Slickdeals.net

Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/forums/index.php)
-   The Podium (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   NYT endorses Obama's minimum wage proposal, but called for scrapping it in 1987.... (http://slickdeals.net/e/5862808-nyt-endorses-obama-s-minimum-wage-proposal-but-called-for-scrapping-it-in-1987)

rrc06 02-18-2013 07:43 AM

NYT endorses Obama's minimum wage proposal, but called for scrapping it in 1987....
 
Wonder what changed....

New York Times Called To Abolish The Minimum Wage In 1987
[huffingtonpost.com]

Quote:

In a 1987 editorial unearthed by Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and circulated by the conservative American Enterprise Institute, the Grey Lady argued that the “minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed.”

“Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market,” the editorial reads. “A far better way to help them would be to subsidize their wages or - better yet - help them acquire the skills needed to earn more on their own.”

That position, more often heard these days from the likes of Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, is a far cry from the NYT’s 2013 take on the minimum wage.
Now we have the NYT [nytimes.com] endorsing the "Minority Youth Unemployment Act" [wsj.com]

Quote:

In the real world, setting a floor under the price of labor creates winners and losers. Some workers will get a $1.75 raise. Great. But others—typically the least educated and skilled—will be priced out of the job market and their pay won't rise to $9. It will be zero.

University of California at Irvine economist David Neumark has looked at more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage, and he says the White House claim of de minimis job losses "grossly misstates the weight of the evidence." About 85% of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers."

The minimum wage is also an ineffective way to reduce poverty. Most families in poverty don't have someone who works, so making it more difficult to get a job exacerbates poverty. Mr. Obama says that a "family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty level. That is wrong."

He left out that most minimum-wage earners are not the primary bread winner. Nearly 40% live with a parent or relative. The average family income of a household with a minimum-wage worker is about $47,023—which is far above the poverty line of $23,550 for a family of four.
Quote:

The damage from a minimum wage hike depends on the overall labor market. If the job market is buoyant, as it is in the fracking boomtown of Williston, N.D., fast-food workers may already make more than $9 an hour. But when the jobless rate is high, as it still is in California and New York, the increase punishes minority youth in particular.

That is what happened during the last series of wage hikes to $7.25 from $5.15 that started in July 2007 as the economy was headed toward recession. The last increase hit in July 2009 just after the recession ended, and as the nearby chart shows, the jobless rate jumped for teens and black teens especially. For black teens, the rate has remained close to 40% and was still 37.8% in January.

A study by economists William Even of Miami University and David Macpherson of Trinity University concludes that in the 21 states where the full 40% wage increase took effect, "the consequences of the minimum wage for black young adults without a diploma were actually worse than the consequences of the Great Recession."
Quote:

Republicans may fold again to take the issue off the table in 2014, but it's a tragedy that those who will suffer the most are Mr. Obama's most ardent supporters.

gunnerusa 02-18-2013 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57655480)
Wonder what changed....

About 30 years? :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Is the point you're trying to make that opinions cannot be changed?

rrc06 02-18-2013 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnerusa (Post 57655868)
About 30 years? :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Is the point you're trying to make that opinions cannot be changed?

Not at all. Care to tell me what's changed besides 30 years? (although it's really less than that if you do the math right ;))

loop610bob 02-18-2013 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57656710)
Not at all. Care to tell me what's changed besides 30 years? (although it's really less than that if you do the math right ;))

Data? A tremendous change in productivity?

gunnerusa 02-18-2013 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57656710)
Not at all. Care to tell me what's changed besides 30 years? (although it's really less than that if you do the math right ;))

The 80s were the "great experiment" of Conservatism, which failed horribly as America's industrial base, the rights of American workers, and our educational and physical infrastructure were all sacrificed to enrich a few wealthy Republican plutocrats.

And regardless of what you may think of that, it's fundamentally ridiculous to argue that people (or an editorial board) should be forever bound to the ideas they had 30 years ago. 30 years ago, people thought that big shoulderpads and even bigger hair were hot.

andyfico 02-18-2013 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnerusa (Post 57657954)
The 80s were the "great experiment" of Conservatism, which failed horribly as America's industrial base, the rights of American workers, and our educational and physical infrastructure were all sacrificed to enrich a few wealthy Republican plutocrats.

And regardless of what you may think of that, it's fundamentally ridiculous to argue that people (or an editorial board) should be forever bound to the ideas they had 30 years ago. 30 years ago, people thought that big shoulderpads and even bigger hair were hot.

So you really have no clue what changed for the NYTimes and you prefer to just attack (as usual) Republicans. Got it. It would have saved you some typing to just come out and say that.

thikthird 02-18-2013 10:08 AM

if 30 years ago the nyt had an op ed calling for a minimum wage increase, and now had one decrying it, i wonder what the title of this thread would be? "nyt finally comes to it's senses after 30 years", perhaps?

Danman114 02-18-2013 10:20 AM

I'm sorry, but is the government really calling their effort to raise the minimum wage the "Minority Youth Unemployment Act"?

Is this some kind of joke, or just doublespeak?
In truth [lewrockwell.com], there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.

darkfrog 02-18-2013 10:29 AM

if $9 is good, then $15 must be better, right? Why only $9?

thikthird 02-18-2013 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57659084)
if $9 is good, then $15 must be better, right? Why only $9?

is this really the argument you want to make?

