I wasn't claiming it was all roses - I was claiming it covered the welfare dropping question. And note with welfare being so high above min wage in some places as demonstrated before - in some places those opting to go back to work rather than take welfare would lose money logically amongst other potentials.
And its already well accepted there would be some degree of slight inflation - 0.008% inflation would (roughly head math not calculator) create an effective loss to average income of $226/yr.
I must say, for me, its not a valid reason then. You are making it tougher for the people you are trying to help and whats worse you are bringing in more competition with the few you help bring off welfare.
I'm not asserting either one, I want a claim made by a poster validated.
Again are you saying I will not respond to me because you are mad how someone else responded?
To be clear before you choose to answer my question or choose to not answer it again; my questions are regarding a federal minimum wage increase not a state or city increase of minimum wage.
So here is a clear wording. If you would like anything else cleared up please ask.
1.) Increasing the federal minimum wage will reduce the amount of people on welfare.
or
2.) Increasing the federal minimum wage will not reduce the number of people on welfare.
Since both cannot be true at the same time which one do you think would be the true statement?
I'm not asserting either one, I want a claim made by a poster validated.
Again are you saying I will not respond to me because you are mad how someone else responded?
To be clear before you choose to answer my question or choose to not answer it again; my questions are regarding a federal minimum wage increase not a state or city increase of minimum wage.
So here is a clear wording. If you would like anything else cleared up please ask.
1.) Increasing the federal minimum wage will reduce the amount of people on welfare.
or
2.) Increasing the federal minimum wage will not reduce the number of people on welfare.
Since both cannot be true at the same time which one do you think would be the true statement?
I do not care. Why are you forcing me to argue something I have no interst in arguing? Some one made a claim of which has nothing to do with emotion....I stated if it could be backed up it was good idea. turns out it could not be backed up.
Mys45: You're not reading your own articles, you're saying they say the opposite of what they directly say later in each article. (In addition to being OpEd)
Speaking of that, I'm pretty sure that Berkeley paper you linked is directly antithetical to your argument. They are using the term 'welfare' in the sense of welfare economics, not in the sense of government handouts -- so when they claim that the minimum wage reduces welfare, they don't mean that less people are taking the dole; they mean that it decreases the prosperity of society. (At least according to the measures of prosperity they have selected.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Mys45: You're not reading your own articles, you're saying they say the opposite of what they directly say later in each article. (In addition to being OpEd)
Speaking of that, I'm pretty sure that Berkeley paper you linked is directly antithetical to your argument. They are using the term 'welfare' in the sense of welfare economics, not in the sense of government handouts -- so when they claim that the minimum wage reduces welfare, they don't mean that less people are taking the dole; they mean that it decreases the prosperity of society. (At least according to the measures of prosperity they have selected.)
I was ask going ask about this because there are other elements of that paper I wanted to quote but did not really understand the context. I though it meant what you are saying here but was not sure, thanks for posting this.
Here where Vaclav blows ups when he can not find one single study/research paper done by an economisit that supports "higher minimum wage = lower welfare in todays economy" of which he is using to validate a rise in the minimum wage. Oh and his patented goalpost shift.
Every article talks about what the min wage should be and what metric should be used, not a damn word about why it should be....oh welfare but there is not one bit of current economic data that would support that contention.
I realize that this debate is between Vaclav and yourself.
But I would like to see if you could show any evidence is support of the following statement;
Raising the minimum wage will not decrease the number of people receiving welfare.
No. I'm tired of bull**** claims being met by shifting of goalpost and asking me to defend a premise I never asserted. Vac needs to defend his bull****. Especially when he makes claims about my reading comprehsnesion in a dubious assulat of a study he apparently did not read himself.
Yes, you never made any assertions... You never posted half-*** articles that are logically flawed (therefore useless, even harmful). You also don't skip over posts where people present actual thought because you can't respond...
I didn't see if you respond to what Vaclav said about welfare? About making more on welfare than minimum wage.
Overall, your circular reasoning (that we should support the current economy, because it's the current economy), lack of thought you put into you responses, lack of thought when reading your supporting articles, has lead me to believe you just know enough yet about HOW our economy works, and the purpose of a SOCIETY.
Questions for you and only you.....
I think everyone should make a good living, lets raise the minimum wage to $1000 an hour.....
Would this be a good idea or bad idea, why not? Show me how smart and logical you are.
Here where Vaclav blows ups when he can not find one single study/research paper done by an economisit that supports "higher minimum wage = lower welfare in todays economy" of which he is using to validate a rise in the minimum wage. Oh and his patented goalpost shift.
Every article talks about what the min wage should be and what metric should be used, not a damn word about why it should be....oh welfare but there is not one bit of current economic data that would support that contention.
I realize that this debate is between Vaclav and yourself.
But I would like to see if you could show any evidence is support of the following statement;
Raising the minimum wage will not decrease the number of people receiving welfare.
No. I'm tired of bull**** claims being met by shifting of goalpost and asking me to defend a premise I never asserted. Vac needs to defend his bull****. Especially when he makes claims about my reading comprehsnesion in a dubious assulat of a study he apparently did not read himself.
