Raise minimum wage, unemployment rate goes with it.

[Train]

link-o-matic

Oregon has the second-highest minimum wage in the nation as 2005 begins, trailing only its neighbor to the north, Washington state, where the minimum is now $7.35 an hour.

The $7.25 per hour rate in Oregon that took effect Jan. 1 is well above the federal minimum of $5.15 an hour, a rate that has not changed since 1997.

...

Oregon has consistently had the highest unemployment rate in the nation for most of the past three years. The rate is now hovering about 7 percent.

 

[BarneyFife]

They just raised it 3 days ago, how can you come to that conclusion?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
They just raised it 3 days ago, how can you come to that conclusion?

its been one of the highest minimum wages in the country for years, the recent increase will only make it worse.

 

[nageov3t]

you forgot to quote this part of the article:

Economists, however, have not found any significant correlation between the minimum wage and the jobless rate.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
They just raised it 3 days ago, how can you come to that conclusion?

its been one of the highest minimum wages in the country for years, the recent increase will only make it worse.

Yeah, people should get paid less, work more hours and end up with the same modicum of money to support their families.

I hate to break it to you, but the cost of living does vary in the country and many areas require more than $5.25 an hour.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
They just raised it 3 days ago, how can you come to that conclusion?

its been one of the highest minimum wages in the country for years, the recent increase will only make it worse.

It was 6.50 before. How many business' hire people at 5.15 an hour? Very few. I think this is having little effect on unemployment.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: loki8481
you forgot to quote this part of the article:

Economists, however, have not found any significant correlation between the minimum wage and the jobless rate.

hehe

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: loki8481
you forgot to quote this part of the article:

Liberals, however, have not found any significant correlation between the minimum wage and the jobless rate.

Fixed!

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
They just raised it 3 days ago, how can you come to that conclusion?

its been one of the highest minimum wages in the country for years, the recent increase will only make it worse.

Yeah, people should get paid less, work more hours and end up with the same modicum of money to support their families.

I hate to break it to you, but the cost of living does vary in the country and many areas require more than $5.25 an hour.

But businesses still have the same amount of money to spend on labor. Your saying its better for a smaller amount of people to have that money than all the people? What happened to "share the wealth"?

Hate to break it to ya, but free markets do much better than regulated ones, look at Taiwan, rated the freest economy on earth, with a unemployment rate below 4%, Japan, 2nd freest economy, is at 4.5% Then you have Germany, heavily regulated, thier unemployment is ready to break 11% France is also at a 4 year high with 10% and rising.

The correlation the "economists" cant find is there, it just doesnt fit thier ideal, so they are ignoring it.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: loki8481
you forgot to quote this part of the article:

Liberals, however, have not found any significant correlation between the minimum wage and the jobless rate.

Fixed!

:Q

since when has the field of economics been decidedly liberal? it's not like they're talking about English Lit professors or something

edit: economies are complicated, and correlated =! causative

 

[Stunt]

It is known that having a minimum wage should create more unemployment.
But this is economic theory and is tough to prove.

It is my belief that there are a fixed number of lowly jobs in the united states. i mean how many more ditch diggers, cashiers, floor sweepers can there be?
No matter what the wage in america. manufacturing is cheaper overseas <- this is a lost cause for wage purposes.
If we assume that there is a somewhat fixed low income jobs. Will that mean with no minimum wage companies will hire more cashiers?...more cleaners?...hardly. Just means minimally more money for the company (that is hoping the worker's performance doesnt go down due to lower living standards and morale)

Do you have any statistics that show just how many fulltime family workers actually make minimum wage?...i believe the number is extremely low and almost not even debating the minimum wage topic. Most companies compensate employees well for the work they do (also they understand that the current $7 or whatever is barely livable)

 

[Stunt]

found some stats.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 63 million Americans working jobs that pay less than $12,500 per year. That's 31% of American workers. Sounds pretty bad. But wait, only 15.7 million, or 8% of American workers, make less than $12,500 and are listed as "head of household". The rest are spouses, children, grandparents, and the like, who are living with someone else who, in most cases, is earning more.

So we are talking about 8% who are heads of the household.
say oh i dunno companies sqeeze out 1% more people...you have 9% bringing home less than $12000...and 1% less umemployment.