124nic8 02-18-2013 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyfico (Post 57658326)
So you really have no clue what changed for the NYTimes and you prefer to just attack (as usual) Republicans. Got it. It would have saved you some typing to just come out and say that.

Why would he say he has no clue, instead of the reasons he stated?

124nic8 02-18-2013 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57659084)
if $9 is good, then $15 must be better, right? Why only $9?

Cause it's a floor based on the cost of living?

Adjusted for inflation, it's still lower than it was in the '60s.

Danman114 02-18-2013 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57659896)
Cause it's a floor based on the cost of living?

So it's worth creating unemployment among those needing to develop their skills the most if it raises the standard of living for a select few?

124nic8 02-18-2013 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57655480)

Quote:

That is what happened during the last series of wage hikes to $7.25 from $5.15 that started in July 2007 as the economy was headed toward recession. The last increase hit in July 2009 just after the recession ended, and as the nearby chart shows, the jobless rate jumped for teens and black teens especially. For black teens, the rate has remained close to 40% and was still 37.8% in January.

A study by economists William Even of Miami University and David Macpherson of Trinity University concludes that in the 21 states where the full 40% wage increase took effect, "the consequences of the minimum wage for black young adults without a diploma were actually worse than the consequences of the Great Recession."
Should policy be made based only on how it affects a particular group?

What if a higher min wage increases employment overall due to multiplier effects?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57659994)
So it's worth creating unemployment among those needing to develop their skills the most if it raises the standard of living for a select few?

How about we offer training in addition to this higher motivation to get a job?

politicaljunkie 02-18-2013 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57656710)
Not at all. Care to tell me what's changed besides 30 years? (although it's really less than that if you do the math right ;))

Editors?

Radeck 02-18-2013 11:18 AM

with unemployment among the youth at an all-time high, a higher min wage (the huge bulk of those who earn it being young unskilled workers) will only result in higher unemployment.

When you raise the COST of labor to $9, but do nothing to raise its VALUE to $9, you end up with job cuts. If the employees skills were worth $9 in the market, they would have been paid that much, but since they are not, they are paid a lower amount.

Now, if the min wage was raised to $9, why would a business continue to hire someone whose skills have a market value of only $7.50? They would just as soon fire the person they paid $7.50 than pay them $9 while their skills are only worth only $7.50, and then hire someone else who has the skills commensurate with a $9 pay rate, since now they are forced by law to pay that amount...even if the employer does not need that higher skill set right away, why pay more for an unskilled person, when you can hire someone for the same pay with higher skill that then you can employ to do additional work that the skills allow them to do. The result: HIGHER unemployment for the young and unskilled workers....

it really is not rocket science...basic logical analysis and 'put yourself in their shoes' logic is all that is needed for this concept to be understood....however, the ideologically driven either lack that ability, or purposefully blind themselves to the logic.

Radeck 02-18-2013 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57659896)
Cause it's a floor based on the cost of living?

cost of living is irrelevant...the VAST majority of those working at minimum wage are students and young people who are working to make some extra pocket money, NOT to support a family or pay a mortgage. Most often they are still living under their parent's homes and paychecks. While there are some who are supporting a family, they are a miniscule fraction of those working minimum wage.

124nic8 02-18-2013 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57660312)
cost of living is irrelevant...the VAST majority of those working at minimum wage are students and young people who are working to make some extra pocket money, NOT to support a family or pay a mortgage. Most often they are still living under their parent's homes and paychecks. While there are some who are supporting a family, they are a miniscule fraction of those working minimum wage.

I gave a reason why it should NOT be higher, not one for making it higher.

Did you not read the post to which I was responding?

And the COL is most definitley relevant to those making min wage.

thikthird 02-18-2013 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57660254)
it really is not rocket science...basic logical analysis and 'put yourself in their shoes' logic is all that is needed for this concept to be understood....however, the ideologically driven either lack that ability, or purposefully blind themselves to the logic.

it's not really rocket science to look and see that what you're spouting isn't true:

Quote:

Economists have conducted hundreds of studies of the employment impact of the minimum wage.
Summarizing those studies is a daunting task, but two recent meta-studies analyzing the research
conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect
on the employment prospects of low-wage workers
.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/pub...013-02.pdf

rrc06 02-18-2013 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57660096)
Editors?

Fair enough...


Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57660794)
it's not really rocket science to look and see that what you're spouting isn't true:

http://www.cepr.net/documents/pub...013-02.pdf

From the WSJ article:

Quote:

University of California at Irvine economist David Neumark has looked at more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage, and he says the White House claim of de minimis job losses "grossly misstates the weight of the evidence." About 85% of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers."
Go look at youth/minority unemployment rates in europe where the min wage levels are even higher if you you believe me or that guy from UCI.

Danman114 02-18-2013 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57660024)
How about we offer training in addition to this higher motivation to get a job?

Because unemployed low skilled people need more motivation than the desire to earn a paycheck?

Training has nothing to do with it. There will always be low skilled people and there will always be low skill jobs. One of the most important ways people get skills is by working low pay jobs.

124nic8 02-18-2013 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57662184)
Because unemployed low skilled people need more motivation than the desire to earn a paycheck?