Yes, you never made any assertions... You never posted half-*** articles that are logically flawed (therefore useless, even harmful). You also don't skip over posts where people present actual thought because you can't respond...
I didn't see if you respond to what Vaclav said about welfare? About making more on welfare than minimum wage.
Overall, your circular reasoning (that we should support the current economy, because it's the current economy), lack of thought you put into you responses, lack of thought when reading your supporting articles, has lead me to believe you just know enough yet about HOW our economy works, and the purpose of a SOCIETY.
Questions for you and only you.....
I think everyone should make a good living, lets raise the minimum wage to $1000 an hour.....
Would this be a good idea or bad idea, why not? Show me how smart and logical you are.
$1,000? Bad idea, it's too much money. Now you're going to say, "how do you know what is the right value?" to which I will answer, "i don't really know, but what I do know is that right now, it's too low."
Here where Vaclav blows ups when he can not find one single study/research paper done by an economisit that supports "higher minimum wage = lower welfare in todays economy" of which he is using to validate a rise in the minimum wage. Oh and his patented goalpost shift.
Every article talks about what the min wage should be and what metric should be used, not a damn word about why it should be....oh welfare but there is not one bit of current economic data that would support that contention.
I realize that this debate is between Vaclav and yourself.
But I would like to see if you could show any evidence is support of the following statement;
Raising the minimum wage will not decrease the number of people receiving welfare.
No. I'm tired of bull**** claims being met by shifting of goalpost and asking me to defend a premise I never asserted. Vac needs to defend his bull****. Especially when he makes claims about my reading comprehsnesion in a dubious assulat of a study he apparently did not read himself.
Yes, you never made any assertions... You never posted half-*** articles that are logically flawed (therefore useless, even harmful). You also don't skip over posts where people present actual thought because you can't respond...
I didn't see if you respond to what Vaclav said about welfare? About making more on welfare than minimum wage.
Overall, your circular reasoning (that we should support the current economy, because it's the current economy), lack of thought you put into you responses, lack of thought when reading your supporting articles, has lead me to believe you just know enough yet about HOW our economy works, and the purpose of a SOCIETY.
Questions for you and only you.....
I think everyone should make a good living, lets raise the minimum wage to $1000 an hour.....
Would this be a good idea or bad idea, why not? Show me how smart and logical you are.
$1,000? Bad idea, it's too much money. Now you're going to say, "how do you know what is the right value?" to which I will answer, "i don't really know, but what I do know is that right now, it's too low."
Why is it too much money? You seem to disregard the reality and think of the world as it should be with out really understanding why it cant be that way. You also fail to understand that process is is much more important than the result. Artificially changing results based on results is a bad.
Wages are a result of supply and demand...the interaction between the two is the process and the result is the price. Artificially changing the price will impact the process. The process can no longer work as effectively.
As pointed out by the berkeley paper posted by Vac, these consequences are no bed of roses for the people you are "helping".
Why is it too much money? You seem to disregard the reality and think of the world as it should be with out really understanding why it cant be that way. You also fail to understand that process is is much more important than the result. Artificially changing results based on results is a bad.
A question for you and you alone. Do you think we should do away with the minimum wage and what do you think would happen if we did?
Wages are a result of supply and demand...the interaction between the two is the process and the result is the price.
Not always.
Artificially changing the price will impact the process.
Which is the point of minimum wage
The process can no longer work as effectively.
I agree. The most effective system for the owner and overall company is being disrupted. However the most effective system for a company would be salvery. So where do you stand on this?
As pointed out by the berkeley paper posted by Vac, these consequences are no bed of roses for the people you are "helping".
I actually agree. Changing minimum wage is not going to do much. I support raising it some but not a large amount. The root problem is low wages across the board. Construction workers are being paid less than they should. Office workers are being paid less. Teachers, nurses, facotry workers, drywallers, pipe fitters, welders, mechanics. Basically anyone working for a large corporation (with a few exceptions here and there) are paid far lower than they should be. No changing of the minimum wage will make the shift required for the economy.
Wages are lower than they have been in years (when accounting for % of the budget) and pensions are gone.
Here where Vaclav blows ups when he can not find one single study/research paper done by an economisit that supports "higher minimum wage = lower welfare in todays economy" of which he is using to validate a rise in the minimum wage. Oh and his patented goalpost shift.
Every article talks about what the min wage should be and what metric should be used, not a damn word about why it should be....oh welfare but there is not one bit of current economic data that would support that contention.
I realize that this debate is between Vaclav and yourself.
But I would like to see if you could show any evidence is support of the following statement;
Raising the minimum wage will not decrease the number of people receiving welfare.
No. I'm tired of bull**** claims being met by shifting of goalpost and asking me to defend a premise I never asserted. Vac needs to defend his bull****. Especially when he makes claims about my reading comprehsnesion in a dubious assulat of a study he apparently did not read himself.
Yes, you never made any assertions... You never posted half-*** articles that are logically flawed (therefore useless, even harmful). You also don't skip over posts where people present actual thought because you can't respond...
I didn't see if you respond to what Vaclav said about welfare? About making more on welfare than minimum wage.
