we've gone too far (increasing the wage by less than the decrease in hours worked). until we get those we do not know what we should do or the magnitude of what should be done.

the other thing to keep in mind is that usually minimum wage increases are proposed when prevailing wages amongst low skill workers such as cashiers are well above the statutory minimum. going from $5.25 to $6.55 affects very few people when prevailing wages in the market are $8.00+.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: chess9

Why should we believe YOU?

-Robert

BA economics from Texas, 2001.

Stop it, you, with your e-penis

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: marincounty
So inflation was already at 10.9% when Gerald Ford took office. That sounds like it's all Jimmy Carter's fault to me.

Blaming Jimmy Carter for the massive inflation= Fail

It's not quite that cut and dry. I don't think anyone is blaming Carter for inflation, some (including myself) are blaming him for the duration of it. Volcker's tight monetary policy did, in fact, lead to a predictable recession, but it was a calculated move.

"It wasn't until the early 1980s that inflation was brought fully under control.

Many credit the Federal Reserve, led by Carter-appointed chairman Paul Volcker with his "tough monetary policy," for that."

And who appointed Paul Volcker? Jimmy Carter.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

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.

Do you feel better inside now?


My buddy owns 3 KFCs here in CA. A couple years back our minimum went to $8.50. That same day, he had to raise prices by about $.30-$.50 on every item.

But noone should be surprised. Everyone wants a handout.

Getting a fair shake =/= handout.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: marincounty
So inflation was already at 10.9% when Gerald Ford took office. That sounds like it's all Jimmy Carter's fault to me.

Blaming Jimmy Carter for the massive inflation= Fail

It's not quite that cut and dry. I don't think anyone is blaming Carter for inflation, some (including myself) are blaming him for the duration of it. Volcker's tight monetary policy did, in fact, lead to a predictable recession, but it was a calculated move.

"It wasn't until the early 1980s that inflation was brought fully under control.

Many credit the Federal Reserve, led by Carter-appointed chairman Paul Volcker with his "tough monetary policy," for that."

And who appointed Paul Volcker? Jimmy Carter.

Appointed him, yes... but what's being disputed is whether Carter resisted his appointee's will.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: chess9

Why should we believe YOU?

-Robert

BA economics from Texas, 2001. anyone who has taken a labor economics course in the past ~15 years knows about that study. it's THE textbook example of how not to conduct research.

a study was done that used payroll data instead of the ridiculously poor methodology of card-krueger and found that the NJ increase in minimum wage decreased the hours worked by 5%, which, with an 18% increase in the minimum wage, meant that increase was good.

i'd like to see similar good methodological studies to find out whether the increase currently being implemented is doing what it should (increasing the wage by more than it decreases hours worked) or if we've gone too far (increasing the wage by less than the decrease in hours worked). until we get those we do not know what we should do or the magnitude of what should be done.

the other thing to keep in mind is that usually minimum wage increases are proposed when prevailing wages amongst low skill workers such as cashiers are well above the statutory minimum. going from $5.25 to $6.55 affects very few people when prevailing wages in the market are $8.00+.

Where is the evidence other than you say so. Show me your study. Did you read the article above? Did you see the follow-up study?

Aren't all economists libertarians? I've met very few liberal economists. Which is why I like Stieglitz.

-Robert

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: chess9
Aren't all economists libertarians? I've met very few liberal economists. Which is why I like Stieglitz.

-Robert

It's really funny that you say that, because while I was doing my undergrad, I made the same comment to my wife. "Weird, I haven't met a single Republican or Democratic economist... they're all Libertarians!"

Cut to 2008... I'm in grad school... I'm a Libertarian

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: chess9
Aren't all economists libertarians? I've met very few liberal economists. Which is why I like Stieglitz.

-Robert

It's really funny that you say that, because while I was doing my undergrad, I made the same comment to my wife. "Weird, I haven't met a single Republican or Democratic economist... they're all Libertarians!"

Cut to 2008... I'm in grad school... I'm a Libertarian

You've been brainwashed.

-Robert

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: chess9
Aren't all economists libertarians? I've met very few liberal economists. Which is why I like Stieglitz.

-Robert

It's really funny that you say that, because while I was doing my undergrad, I made the same comment to my wife. "Weird, I haven't met a single Republican or Democratic economist... they're all Libertarians!"

Cut to 2008... I'm in grad school... I'm a Libertarian

You've been brainwashed.

-Robert

Honestly, you're right. What my education has done is hyper-focus my attention on economics at the expense of everything else. Since I've been trained to believe that economics are the crux of all social and fiscal dilemmas, I'm okay with that :laugh: .

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Laughable if he thinks this will change anything. All it does it provide a short term gain for people on the lowest ring of society until inflation catches up. The idea the govt can legislate people out of poverty is pathetically funny.