Because a larger paycheck is not higher motivation?

Quote:

Training has nothing to do with it.
And yet many unemployed get training so they can get a job....


Quote:

There will always be low skilled people and there will always be low skill jobs. One of the most important ways people get skills is by working low pay jobs.
Only "important" for slightly higher "skilled" jobs....

darkfrog 02-18-2013 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57659684)
is this really the argument you want to make?

So you don't have a good answer then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57659896)
Cause it's a floor based on the cost of living?

Adjusted for inflation, it's still lower than it was in the '60s.

If government can magically make more money appear when the minimum wage is raised to $9, why not more? What does the COL have to do with the ability of the government to declare wages?

empiretc 02-18-2013 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57660254)
The result: HIGHER unemployment for the young and unskilled workers....



And higher priced fast food!

thikthird 02-18-2013 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57662600)
So you don't have a good answer then?

oh i do, but i mean really, what's the point of asking such a dumb rhetorical question?

here are the answers. policy-wise, despite mounds of evidence that shows that hiking the minimum wage doesn't effect unemployment, there is still an initial shock to the system. better to keep that low. eventually a $15 an hour minimum wage would be great, but you'd need time and incremental raises to do that. politics-wise, just look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the side that wants the worst for the most. i mean, you have to go through hell and high water to raise it a nickel. sometimes you're restrained by reality.

124nic8 02-18-2013 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57662600)
If government can magically make more money appear when the minimum wage is raised to $9, why not more?

Who said the government could do that (besides you)?

Quote:

What does the COL have to do with the ability of the government to declare wages?
Nothing. But it does have relevance to the level of those wages.

thikthird 02-18-2013 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57661680)
Fair enough...




From the WSJ article:



Go look at youth/minority unemployment rates in europe where the min wage levels are even higher if you you believe me or that guy from UCI.

read what the paper i posted says about the neumark study:

Quote:

The Neumark and Wascher review, however, is considerably more subjective and arguably less
relevant to the United States than the two meta-studies discussed earlier. Only 52 of the 102 studies
reviewed by Neumark and Wascher analyzed U.S. data. Of these, Neumark and Wascher designated
19 as "most credible," five of which were their own studies.
19
The Neumark and Wascher (2006)
review also excludes several important papers that were not published until after the review was
completed

thikthird 02-18-2013 01:09 PM

https://prospect.org/article/minimum-wage-101

"So if going to a $9 minimum wage is such a good idea, why not go to a $40 minimum wage?

Is there ever too much of a good thing? I think for most things the answer is yes."

gunnerusa 02-18-2013 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57662600)
If government can magically make more money appear when the minimum wage is raised to $9, why not more? What does the COL have to do with the ability of the government to declare wages?

Or turn it around. Why not create a system where people work for nothing (lower wages create jobs, right?). In exchange, they get free room, board, medical care, and retirement for life, in exchange for irrevocably losing the ability to set the terms of their own employment. Think of the jobs we'd create then! :omg::omg::omg::omg::omg:

Danman114 02-18-2013 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57662348)
Because a larger paycheck is not higher motivation?

Not as much when compared to having a check period. This is referred to as the Law of Diminishing Utility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57662348)
And yet many unemployed get training so they can get a job....

Do you think that's so they can get minimum wage jobs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57662348)
Only "important" for slightly higher "skilled" jobs....

You mean, it's only important for most people's first jobs. There's a huge population out there that need low paying jobs to build their reputation and resume. Pricing these people out of the market isn't a good thing.

124nic8 02-18-2013 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57663784)
Not as much when compared to having a check period. This is referred to as the Law of Diminishing Utility.

But still higher motivation.....

Quote:

Do you think that's so they can get minimum wage jobs?
Who WANTS a min wage job? People take them cause they can't find anything better.

Quote:

You mean, it's only important for most people's first jobs. There's a huge population out there that need low paying jobs to build their reputation and resume. Pricing these people out of the market isn't a good thing.
Premise and conclusion unsubstantiated.

Danman114 02-18-2013 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57663120)
https://prospect.org/article/minimum-wage-101

"So if going to a $9 minimum wage is such a good idea, why not go to a $40 minimum wage?

Is there ever too much of a good thing? I think for most things the answer is yes."

Most people would say that 'jobs in an economy' and 'money in your paycheck' aren't things that qualify when people say "You can't have too much of a good thing.", although the guy speaking in your article seems more interested in marginalizing and dismissing cons rather than actually discussing them or relating any sort of theory.

Other 'gems' from that article:
So to what extent, even in a competitive market, the minimum wage causes a loss in employment, as opposed to an increase in price, is theoretically ambiguous.
Someone should tell the author that both of those are bad things, so the fact one can't say for certain which bad thing will result doesn't mean you can disregard both bad outcomes.
If the minimum wage is going to be good for working-class families, but not necessarily poor families, I'm not entirely sure why we should think of that as being a leakage of the policy...
This is pretty messed up. First, we're now aiming for 'working class families' to earn closer to minimum wage... awesome. Second, while he admits it won't be good for the poor, he ignores the areas in which it will be bad.
So even if some jobs were lost, a person who might have a smaller probability of employment is also going to have a higher wage if he or she were to be employed. As a result, it is not at all clear that they'd be worse off.
I question whether this guys ever been unemployed and looked for a job that doesn't require any sort of advanced skills. If you don't have a job, the fact that other people make a higher minimum wage only means you are paying higher prices in the industries they work.