Overall, your circular reasoning (that we should support the current economy, because it's the current economy), lack of thought you put into you responses, lack of thought when reading your supporting articles, has lead me to believe you just know enough yet about HOW our economy works, and the purpose of a SOCIETY.
Questions for you and only you.....
I think everyone should make a good living, lets raise the minimum wage to $1000 an hour.....
Would this be a good idea or bad idea, why not? Show me how smart and logical you are.
$1,000? Bad idea, it's too much money. Now you're going to say, "how do you know what is the right value?" to which I will answer, "i don't really know, but what I do know is that right now, it's too low."
Why is it too much money? You seem to disregard the reality and think of the world as it should be with out really understanding why it cant be that way. You also fail to understand that process is is much more important than the result. Artificially changing results based on results is a bad.
Wages are a result of supply and demand...the interaction between the two is the process and the result is the price. Artificially changing the price will impact the process. The process can no longer work as effectively.
As pointed out by the berkeley paper posted by Vac, these consequences are no bed of roses for the people you are "helping".
Supply and demand is often manipulated by those with the power to do so. If you think the invisible hand isn't guided by those with power you are seriously mistaken. Steps have been taken for years to lower the wage of workers, which is what we have seen for years now.
What you must realize, first and foremost, is that humans are more important than corporations. We have been taught that humans are merely tools for something or another. The reason socialism has been brought up by me, was because at it's core, people are what is valued. With capitalism, money is what is valued.
When you have a system that is based around getting more money, a divide will be made, and it will grow and grow until a revolution occurs. People are not being treated like people, and it's wrong. That's why murder is unlawful.
Wage slaves are very real, that's why slavery has been brought up. There are modern day overseers (people like you, no offense), who are just above "slave" levels, and are supposed to agree with the elite (the "masters" if you will). Slavery isn't over, it just took a new alias.
Society has been a core of humans ever since humans "arrived" here. Society is a function of the collective. What happens if you keep a person locked up, away from people? They go crazy. It's in our nature to help each other, but the environment has been designed to hate each other.
People need to realize that just because the world "seems" to work right now, doesn't mean it can't get better. "Life isn't fair" is just a cop out. Who's to say we can't develop a "fair" system? Or why not develop a MORE "fair" system? People are important, and society is important. Do you want crime to run rampant? Homeless people living in the gutter in front of your house? Do you want to be robbed of your possessions? Society matters... I suggest you realize this and start to support your fellow humans and you might find they support you.
To literally force families into situations where they must work 40 hours a week (both parents) just to pay RENT is just disgusting. There is more than enough money and resources to go around. The problem is, the elite capitalists don't care. Socialism is the answer.
Read "Why Socialism" by Albert Einstein. He really explains in a very simplified manner.
Minimum wage should be higher, I know how the system works, and this is just ONE of many problems, but it IS still a problem. People don't make enough money, they honestly don't. If we can agree on that, THEN and only then, should we start to discuss how we can get more money into the hands of those who need it.
Do you think we should do away with the minimum wage and what do you think would happen if we did?
To be completely honest, I think it's irrelevant, the minimum wage that is. If one were concerned about the minimum wage, it would address the issues that causes them.....which is the lack of demand and a rather high supply of low skilled workers.
I think what should happen is the most pragmatic solution possible from a political, ideological and practical perspective is...leave it alone. With that said, I'm not economist, which is why I rely so much on studies and such rather than some arbitrary moral compass or flawed ideology. Based on the information I have, I really see no need for it.
Which is the point of minimum wage
Which was great back in the day of very few regulations governing businesses but today, messing with it does more harm than good. Almost all studies are either neutral to it's effect or down right says it's bad for the people who it helps. There is very little data that can tout the benefit of raising the minimum wage...
I agree. The most effective system for the owner and overall company is being disrupted. However the most effective system for a company would be salvery. So where do you stand on this?
No...I disagree that slavery is the most effective system for labor. The cost of slavery is enormous for a society, from a social, political and economic perspectives.
Wages are lower than they have been in years (when accounting for % of the budget) and pensions are gone.
Nobody can answer why we should be paid more than the guy from ten years ago.....other than using some arbitrary moral imperative. If we made more than the guy from ten years ago, would any of you suggest a pay cut?
Here where Vaclav blows ups when he can not find one single study/research paper done by an economisit that supports "higher minimum wage = lower welfare in todays economy" of which he is using to validate a rise in the minimum wage. Oh and his patented goalpost shift.
Every article talks about what the min wage should be and what metric should be used, not a damn word about why it should be....oh welfare but there is not one bit of current economic data that would support that contention.
I realize that this debate is between Vaclav and yourself.
But I would like to see if you could show any evidence is support of the following statement;
Raising the minimum wage will not decrease the number of people receiving welfare.
No. I'm tired of bull**** claims being met by shifting of goalpost and asking me to defend a premise I never asserted. Vac needs to defend his bull****. Especially when he makes claims about my reading comprehsnesion in a dubious assulat of a study he apparently did not read himself.
Yes, you never made any assertions... You never posted half-*** articles that are logically flawed (therefore useless, even harmful). You also don't skip over posts where people present actual thought because you can't respond...
I didn't see if you respond to what Vaclav said about welfare? About making more on welfare than minimum wage.