At least he is trying something. All you do is babble incoherent bs that makes no sense or is just false. Just keep your pie hole shut and at least give the man a chance.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Genx87
Laughable if he thinks this will change anything. All it does it provide a short term gain for people on the lowest ring of society until inflation catches up. The idea the govt can legislate people out of poverty is pathetically funny.

At least he is trying something. All you do is babble incoherent bs that makes no sense or is just false. Just keep your pie hole shut and at least give the man a chance.

FDR "just tried something" and expanded government 6-fold.

Flailing around in quicksand = bad idea.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: chess9

Where is the evidence other than you say so. Show me your study. Did you read the article above? Did you see the follow-up study?

Aren't all economists libertarians? I've met very few liberal economists. Which is why I like Stieglitz.

-Robert

http://www.econ.jhu.edu/people/Barnow/neumarmw.pdf

 

[ElFenix]

thinking about it, the earned income tax credit is probably a better way to address the particular issue. it's already indexed for inflation, it doesn't catch in high school students, and it doesn't add any direct cost to employers.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Xavier434
You are forgetting about market competition and its ability to keep prices reasonably in check.

Oh, I haven't forgotten about this at all. In fact, this is EXACTLY why I'm against minimum wage laws in the first place: the labor market - like the market for computers, produce, and sex toys - has an equilibrium. Minimum wage - which is nothing but a price floor - distorts the market and carries the potential to make said equilibrium unattainable.

So keeping prices "in check" is precisely why you should be against such measures.

No, because I dont believe that market competition alone can handle it that responsibility effectively enough. I believe that some of the markets need a degree of regulation. I realize that you believe otherwise though. There are tons of examples out there of both too much free market failing as well as too much shitty government regulation. I believe that we need to balance that equation.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Xavier434
You are forgetting about market competition and its ability to keep prices reasonably in check.

Oh, I haven't forgotten about this at all. In fact, this is EXACTLY why I'm against minimum wage laws in the first place: the labor market - like the market for computers, produce, and sex toys - has an equilibrium. Minimum wage - which is nothing but a price floor - distorts the market and carries the potential to make said equilibrium unattainable.

So keeping prices "in check" is precisely why you should be against such measures.

No, because I dont believe that market competition alone can handle it that responsibility effectively enough. I believe that some of the markets need a degree of regulation. I realize that you believe otherwise though. There are tons of examples out there of both too much free market failing as well as too much shitty government regulation. I believe that we need to balance that equation.

I actually believe that some regulation in the labor market is necessary, just not to tune of $9.50/hour. I'm not a "pure" capitalist, but I am probably what most would consider extreme in that regard.

It's strange: I'm excited and nervous about Obama's entrance all at the same time. Hey, at least we live in interesting times, right :thumbsup: .

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
thinking about it, the earned income tax credit is probably a better way to address the particular issue. it's already indexed for inflation, it doesn't catch in high school students, and it doesn't add any direct cost to employers.

Now is not the time to EXPERIMENT WITH SOCIALISM!!11

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Text

So inflation was already at 10.9% when Gerald Ford took office. That sounds like it's all Jimmy Carter's fault to me.

Blaming Jimmy Carter for the massive inflation= Fail

A monthly rate of 10.9% is quite a bit different than an annual rate of 13.5%.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: chess9

Where is the evidence other than you say so. Show me your study. Did you read the article above? Did you see the follow-up study?

Aren't all economists libertarians? I've met very few liberal economists. Which is why I like Stieglitz.

-Robert

http://www.econ.jhu.edu/people/Barnow/neumarmw.pdf

"I am writing to request data for research I am conducting in conjunction with The Employment Policies Institute, a restaurant supported lobbying and research organization."



When someone goes to this length to debunk CK, you had to believe they were going to find a way to twist the data set. What did CK have to say about this 'research'?

But, thanks for the study. At least you have an informed opinion, unlike almost everyone else here.

-Robert

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: chess9

"I am writing to request data for research I am conducting in conjunction with The Employment Policies Institute, a restaurant supported lobbying and research organization."



When someone goes to this length to debunk CK, you had to believe they were going to find a way to twist the data set. What did CK have to say about this 'research'?

But, thanks for the study. At least you have an informed opinion, unlike almost everyone else here.

-Robert

their statistical method was the same as card-krueger.

the only difference is that they used payroll data rather than calling the restaurant and asking, 'how many full and part time employees, excluding managers, do you have?' surely you can see the problems in asking that question without any further explanation of what data is wanted. but that's how card-krueger did it.


card-krueger reply. this reply uses BLS statistics reported for unemployment insurance purposes. i don't like how big their data collection area is. NE NJ is basically an NYC suburb and tied very much to economic performance in NYC. i'd be more interested in areas bordering PA than newark.


a possible explanation for the results seen