Danman114 02-18-2013 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57664106)
Who WANTS a min wage job? People take them cause they can't find anything better.

The poor, unskilled, elderly, teenagers, part-timers, college kids, and those looking to add additional income to supplement their full time work. People take them because they exist and they pay money. Raising the minimum wage means fewer of them will exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57664106)
Premise and conclusion unsubstantiated.

Seriously? Have you ever worked minimum wage?

You can not only sometimes learn a skill, but also gain experience to use as evidence of dependability for your next job. Most kids & low skilled folks need this.

124nic8 02-18-2013 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57664400)
The poor, unskilled, elderly, teenagers, part-timers, college kids, and those looking to add additional income to supplement their full time work. People take them because they exist and they pay money. Raising the minimum wage means fewer of them will exist.

Sounds like an assumption to me. As unions decline, min wage jobs make up a larger share of the job market.

Quote:

Seriously? Have you ever worked minimum wage?
I think so, but that was a long time ago. It might have been slightly higher.

Quote:

You can not only sometimes learn a skill, but also gain experience to use as evidence of dependability for your next job. Most kids & low skilled folks need this.
Which they can also get from a job paying slightly more.

rrc06 02-18-2013 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57664106)
Who WANTS a min wage job? People take them cause they can't find anything better.

False. Minimum wage jobs provide supplemental income for kids and semi/full retirees. well-known fact.

thikthird 02-18-2013 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57664834)
False. Minimum wage jobs provide supplemental income for kids and semi/full retirees. well-known fact.

false. that doesn't mean they want them, just that they can't find something better.

rrc06 02-18-2013 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57664900)
false. that doesn't mean they want them, just that they can't find something better.

What do you expect for entry-level/unskilled positions? $40/hour?

Danman114 02-18-2013 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57664834)
False. Minimum wage jobs provide supplemental income for kids and semi/full retirees. well-known fact.

Just imagine how much more money they'll have when their wage goes up and their hours get cut back... or worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57664900)
false. that doesn't mean they want them, just that they can't find something better.

Them showing up is evidence that they prefer it to all available options available to them.

They might want a job that pays them 1,000,000 a year, but that doesn't mean Obama should grant it to them.

thikthird 02-18-2013 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57665090)
Just imagine how much more money they'll have when their wage goes up and their hours get cut back... or worse.


Them showing up is evidence that they prefer it to all available options available to them.

They might want a job that pays them 1,000,000 a year, but that doesn't mean Obama should grant it to them.

them showing up is nothing more than evidence that they prefer it to not showing up.

124nic8 02-18-2013 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57664968)
What do you expect for entry-level/unskilled positions? $40/hour?

Very few who are offered $40/hr turn it down for min wage.

rrc06 02-18-2013 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57665282)
Very few who are offered $40/hr turn it down for min wage.

exactly. Those 40/hour jobs aren't entry-level jobs for retirees/kids.

Danman114 02-18-2013 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57665242)
them showing up is nothing more than evidence that they prefer it to not showing up.

And to all of their other available options. Would you prefer they had no job or fewer hours to show up for?

124nic8 02-18-2013 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57665362)
exactly. Those 40/hour jobs aren't entry-level jobs for retirees/kids.

But they would take $40 if it were offered. They take min wage cause they can't get anything better.

thikthird 02-18-2013 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57665362)
exactly. Those 40/hour jobs aren't entry-level jobs for retirees/kids.

and if a retiree or kid can find a job paying minimum wage +50 cents they take that.

Dr. J 02-18-2013 02:39 PM

I'm amazed that the idea of minimum wage is still around given it's obvious links to increased unemployment, especially in low-skilled and temporary workers. I also cringe when I hear excuses like "a working family of 4 can't live on minimum wage". wow, really? Who said it was anyone's responsibility to support any kind of family on any kind of wage?

Plain and simple - if you raise the cost of something more than its value, like an employee, the employer will do a couple things:
- the cost of labor will increase immediately; to mitigate this the employer could do any combination of the following - keep the labor budget the same and cut workers by a proportionate amount of the raise, raise prices, or both.
- since all employees regardless of ability will now cost the same, the employer will retain only the most valuable, or at least the most responsible and the most likely to stay with the company long-term (e.g. keep older over younger workers, generally, the most experienced over the least, etc).

What does this mean? Up minimum wage arbitrarily, and unemployment will increase especially in those less skilled, likely the young.

thikthird 02-18-2013 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57665406)
And to all of their other available options. Would you prefer they had no job or fewer hours to show up for?

no, only to them not showing up. them showing up is not proof they have another available option other than not showing up.

no i would not prefer that. would you prefer everyone had a job that paid one cent an hour? if people showed up to it then that would mean they obviously prefer it to a $40/hour job, per your logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57665458)
I'm amazed that the idea of minimum wage is still around given it's obvious links to increased unemployment, especially in low-skilled and temporary workers. I also cringe when I hear excuses like "a working family of 4 can't live on minimum wage". wow, really? Who said it was anyone's responsibility to support any kind of family on any kind of wage?