Overall, your circular reasoning (that we should support the current economy, because it's the current economy), lack of thought you put into you responses, lack of thought when reading your supporting articles, has lead me to believe you just know enough yet about HOW our economy works, and the purpose of a SOCIETY.
Questions for you and only you.....
I think everyone should make a good living, lets raise the minimum wage to $1000 an hour.....
Would this be a good idea or bad idea, why not? Show me how smart and logical you are.
$1,000? Bad idea, it's too much money. Now you're going to say, "how do you know what is the right value?" to which I will answer, "i don't really know, but what I do know is that right now, it's too low."
Why is it too much money? You seem to disregard the reality and think of the world as it should be with out really understanding why it cant be that way. You also fail to understand that process is is much more important than the result. Artificially changing results based on results is a bad.
Wages are a result of supply and demand...the interaction between the two is the process and the result is the price. Artificially changing the price will impact the process. The process can no longer work as effectively.
As pointed out by the berkeley paper posted by Vac, these consequences are no bed of roses for the people you are "helping".
Supply and demand is often manipulated by those with the power to do so. If you think the invisible hand isn't guided by those with power you are seriously mistaken. Steps have been taken for years to lower the wage of workers, which is what we have seen for years now.
What you must realize, first and foremost, is that humans are more important than corporations. We have been taught that humans are merely tools for something or another. The reason socialism has been brought up by me, was because at it's core, people are what is valued. With capitalism, money is what is valued.
When you have a system that is based around getting more money, a divide will be made, and it will grow and grow until a revolution occurs. People are not being treated like people, and it's wrong. That's why murder is unlawful.
Wage slaves are very real, that's why slavery has been brought up. There are modern day overseers (people like you, no offense), who are just above "slave" levels, and are supposed to agree with the elite (the "masters" if you will). Slavery isn't over, it just took a new alias.
Society has been a core of humans ever since humans "arrived" here. Society is a function of the collective. What happens if you keep a person locked up, away from people? They go crazy. It's in our nature to help each other, but the environment has been designed to hate each other.
People need to realize that just because the world "seems" to work right now, doesn't mean it can't get better. "Life isn't fair" is just a cop out. Who's to say we can't develop a "fair" system? Or why not develop a MORE "fair" system? People are important, and society is important. Do you want crime to run rampant? Homeless people living in the gutter in front of your house? Do you want to be robbed of your possessions? Society matters... I suggest you realize this and start to support your fellow humans and you might find they support you.
To literally force families into situations where they must work 40 hours a week (both parents) just to pay RENT is just disgusting. There is more than enough money and resources to go around. The problem is, the elite capitalists don't care. Socialism is the answer.
Read "Why Socialism" by Albert Einstein. He really explains in a very simplified manner.
Minimum wage should be higher, I know how the system works, and this is just ONE of many problems, but it IS still a problem. People don't make enough money, they honestly don't. If we can agree on that, THEN and only then, should we start to discuss how we can get more money into the hands of those who need it.
The fundamental flaw with your socialist idealism is the total disregard of human nature and the variations of morals. You operate with a moral compass on all things, there is a right and wrong. ....so do right wing homophobes. What makes them wrong and you right? Moral compasses are great for the individual, they are horrible to push upon a society. Islamic fundamentalist think they are right too.
To be completely honest, I think it's irrelevant, the minimum wage that is. If one were concerned about the minimum wage, it would address the issues that causes them.....which is the lack of demand and a rather high supply of low skilled workers.
I think what should happen is the most pragmatic solution possible from a political, ideological and practical perspective is...leave it alone. With that said, I'm not economist, which is why I rely so much on studies and such rather than some arbitrary moral compass or flawed ideology. Based on the information I have, I really see no need for it.
Reason I ask is because it was implimented for a reason. The fact that we have so many people working for minimum wage tells me that they would have to settle for lower pay if the government didn't force companies to pay more.
Though I think you and I agree that the problem isn't minimum wage and thus it shouldn't be the focal point of the discussions here.
Which was great back in the day of very few regulations governing businesses but today, messing with it does more harm than good. Almost all studies are either neutral to it's effect or down right says it's bad for the people who it helps. There is very little data that can tout the benefit of raising the minimum wage...
I can link you to tons of different credible studies that says raising minimum wage would be a good thing. I can also find you tons of "credible" sources from 1938 that states that minimum wage would destroy the economy. Or in 1935 when they said social security would bankrupt America.
Though again I agree with you that minimum wage isn't the problem. Its low wages within more skilled positions and the lacking ability our country has to train these droves of unskilled workers
No...I disagree that slavery is the most effective system for labor. The cost of slavery is enormous for a society, from a social, political and economic perspectives.
Economic...no. Political? Maybe. But so does capitalism. Socially is also just as bad as our current state.
Slavery is the very best possible system for a buisiness to run on. Free labor is awesome. However its morally wrong. Its why we have fought to give workers rights and regulate buisness. We sacrifice the effectiveness of companies for moral justice.
Nobody can answer why we should be paid more than the guy from ten years ago.....other than using some arbitrary moral imperative. If we made more than the guy from ten years ago, would any of you suggest a pay cut?
Firstly thats not what I'm talking about. But to answer your question its inflation. The cost of living is not the same.