Which situation is better?...both look roughly the same to me.
8% kinda miserable (minimum wage). and 1% miserable. (no work)
versus 9% miserable.(lower pay)

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: loki8481
... economies are complicated, and correlated =! causative

ahh thus the reason for multiple examples, I know better than to use a single example, that would be anecdotal. All of my examples (4 heavily industrialized countries) support the idea that freer markets have more jobs, more regulated markets have less. Sure you can find a few exceptions, but 90% of the time, its pretty obvious.
I could probably find a lot more examples, but didnt have the time, there was a study published not long ago comparing the economic polices vs avg wage of all modernized countries, the results were pretty striking, the list of countries from less regulated to most regulated almost identically matched the same list ordered by jobless rate.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: loki8481
you forgot to quote this part of the article:

Liberals, however, have not found any significant correlation between the minimum wage and the jobless rate.

Fixed!

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
They just raised it 3 days ago, how can you come to that conclusion?

its been one of the highest minimum wages in the country for years, the recent increase will only make it worse.

Yeah, people should get paid less, work more hours and end up with the same modicum of money to support their families.

I hate to break it to you, but the cost of living does vary in the country and many areas require more than $5.25 an hour.

But businesses still have the same amount of money to spend on labor. Your saying its better for a smaller amount of people to have that money than all the people? What happened to "share the wealth"?

Hate to break it to ya, but free markets do much better than regulated ones, look at Taiwan, rated the freest economy on earth, with a unemployment rate below 4%, Japan, 2nd freest economy, is at 4.5% Then you have Germany, heavily regulated, thier unemployment is ready to break 11% France is also at a 4 year high with 10% and rising.

The correlation the "economists" cant find is there, it just doesnt fit thier ideal, so they are ignoring it.

How are you "sharing the wealth" if your workers can't earn a living wage?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Stunt
found some stats.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 63 million Americans working jobs that pay less than $12,500 per year. That's 31% of American workers. Sounds pretty bad. But wait, only 15.7 million, or 8% of American workers, make less than $12,500 and are listed as "head of household". The rest are spouses, children, grandparents, and the like, who are living with someone else who, in most cases, is earning more.

So we are talking about 8% who are heads of the household.
say oh i dunno companies sqeeze out 1% more people...you have 9% bringing home less than $12000...and 1% less umemployment.

Which situation is better?...both look roughly the same to me.
8% kinda miserable (minimum wage). and 1% miserable. (no work)
versus 9% miserable.(lower pay)

I dont know, those would be some good stats to look at, (going to sleep now) need more background though, like how many of them are living off student loans. I knew quite a few people in college who lived on thier own (head of household) but only worked 10-15 hours a week, and reported less than $10k on thier income tax, yet they managed to live pretty well, factoring in student loans and tax breaks. My last full year of college I was technically in poverty (only made $11k) but with student loans, I did just fine. I'm not sure how many people are on student loans each year, but its a number up in the tens of millions for sure (with an avg of $10k per year im guessing), taking a nice dent out of that statistic.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Strk
...
How are you "sharing the wealth" if your workers can't earn a living wage?

umm, did you read the sentence just prior to that one?

If a company has $100k to spend on labor costs, is it better to have 6 people employed at $16,667 a year or 5 people at $20,000 a year with one person unemployed? I'd rather work for the 16k than take a chance at not working at all.

 

[dahunan]

Unemployment in this state is caused by the Government taxing corporations too much and not being business friendly... It is run by environmentalists and people who seriously dislike growth.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Strk
...
How are you "sharing the wealth" if your workers can't earn a living wage?

umm, did you read the sentence just prior to that one?

If a company has $100k to spend on labor costs, is it better to have 6 people employed at $16,667 a year or 5 people at $20,000 a year with one person unemployed? I'd rather work for the 16k than take a chance at not working at all.

ummm, or 5 people at $16,667 a year with one person unemployed 🙂

Companies will take the profit over the additional labour force. Benifits and insurance can end up costing more than the wage 🙂

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Strk
...
How are you "sharing the wealth" if your workers can't earn a living wage?

umm, did you read the sentence just prior to that one?

If a company has $100k to spend on labor costs, is it better to have 6 people employed at $16,667 a year or 5 people at $20,000 a year with one person unemployed? I'd rather work for the 16k than take a chance at not working at all.

If the company can't provide a living wage, why would a worker want to work there? Also, considering you're initial argument is about how $7.35 is evil and causing all sorts of unemployment, your figures for "if a company only has" are high. How are people supposed to raise families on these wages when the average cost of a house in many areas is close to or over $200,000? Or if the average rent is over $600?

 

[dahunan]

Who cares if the average rent is outrageous.. 😉 the business owners are also oftentimes landloards too .. and the more they make you pay for living expenses then the harder they can make you work ..