Plain and simple - if you raise the cost of something more than its value, like an employee, the employer will do a couple things:
- the cost of labor will increase immediately; to mitigate this the employer could do any combination of the following - keep the labor budget the same and cut workers by a proportionate amount of the raise, raise prices, or both.
- since all employees regardless of ability will now cost the same, the employer will retain only the most valuable, or at least the most responsible and the most likely to stay with the company long-term (e.g. keep older over younger workers, generally, the most experienced over the least, etc).

What does this mean? Up minimum wage arbitrarily, and unemployment will increase especially in those less skilled, likely the young.

i'm amazed at your ability to ignore mountains of evidence showing what you wrote is untrue.

paperboy05 02-18-2013 02:43 PM

February 15, 1995
50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage
[archive.org]

Quote:

For many years it has been a matter of conventional wisdom among economists that the minimum wage causes fewer jobs to exist than would be the case without it. This is simply a matter of price theory, taught in every economics textbook, requiring no elaborate analysis to justify. Were this not the case, there would be no logical reason why the minimum wage could not be set at $10, $100, or $1 million per hour. Historically, defenders of the minimum wage have not disputed the disemployment effects of the minimum wage, but argued that on balance the working poor were better off. In other words, the higher incomes of those with jobs offset the lower incomes of those without jobs, as a result of the minimum wage [See, for example, Levitan and Belous, (1979)]. Now, the Clinton Administration is advancing the novel economic theory that modest increases in the minimum wage will have no impact whatsoever on employment. This proposition is based entirely on the work of three economists: David Card and Alan Krueger of Princeton, and Lawrence Katz of Harvard. Their studies of increases in the minimum wage in California, Texas and New Jersey apparently found no loss of jobs among fast food restaurants that were surveyed before and after the increase [See Card (1992b), Card and Krueger (1994), and Katz and Krueger (1992)]. While it is not yet clear why Card, Katz and Krueger got the results that they did, it is clear that their findings are directly contrary to virtually every empirical study ever done on the minimum wage. These studies were exhaustively surveyed by the Minimum Wage Study Commission, which concluded that a 10% increase in the minimum wage reduced teenage employment by 1% to 3%. The following survey of the academic research on the minimum wage is designed to give nonspecialists a sense of just how isolated the Card, Krueger and Katz studies are. It will also indicate that the minimum wage has wide-ranging negative effects that go beyond unemployment. For example, higher minimum wages encourage employers to cut back on training, thus depriving low wage workers of an important means of long-term advancement, in return for a small increase in current income. For many workers this is a very bad trade-off, but one for which the law provides no alternative.

thikthird 02-18-2013 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paperboy05 (Post 57665550)

good old cherry picking of evidence. ignore everything to the contrary and focus on one study, that's 20 years old, looking at 50 year old data.

Danman114 02-18-2013 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57665492)
no, only to them not showing up. them showing up is not proof they have another available option other than not showing up.

They could choose leisure, volunteer work, sleep, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57665492)
no i would not prefer that. would you prefer everyone had a job that paid one cent an hour? if people showed up to it then that would mean they obviously prefer it to a $40/hour job, per your logic.

A $40/hour job might not be available to him, just like it's not available to most people.

Is one cent an hour realistic for everyone? Perhaps if it's an college kid looking to pad his resume on an unpaid internship (should we get rid of these too?) or a high school grad in an apprenticeship looking to develop his skills, both whom would anticipate earning much more in the future. But overall, I think people would get paid what they can negotiate with various employers. The only thing eliminating the minimum wage would do is ensure that there would be jobs for nearly all the unskilled, all at various price points.

thikthird 02-18-2013 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57665790)
They could choose leisure, volunteer work, sleep, etc.

A $40/hour job might not be available to him, just like it's not available to most people.

Is one cent an hour realistic for everyone? Perhaps if it's an college kid looking to pad his resume on an unpaid internship (should we get rid of these too?) or a high school grad in an apprenticeship looking to develop his skills, both whom would anticipate earning much more in the future. But overall, I think people would get paid what they can negotiate with various employers. The only thing eliminating the minimum wage would do is ensure that there would be jobs for nearly all the unskilled, all at various price points.

i.e. they could choose not showing up. therefore, they prefer showing up to not showing up. like i said.

according to your logic, everything is an available option. all these people who showed up to mcdonalds today obviously preferred that to every other available option, which per your logic includes high paying jobs.

most individuals aren't negotiators. that shouldn't mean an individual should get paid a nickel an hour mopping floors. but of course, my earth language is just gibberish to your libertarian ears.

rrc06 02-18-2013 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57665430)
But they would take $40 if it were offered. They take min wage cause they can't get anything better.

Yes, wouldn't it be great if everyone could make $1 million/year starting out...

empiretc 02-18-2013 03:00 PM

Raise the minimum wage to $9, and every entry level employ will get $9/hr. the ones that busted their ass to get raises will still be at the same pay. it has always been funny that way, and hamburgers will get more expensive.

thikthird 02-18-2013 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57665958)
Raise the minimum wage to $9, and every entry level employ will get $9/hr. the ones that busted their ass to get raises will still be at the same pay.

translation - "how dare they start getting as much as me?"

the truth is starting to poke it's ugly head out.