But back on point its not about fairness but rather illuminating how much screwing is actually being done to the American worker. Its been done systimatically over the course of decades.
They are both based on research study. the second article is much better than the first as it is from the of one of those research companies.
You're not reading your own articles, you're saying they say the opposite of what they directly say later in each article. (In addition to being OpEd)
actually i read both of them and well as usual you are wrong, or you are playing the i read one part of the thing and going gotcha again. i can tell you that the 2nd one absolutly does not disagree and the first one is on the fence.
next time read the whole article not what you want to select out of it.
Michael Saltsman is the research fellow at the Employment Policies Institute in Washington, a nonprofit that studies public policy issues surrounding employment growth.
had you read the article like you claimed it would have pointed you to this study.
department of economics berkley CA.
which says you are wrong.
The fact that we have so many people working for minimum wage
as stated before it is only 4.5% of the work force that means very small percentage of the work force is actually doing this.
Its low wages within more skilled positions and the lacking ability our country has to train these droves of unskilled workers
i agree 100% but when this was proposed to the discussion we recieved i don't know how many complaints that they just can't do it.
Slavery is the very best possible system for a buisiness to run on. Free labor is awesome. However its morally wrong. Its why we have fought to give workers rights and regulate buisness. We sacrifice the effectiveness of companies for moral justice.
actually no it isn't the best possible system. there is a sever down put in effeciency and in productivity if workers don't have something to work for.
slave labor is probably the worst thing that a business can want.
it didn't lower company effectiveness it lowered it.
happy workers = more productivity than unhappy workers. since slavery makes people unhappy then it very much is not in the interest of the company to do this.
But back on point its not about fairness but rather illuminating how much screwing is actually being done to the American worker. Its been done systimatically over the course of decades.
i put this on the education system and lack of real information going to students. that and the lack of college's meeting demands of the market.
also someone mentioned construction jobs. construction job pay has decreases along with other factory type of labor (meat packaging etc...) due to the large increase in illegal labor.
this has pushed lower wages in these fields. meat packaging plants use to pay 15 dollars an hour but with the increase in illegal labor it has dropped to 8.
it hasn't been a good thing for people that work in these fields.
Nobody can answer why we should be paid more than the guy from ten years ago
Yes we have, multiple times. COL has gone up and the wage has not adjusted for it, the buying power of a dollar has gone down and the wage has not been adjusted for it. Where as people who make a higher salaries have been for the most part.
I am not advocating slavery, but the opinions on some in this thread about slavery and what it actually was, shows me once again some need a history lesson.
Not all slaves were treated badly, history classes seem to focus on the bad owners. How many plantations and farms that were worked by slaves, were able to operate after slavery was outlawed? Seems slavery was very profitable for those who knew how to treat their slaves.
Yes we have, multiple times. COL has gone up and the wage has not adjusted for it, the buying power of a dollar has gone down and the wage has not been adjusted for it. Where as people who make a higher salaries have been for the most part.
Right because people making higher salaries have skills that people making minimum wage don't.
it all goes back to education and skill.
you don't realize even after the study from berckely shows that is no net gain and there is a lot of negative effects in raising minimum wage.
so since we know that raising the floor hurts more than helps since i am not going to hire someone with no skills for 10 dollars an hour what do you say to them.
there is a reason that teenage unemployement is so high. between minimum wage going up and a few other factors they have been put on the outside.
raising it to 10 dollars will pretty much end any chance they have at employment along with others.
I am not advocating slavery, but the opinions on some in this thread about slavery and what it actually was, shows me once again some need a history lesson.
Not all slaves were treated badly, history classes seem to focus on the bad owners. How many plantations and farms that were worked by slaves, were able to operate after slavery was outlawed? Seems slavery was very profitable for those who knew how to treat their slaves.
these were very few and far inbetween and even then these people were looked down on.
it was not the majority of the cases by far.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Mys45: If you actually follow up on their comments on Card & Krueger finding an INCREASE in employment you'll find two things. 1) Only one group of economists successfully disputed them, three others have disputed the disputers. 2) Minimum wage work is largely seasonal that the disputers never took into account.
Card & Krueger is a valid study that's held up very well even with the deck stacked against it counting the job losses from hurricane damage around the same time that clearly would make things some degree worse.
Not to mention the entire article was about POVERTY not being fixed by it - which is something that's a nobrainer already poverty level in some localities is near $40k these days - that's $23/hr to match it assuming no localized COL change with it.
And the end of the other article worries about DEFLATION if we don't increase minimum wage which would in turn reduceconsumer spending resulting in waves of uunemployment.
Please tell me how one partially citing criticism of a study we've discussed eight times in the thread already is a great support for your argument, I've read the full history and depth of Card & Krueger plus the 3 reinforcing and one condemning article. And its absolute that the consensus is in their favor unlike that other study you used to love that was disputed once and everyone else could repeat it.
Also please tell me how creating unemployment and shrinking GDP is beneficial (I.e. another recession) to your argument.
And more back to the main discussion rather than he said she said over articles: I'd like to think we agree on some established facts, so let me make sure:
1) Welfare numbers are consistently rising and are currently higher than any other point in our history.