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: Train
link-o-matic

Oregon has the second-highest minimum wage in the nation as 2005 begins, trailing only its neighbor to the north, Washington state, where the minimum is now $7.35 an hour.

The $7.25 per hour rate in Oregon that took effect Jan. 1 is well above the federal minimum of $5.15 an hour, a rate that has not changed since 1997.

...

Oregon has consistently had the highest unemployment rate in the nation for most of the past three years. The rate is now hovering about 7 percent.

What I would like to know is specifically how is Oregon calculating their unemployment rate? Are they using the number still on and enrolled for unemployment? Do they still count those who are no longer on unemployment, have not been able to find a job, still want/need a job, but ran out of unemployment benefits and there for are no longer being counted as "unemployed"? The latter is what the federal government does not do. Which I think is sick because it gives the US an atificially low unemployment rate. It does that by simply letting people fall off the wagon and into poverty. It also deceives the nation into thinking things are getting better, by the unemployment rate going down, simply because the most needy of our nation fall off into an abyss of bitter poverty, risk of homlessness, and despair after not being able to find a job and their benefits running out.

:thumbsup: 4 American Compassion and Values!
Actually, :thumbsup::thumbsup: for hypocrisy, we have that down to an exact science. :|

EDIT: OH and BTW 7% is not outrageous, it is only 2% above what economists consider FULL EMPLOYMENT. 7% is what Canada has right now and they consider their economy to be booming. Then again this all hinges on the answers to the above questions.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Stunt
found some stats.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 63 million Americans working jobs that pay less than $12,500 per year. That's 31% of American workers. Sounds pretty bad. But wait, only 15.7 million, or 8% of American workers, make less than $12,500 and are listed as "head of household". The rest are spouses, children, grandparents, and the like, who are living with someone else who, in most cases, is earning more.

So we are talking about 8% who are heads of the household.
say oh i dunno companies sqeeze out 1% more people...you have 9% bringing home less than $12000...and 1% less umemployment.

Which situation is better?...both look roughly the same to me.
8% kinda miserable (minimum wage). and 1% miserable. (no work)
versus 9% miserable.(lower pay)

I dont know, those would be some good stats to look at, (going to sleep now) need more background though, like how many of them are living off student loans. I knew quite a few people in college who lived on thier own (head of household) but only worked 10-15 hours a week, and reported less than $10k on thier income tax, yet they managed to live pretty well, factoring in student loans and tax breaks. My last full year of college I was technically in poverty (only made $11k) but with student loans, I did just fine. I'm not sure how many people are on student loans each year, but its a number up in the tens of millions for sure (with an avg of $10k per year im guessing), taking a nice dent out of that statistic.

There is a difference between a sinlge person and a head of a household.

 

[NJDevil]

The funniest part of this thread was that Train thought enough of the article to quote it, but when another point in the article regarding what "economists" say was brought up, he discredits them as liberals.

Incredible.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
They just raised it 3 days ago, how can you come to that conclusion?

its been one of the highest minimum wages in the country for years, the recent increase will only make it worse.

Yeah, people should get paid less, work more hours and end up with the same modicum of money to support their families.

I hate to break it to you, but the cost of living does vary in the country and many areas require more than $5.25 an hour.

Not in Oregon, though. I used to live there, and unless you live in a major city like Portland or *maybe* Eugene, the basic minimum wage will pay rent on a 2 bedroom apartment (generally about $350 per month).

However, you should also take note of something that seems to have flown by your little head: Minimum wage jobs are NOT MEANT for people who want to raise families. You want to go out and pop out a bunch of kids? FINE, but have enough damn ambition to get some kind of skills so that YOU can afford to support them without bilking the rest of us out of our hard-earned money.

Jason

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
The funniest part of this thread was that Train thought enough of the article to quote it, but when another point in the article regarding what "economists" say was brought up, he discredits them as liberals.

Incredible.

Why are you so surprised? Anything (/anyone) that disagrees with the "Bushie conservative mantra" is considered a "stupid liberal" by them.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: NJDevil
The funniest part of this thread was that Train thought enough of the article to quote it, but when another point in the article regarding what "economists" say was brought up, he discredits them as liberals.

Incredible.

Why are you so surprised? Anything (/anyone) that disagrees with the "Bushie conservative mantra" is considered a "stupid liberal" by them.

I am not surprised by other liberals or conservatives acting that silly these days ... I just found it hysterical that someone would use a source, and completely ignore another part of that source.

The labeling of the economists as liberals in this case doesn't surprise me. I'm just "shocked" by someone's silly use of an article