Danman114 02-18-2013 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57665698)
good old cherry picking of evidence. ignore everything to the contrary and focus on one study, that's 20 years old, looking at 50 year old data.

Cherry picking? Like quoting the author of a study that compares 1 industry (who a good number rely on tips) in certain counties over a limited number of years?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57663120)


Danman114 02-18-2013 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57665906)
according to your logic, everything is an available option. all these people who showed up to mcdonalds today obviously preferred that to every other available option, which per your logic includes high paying jobs.

Just because something exists (higher paying job) doesn't mean its available to them. You have to have someone who wants to hire you for it to be available to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57665906)
most individuals aren't negotiators. that shouldn't mean an individual should get paid a nickel an hour mopping floors. but of course, my earth language is just gibberish to your libertarian ears.

Everyone is a negotiator, whether they are good or not, is the difference. Changing jobs is a simple form of attaining one's desired ends.

kharvel 02-18-2013 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57655480)
Wonder what changed....

THIS is what changed. Start from 1987 which happened to be the start of the widening of the gap.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...008%29.svg.png

darkfrog 02-18-2013 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57663028)
Who said the government could do that (besides you)?.

It appears the supporters of the minimum wage think that way. They think that I can pay new hires $9/ hour yet don't tell me where I will get the revenue to do that. Instead of hiring a high school kid to clean kennels, at the same time giving him/her work experience and a display of aptitude working with animals, I will now have to stop hiring inexpensive labor to do unskilled work and make my technical staff pitch in to do all of the work normally done by high school kids or sometimes an adult without any work experience. Of course since we used to hire from within, that will have to change because there won't be any more previously inexperienced kids getting hired to become vet techs and even full technicians or give them the experience they need to apply to vet school.

The only people that think higher minimum wages are a good thing have most likely never run a business that operates on thin margins.

124nic8 02-18-2013 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57668412)
It appears the supporters of the minimum wage think that way. They think that I can pay new hires $9/ hour yet don't tell me where I will get the revenue to do that. Instead of hiring a high school kid to clean kennels, at the same time giving him/her work experience and a display of aptitude working with animals, I will now have to stop hiring inexpensive labor to do unskilled work and make my technical staff pitch in to do all of the work normally done by high school kids or sometimes an adult without any work experience. Of course since we used to hire from within, that will have to change because there won't be any more previously inexperienced kids getting hired to become vet techs and even full technicians or give them the experience they need to apply to vet school.

The only people that think higher minimum wages are a good thing have most likely never run a business that operates on thin margins.

I'll tell you where; you raise prices by a few percent. And cause all your competitors face the same marginally higher expenses, they will, too, and you'll be in the same position competitively, so you won't lose customers to your competition.

Plus, you'll adjust these things gradually over the next few years as the higher rates take effect, just like all previous min wage hikes.

It's not like people will abandon the pets they love just cause prices go up a few percent.

The only people that think higher minimum wages are a bad thing are the small minority who run a business that operates on thin margins. Cause they don't see how it helps the economy overall. Money in the hands of low wage earners gets spent right away.

darkfrog 02-18-2013 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnerusa (Post 57663198)
Or turn it around. Why not create a system where people work for nothing (lower wages create jobs, right?). In exchange, they get free room, board, medical care, and retirement for life, in exchange for irrevocably losing the ability to set the terms of their own employment. Think of the jobs we'd create then! :omg::omg::omg::omg::omg:

Not sure what point you're trying to drive home because currently, that is 100% legal and one of the ways we get extra help. It is called internships and externships and volunteers. We get multitudes of people that work for nothing. I wouldn't mind paying some of them, but since any wages that are a penny less than minimum is illegal, and the jobs they do aren't worth minimum (a lot of sitting around and watching), they just continue to volunteer their time and energy.

Why is it okay for people to volunteer their time for zero money but that same person is not allowed to contract with an employer for $5/hour? You cannot say that paying them something would be taking advantage of them if paying them nothing is okay.

darkfrog 02-18-2013 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57668646)
I'll tell you where; you raise prices by a few percent. And cause all your competitors face the same marginally higher expenses, they will, too, and you'll be in the same position competitively, so you won't lose customers to your competition.

Plus, you'll adjust these things gradually over the next few years as the higher rates take effect, just like all previous min wage hikes.

It's not like people will abandon the pets they love just cause prices go up a few percent.

The only people that think higher minimum wages are a bad thing are the small minority who run a business that operates on thin margins. Cause they don't see how it helps the economy overall. Money in the hands of low wage earners gets spent right away.

We already do raise prices incrementally, throughout the year. Losing to competition is multifold. We don't lose our clients to the hospital down the road as much as clients deciding that it has become too expensive to treat so euthanasia is better. We also deal with the online pharmacies as competition, something incrementally raising prices actually makes worse.

Of course I'm not going to take business advice from the likes of you anyway. Someone that clearly demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how things work in the real world, when it's not a idealistic classroom setting.

124nic8 02-18-2013 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57668724)
Not sure what point you're trying to drive home because currently, that is 100% legal and one of the ways we get extra help. It is called internships and externships and volunteers. We get multitudes of people that work for nothing. I wouldn't mind paying some of them, but since any wages that are a penny less than minimum is illegal, and the jobs they do aren't worth minimum (a lot of sitting around and watching), they just continue to volunteer their time and energy.