2) Minimum Wage when adjusted for inflation is the lowest its ever been outside of the first handful of years before it was fully established.
3) That the Federal poverty level of $950/mo is absolutely ludicrous to use as a guideline for anything if we want people off assistance programs.
4) That in the last two decades welfare enrollment has almost always gone up during times of unemployment growth and the opposite has also been true.
5) That many minimum wage jobs are seasonal - either literally or effectively because many young workers quit during school.
Let's see where people are on those fundamentals before talking about trivial minutiae.
Yes we have, multiple times. COL has gone up and the wage has not adjusted for it, the buying power of a dollar has gone down and the wage has not been adjusted for it. Where as people who make a higher salaries have been for the most part.
Right because people making higher salaries have skills that people making minimum wage don't.
it all goes back to education and skill.
you don't realize even after the study from berckely shows that is no net gain and there is a lot of negative effects in raising minimum wage.
so since we know that raising the floor hurts more than helps since i am not going to hire someone with no skills for 10 dollars an hour what do you say to them.
there is a reason that teenage unemployement is so high. between minimum wage going up and a few other factors they have been put on the outside.
raising it to 10 dollars will pretty much end any chance they have at employment along with others.
So you are saying if you are skilled or educated and working, you deserve a COL increase, but minimum wage workers dont deserve it. So you are discriminating against low wage workers. What is fair for one, should be fair for all.
I am not advocating slavery, but the opinions on some in this thread about slavery and what it actually was, shows me once again some need a history lesson.
Not all slaves were treated badly, history classes seem to focus on the bad owners. How many plantations and farms that were worked by slaves, were able to operate after slavery was outlawed? Seems slavery was very profitable for those who knew how to treat their slaves.
these were very few and far inbetween and even then these people were looked down on.
it was not the majority of the cases by far.
Again, history has focused on the bad owners. How many plantations and farmers survived the abolishment of slavery?
Nod Bo: On the slavery tangent living in a number of 'slave states' they certainly try to give the impression that half or so were treated decently in contrast to media portrayal and considering we've seen how wrong Wild West media gets the Wild West completely wrong, showing tons of independence and guns when many towns BANNED GUNS and were almost communist in nature with free medical care and everyone watching out for each other I'm inclined to think they might not be fibbing.
I'm not asserting either one, I want a claim made by a poster validated.
Again are you saying I will not respond to me because you are mad how someone else responded?
To be clear before you choose to answer my question or choose to not answer it again; my questions are regarding a federal minimum wage increase not a state or city increase of minimum wage.
So here is a clear wording. If you would like anything else cleared up please ask.
1.) Increasing the federal minimum wage will reduce the amount of people on welfare.
or
2.) Increasing the federal minimum wage will not reduce the number of people on welfare.
Since both cannot be true at the same time which one do you think would be the true statement?
I do not care. Why are you forcing me to argue something I have no interst in arguing? Some one made a claim of which has nothing to do with emotion....I stated if it could be backed up it was good idea. turns out it could not be backed up.
The effect will be neglible.
O.K. can you provide evidence for your bolded claim
O.K. can you provide evidence for your bolded claim
I know you were not talking to me, but it has been pointed out by more then one person they are fighting history. Every thing they keep claiming, didnt happen the last time it was raised, or even when it was established and enacted.
Not entirely true Bo. It's accurate for a few months usually - so they can prove it as true with short samples its moderate lengths where it falls apart.
Not entirely true Bo. It's accurate for a few months usually - so they can prove it as true with short samples its moderate lengths where it falls apart.
Again, the economy adapted, yes it may have taken a couple months, but it adapted. A couple months doesn mean anything.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I must say, for me, its not a valid reason then. You are making it tougher for the people you are trying to help and whats worse you are bringing in more competition with the few you help bring off welfare.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Again are you saying I will not respond to me because you are mad how someone else responded?
To be clear before you choose to answer my question or choose to not answer it again; my questions are regarding a federal minimum wage increase not a state or city increase of minimum wage.
So here is a clear wording. If you would like anything else cleared up please ask.
1.) Increasing the federal minimum wage will reduce the amount of people on welfare.
or
2.) Increasing the federal minimum wage will not reduce the number of people on welfare.
Since both cannot be true at the same time which one do you think would be the true statement?
I do not care. Why are you forcing me to argue something I have no interst in arguing? Some one made a claim of which has nothing to do with emotion....I stated if it could be backed up it was good idea. turns out it could not be backed up.
The effect will be neglible.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Speaking of that, I'm pretty sure that Berkeley paper you linked is directly antithetical to your argument. They are using the term 'welfare' in the sense of welfare economics, not in the sense of government handouts -- so when they claim that the minimum wage reduces welfare, they don't mean that less people are taking the dole; they mean that it decreases the prosperity of society. (At least according to the measures of prosperity they have selected.)
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I was ask going ask about this because there are other elements of that paper I wanted to quote but did not really understand the context. I though it meant what you are saying here but was not sure, thanks for posting this.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Questions for you and only you.....
I think everyone should make a good living, lets raise the minimum wage to $1000 an hour.....
Would this be a good idea or bad idea, why not? Show me how smart and logical you are.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
$1,000? Bad idea, it's too much money. Now you're going to say, "how do you know what is the right value?" to which I will answer, "i don't really know, but what I do know is that right now, it's too low."
Believe the hype!
Why is it too much money? You seem to disregard the reality and think of the world as it should be with out really understanding why it cant be that way. You also fail to understand that process is is much more important than the result. Artificially changing results based on results is a bad.
Wages are a result of supply and demand...the interaction between the two is the process and the result is the price. Artificially changing the price will impact the process. The process can no longer work as effectively.
As pointed out by the berkeley paper posted by Vac, these consequences are no bed of roses for the people you are "helping".
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
A question for you and you alone. Do you think we should do away with the minimum wage and what do you think would happen if we did?
Not always.
Which is the point of minimum wage
I agree. The most effective system for the owner and overall company is being disrupted. However the most effective system for a company would be salvery. So where do you stand on this?
I actually agree. Changing minimum wage is not going to do much. I support raising it some but not a large amount. The root problem is low wages across the board. Construction workers are being paid less than they should. Office workers are being paid less. Teachers, nurses, facotry workers, drywallers, pipe fitters, welders, mechanics. Basically anyone working for a large corporation (with a few exceptions here and there) are paid far lower than they should be. No changing of the minimum wage will make the shift required for the economy.
Wages are lower than they have been in years (when accounting for % of the budget) and pensions are gone.
Supply and demand is often manipulated by those with the power to do so. If you think the invisible hand isn't guided by those with power you are seriously mistaken. Steps have been taken for years to lower the wage of workers, which is what we have seen for years now.
What you must realize, first and foremost, is that humans are more important than corporations. We have been taught that humans are merely tools for something or another. The reason socialism has been brought up by me, was because at it's core, people are what is valued. With capitalism, money is what is valued.
When you have a system that is based around getting more money, a divide will be made, and it will grow and grow until a revolution occurs. People are not being treated like people, and it's wrong. That's why murder is unlawful.
Wage slaves are very real, that's why slavery has been brought up. There are modern day overseers (people like you, no offense), who are just above "slave" levels, and are supposed to agree with the elite (the "masters" if you will). Slavery isn't over, it just took a new alias.
Society has been a core of humans ever since humans "arrived" here. Society is a function of the collective. What happens if you keep a person locked up, away from people? They go crazy. It's in our nature to help each other, but the environment has been designed to hate each other.
People need to realize that just because the world "seems" to work right now, doesn't mean it can't get better. "Life isn't fair" is just a cop out. Who's to say we can't develop a "fair" system? Or why not develop a MORE "fair" system? People are important, and society is important. Do you want crime to run rampant? Homeless people living in the gutter in front of your house? Do you want to be robbed of your possessions? Society matters... I suggest you realize this and start to support your fellow humans and you might find they support you.
To literally force families into situations where they must work 40 hours a week (both parents) just to pay RENT is just disgusting. There is more than enough money and resources to go around. The problem is, the elite capitalists don't care. Socialism is the answer.
Read "Why Socialism" by Albert Einstein. He really explains in a very simplified manner.
Minimum wage should be higher, I know how the system works, and this is just ONE of many problems, but it IS still a problem. People don't make enough money, they honestly don't. If we can agree on that, THEN and only then, should we start to discuss how we can get more money into the hands of those who need it.
Believe the hype!
To be completely honest, I think it's irrelevant, the minimum wage that is. If one were concerned about the minimum wage, it would address the issues that causes them.....which is the lack of demand and a rather high supply of low skilled workers.
I think what should happen is the most pragmatic solution possible from a political, ideological and practical perspective is...leave it alone. With that said, I'm not economist, which is why I rely so much on studies and such rather than some arbitrary moral compass or flawed ideology. Based on the information I have, I really see no need for it.
Which was great back in the day of very few regulations governing businesses but today, messing with it does more harm than good. Almost all studies are either neutral to it's effect or down right says it's bad for the people who it helps. There is very little data that can tout the benefit of raising the minimum wage...
No...I disagree that slavery is the most effective system for labor. The cost of slavery is enormous for a society, from a social, political and economic perspectives.
Nobody can answer why we should be paid more than the guy from ten years ago.....other than using some arbitrary moral imperative. If we made more than the guy from ten years ago, would any of you suggest a pay cut?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
The fundamental flaw with your socialist idealism is the total disregard of human nature and the variations of morals. You operate with a moral compass on all things, there is a right and wrong. ....so do right wing homophobes. What makes them wrong and you right? Moral compasses are great for the individual, they are horrible to push upon a society. Islamic fundamentalist think they are right too.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Reason I ask is because it was implimented for a reason. The fact that we have so many people working for minimum wage tells me that they would have to settle for lower pay if the government didn't force companies to pay more.
Though I think you and I agree that the problem isn't minimum wage and thus it shouldn't be the focal point of the discussions here.
I can link you to tons of different credible studies that says raising minimum wage would be a good thing. I can also find you tons of "credible" sources from 1938 that states that minimum wage would destroy the economy. Or in 1935 when they said social security would bankrupt America.