Why is it okay for people to volunteer their time for zero money but that same person is not allowed to contract with an employer for $5/hour? You cannot say that paying them something would be taking advantage of them if paying them nothing is okay.

Pretty sure that:

Quote:

in exchange for irrevocably losing the ability to set the terms of their own employment.
is not legal. That would be slavery.

124nic8 02-18-2013 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57668786)
We already do raise prices incrementally, throughout the year. Losing to competition is multifold. We don't lose our clients to the hospital down the road as much as clients deciding that it has become too expensive to treat so euthanasia is better. We also deal with the online pharmacies as competition, something incrementally raising prices actually makes worse.

Of course I'm not going to take business advice from the likes of you anyway. Someone that clearly demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how things work in the real world, when it's not a idealistic classroom setting.

Well then, I guess you'll just lose out to those who don't over-react based on ideology.

How did you ever survive the last min wage hike, if they're so disasterious?

darkfrog 02-18-2013 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57668646)
The only people that think higher minimum wages are a bad thing are the small minority who run a business that operates on thin margins. Cause they don't see how it helps the economy overall. Money in the hands of low wage earners gets spent right away.

Really? How many businesses do you run that operate on fat margins? How is people spending more money a good thing if that money doesn't buy any more goods or services than the previous level? Someday you will realize the real minimum wage is zero dollars. Someone without any skill does not automatically get a minimum wage job and those already in jobs could lose theirs. Where's this spending money coming from that you think will spur on the economy? From the same place that was paying it out before the hike went into effect and getting it in the hands of even more people. Not only is your business acuity in question your logic is as well.

124nic8 02-18-2013 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57668884)
Really? How many businesses do you run that operate on fat margins?

All of the most successful ones.

Quote:

How is people spending more money a good thing if that money doesn't buy any more goods or services than the previous level?
People will spend faster to beat the price rise, creating a higher velocity of money which increases demand for everything.

Quote:

Someday you will realize the real minimum wage is zero dollars.
But no one will profit from that, which is why they'll continue to hire at min wage; profit driven.

Quote:

Someone without any skill does not automatically get a minimum wage job and those already in jobs could lose theirs.
They could, and when business picks up, get it back.

Quote:

Where's this spending money coming from that you think will spur on the economy? From the same place that was paying it out before the hike went into effect and getting it in the hands of even more people.
As mentioned above, higher velocity.

Quote:

Not only is your business acuity in question your logic is as well.
Fortunately, I don't suffer from the myopia which leads you to this ^ conclusion.

Dr. J 02-18-2013 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57668646)
I'll tell you where; you raise prices by a few percent. And cause all your competitors face the same marginally higher expenses, they will, too, and you'll be in the same position competitively, so you won't lose customers to your competition.

Plus, you'll adjust these things gradually over the next few years as the higher rates take effect, just like all previous min wage hikes.

It's not like people will abandon the pets they love just cause prices go up a few percent.

The only people that think higher minimum wages are a bad thing are the small minority who run a business that operates on thin margins. Cause they don't see how it helps the economy overall. Money in the hands of low wage earners gets spent right away.


Thanks for confirming that minimum wage also contributes to inflation.

It's very simple - you can't tell an employer that they must pay their employees more (or increase their compensation, that is) and expect zero consequences.

124nic8 02-18-2013 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57669234)
Thanks for confirming that minimum wage also contributes to inflation.

It's very simple - you can't tell an employer that they must pay their employees more (or increase their compensation, that is) and expect zero consequences.

We don't expect zero consequences. We expect poor people to have more money and spend it right away, increasing the rate of growth of the economy.

The opposite of recessionary deflation retarding the growth of the economy.

empiretc 02-18-2013 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57669376)
We don't expect zero consequences. We expect poor people to have more money and spend it right away, increasing the rate of growth of the economy.

The opposite of recessionary deflation retarding the growth of the economy.


Yeeeaaah, that stimulus plan worked real well.....

Guess voters thought there would be another in Act-II

gunnerusa 02-18-2013 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57668724)
Not sure what point you're trying to drive home because currently, that is 100% legal and one of the ways we get extra help

Interns get free health care, free room and board, guaranteed lifetime employment, and they can never quit? :eek:

124nic8 02-18-2013 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57670464)
Yeeeaaah, that stimulus plan worked real well.....

We've had steady growth ever since, so yeah, it did.

empiretc 02-18-2013 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57671900)
We've had steady growth ever since


Of the national deficit.

124nic8 02-18-2013 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57673450)
Of the national deficit.

And jobs and GDP....

Gotchaforce 02-18-2013 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57668724)
Not sure what point you're trying to drive home because currently, that is 100% legal and one of the ways we get extra help. It is called internships and externships and volunteers. We get multitudes of people that work for nothing. I wouldn't mind paying some of them, but since any wages that are a penny less than minimum is illegal, and the jobs they do aren't worth minimum (a lot of sitting around and watching), they just continue to volunteer their time and energy.

Why is it okay for people to volunteer their time for zero money but that same person is not allowed to contract with an employer for $5/hour? You cannot say that paying them something would be taking advantage of them if paying them nothing is okay.

It sounds like your business is run on such thin margins that if tomorrow unpaid internships became illegal it would collapse.