Though again I agree with you that minimum wage isn't the problem. Its low wages within more skilled positions and the lacking ability our country has to train these droves of unskilled workers
Economic...no. Political? Maybe. But so does capitalism. Socially is also just as bad as our current state.
Slavery is the very best possible system for a buisiness to run on. Free labor is awesome. However its morally wrong. Its why we have fought to give workers rights and regulate buisness. We sacrifice the effectiveness of companies for moral justice.
Firstly thats not what I'm talking about. But to answer your question its inflation. The cost of living is not the same.
But back on point its not about fairness but rather illuminating how much screwing is actually being done to the American worker. Its been done systimatically over the course of decades.
They are both based on research study. the second article is much better than the first as it is from the of one of those research companies.
actually i read both of them and well as usual you are wrong, or you are playing the i read one part of the thing and going gotcha again. i can tell you that the 2nd one absolutly does not disagree and the first one is on the fence.
next time read the whole article not what you want to select out of it.
Michael Saltsman is the research fellow at the Employment Policies Institute in Washington, a nonprofit that studies public policy issues surrounding employment growth.
had you read the article like you claimed it would have pointed you to this study.
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf
department of economics berkley CA.
which says you are wrong.
as stated before it is only 4.5% of the work force that means very small percentage of the work force is actually doing this.
i agree 100% but when this was proposed to the discussion we recieved i don't know how many complaints that they just can't do it.
actually no it isn't the best possible system. there is a sever down put in effeciency and in productivity if workers don't have something to work for.
slave labor is probably the worst thing that a business can want.
it didn't lower company effectiveness it lowered it.
happy workers = more productivity than unhappy workers. since slavery makes people unhappy then it very much is not in the interest of the company to do this.
i put this on the education system and lack of real information going to students. that and the lack of college's meeting demands of the market.
also someone mentioned construction jobs. construction job pay has decreases along with other factory type of labor (meat packaging etc...) due to the large increase in illegal labor.
this has pushed lower wages in these fields. meat packaging plants use to pay 15 dollars an hour but with the increase in illegal labor it has dropped to 8.
it hasn't been a good thing for people that work in these fields.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Yes we have, multiple times. COL has gone up and the wage has not adjusted for it, the buying power of a dollar has gone down and the wage has not been adjusted for it. Where as people who make a higher salaries have been for the most part.
I am not advocating slavery, but the opinions on some in this thread about slavery and what it actually was, shows me once again some need a history lesson.
Not all slaves were treated badly, history classes seem to focus on the bad owners. How many plantations and farms that were worked by slaves, were able to operate after slavery was outlawed? Seems slavery was very profitable for those who knew how to treat their slaves.
Right because people making higher salaries have skills that people making minimum wage don't.
it all goes back to education and skill.
you don't realize even after the study from berckely shows that is no net gain and there is a lot of negative effects in raising minimum wage.
so since we know that raising the floor hurts more than helps since i am not going to hire someone with no skills for 10 dollars an hour what do you say to them.
there is a reason that teenage unemployement is so high. between minimum wage going up and a few other factors they have been put on the outside.
raising it to 10 dollars will pretty much end any chance they have at employment along with others.
these were very few and far inbetween and even then these people were looked down on.
it was not the majority of the cases by far.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Card & Krueger is a valid study that's held up very well even with the deck stacked against it counting the job losses from hurricane damage around the same time that clearly would make things some degree worse.
Not to mention the entire article was about POVERTY not being fixed by it - which is something that's a nobrainer already poverty level in some localities is near $40k these days - that's $23/hr to match it assuming no localized COL change with it.
And the end of the other article worries about DEFLATION if we don't increase minimum wage which would in turn reduceconsumer spending resulting in waves of uunemployment.
Please tell me how one partially citing criticism of a study we've discussed eight times in the thread already is a great support for your argument, I've read the full history and depth of Card & Krueger plus the 3 reinforcing and one condemning article. And its absolute that the consensus is in their favor unlike that other study you used to love that was disputed once and everyone else could repeat it.
Also please tell me how creating unemployment and shrinking GDP is beneficial (I.e. another recession) to your argument.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
1) Welfare numbers are consistently rising and are currently higher than any other point in our history.
2) Minimum Wage when adjusted for inflation is the lowest its ever been outside of the first handful of years before it was fully established.
3) That the Federal poverty level of $950/mo is absolutely ludicrous to use as a guideline for anything if we want people off assistance programs.
4) That in the last two decades welfare enrollment has almost always gone up during times of unemployment growth and the opposite has also been true.
5) That many minimum wage jobs are seasonal - either literally or effectively because many young workers quit during school.
Let's see where people are on those fundamentals before talking about trivial minutiae.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
So you are saying if you are skilled or educated and working, you deserve a COL increase, but minimum wage workers dont deserve it. So you are discriminating against low wage workers. What is fair for one, should be fair for all.
Again, history has focused on the bad owners. How many plantations and farmers survived the abolishment of slavery?
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
O.K. can you provide evidence for your bolded claim
I know you were not talking to me, but it has been pointed out by more then one person they are fighting history. Every thing they keep claiming, didnt happen the last time it was raised, or even when it was established and enacted.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Again, the economy adapted, yes it may have taken a couple months, but it adapted. A couple months doesn mean anything.