If i ran a business i dont think i would call it a success if i had to add that as a footnote.

the vast majority of internships are hoisted on young people who have no job experience and dont work for zero pay because they want to but they feel its the only way to start their career because they dont have an "in" otherwise. Business prey on those people yet make it out like theyre Verrocchio and all their interns are da vinci :lmao:

Gotchaforce 02-18-2013 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57668412)
It appears the supporters of the minimum wage think that way. They think that I can pay new hires $9/ hour yet don't tell me where I will get the revenue to do that. Instead of hiring a high school kid to clean kennels, at the same time giving him/her work experience and a display of aptitude working with animals, I will now have to stop hiring inexpensive labor to do unskilled work and make my technical staff pitch in to do all of the work normally done by high school kids or sometimes an adult without any work experience. Of course since we used to hire from within, that will have to change because there won't be any more previously inexperienced kids getting hired to become vet techs and even full technicians or give them the experience they need to apply to vet school.

The only people that think higher minimum wages are a good thing have most likely never run a business that operates on thin margins.

The poor are always lambasted as "wasting their money" (meaning they spend it and dont horde it)... connect the dots here for a second. If you gave every min wage worker a raise youre effectively giving them a bunch more money that theyll spend on the local economy. that includes dogs and cats and taking care of them, no?

This actually drives growth as opposed to the concept that if people like romney had his taxes cut in half to 6% that he would hire twice as many maids and buy twice as many ipads and get twice as many dogs and cats.

Its kind of weird that you dont care that your taxes go to welfare anyways, and youre subsidizing every employee at walmart who goes on medicare/ss/food stamps/etc. Wouldnt you prefer that walmart actually had to bear the costs of their employees???? in my town walmart full timers (lol wait, walmart doesnt have full time people) would likely starve to death the instant they had a financial hiccup. Rent is enormous, food costs a lot, gas costs a lot, car insurance costs a lot, cell phone bills, internet. But who needs those.. oh wait everyone because thats basically what you need to keep a retail job nowadays.

empiretc 02-18-2013 10:30 PM

People that do not own a business telling business owners what they are doing wrong is always funny.

The potus has been spending like crazy and all that has produced is a deeper hole to crawl out of.

Trickle up economics or spread the wealth? Oh, wait... :lol:

darkfrog 02-18-2013 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57668866)

How did you ever survive the last min wage hike, if they're so disasterious?

Its not disastrous for me, but for the high school kids I had to lay off, you know the ones the minimum wage is supposed to help, the unskilled workforce.
Don't think that the people that made their way to $9 and $10/hour on merit by working hard aren't going to want a raise now too. Sure, let's just inflate the economy at a time when unemployment is as high as it is. I think this would be a great move for King Obama.

darkfrog 02-18-2013 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57674062)
It sounds like your business is run on such thin margins that if tomorrow unpaid internships became illegal it would collapse.

Right. Because you think my business depends on internships? Not only did I not say that but I also said I would happily pay some of these people if it weren't illegal to do so at the actual wages they are worth to me.

Our margins became thin when the economy tanked. People do stop taking care of their pets when they are laid off. Probably because we pay our support staff and professional staff very well compared to our local market. We offer full benefit packages, which we will probably be unable to continue, not because we aren't busy, but because the costs of labor are getting too high with all of the new taxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57669142)
All of the most successful ones..

I don't believe you have ever owned a business.

124nic8 02-19-2013 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57674514)
Its not disastrous for me, but for the high school kids I had to lay off, you know the ones the minimum wage is supposed to help, the unskilled workforce.
Don't think that the people that made their way to $9 and $10/hour on merit by working hard aren't going to want a raise now too. Sure, let's just inflate the economy at a time when unemployment is as high as it is. I think this would be a great move for King Obama.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

124nic8 02-19-2013 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57674702)
I don't believe you have ever owned a business.

You're wrong. In fact I'm starting a new one now. But Business school is where all the Engineering students who can't hack it end up, so forgive me if I don't find it very complicated.

I don't believe you can see beyond your own situation and imagine that it applies to everyone. Macro vs. Micro

riznick 02-19-2013 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57656710)
Not at all. Care to tell me what's changed besides 30 years? (although it's really less than that if you do the math right ;))

The author of the editorial changed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnerusa (Post 57657954)
The 80s were the "great experiment" of Conservatism, which failed horribly as America's industrial base, the rights of American workers, and our educational and physical infrastructure were all sacrificed to enrich a few wealthy Republican plutocrats.

Failed relative to what? What would have worked better? Are you 100% certain?

riznick 02-19-2013 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57660254)
with unemployment among the youth at an all-time high, a higher min wage (the huge bulk of those who earn it being young unskilled workers) will only result in higher unemployment.

When you raise the COST of labor to $9, but do nothing to raise its VALUE to $9, you end up with job cuts. If the employees skills were worth $9 in the market, they would have been paid that much, but since they are not, they are paid a lower amount.

Now, if the min wage was raised to $9, why would a business continue to hire someone whose skills have a market value of only $7.50? They would just as soon fire the person they paid $7.50 than pay them $9 while their skills are only worth only $7.50, and then hire someone else who has the skills commensurate with a $9 pay rate, since now they are forced by law to pay that amount...even if the employer does not need that higher skill set right away, why pay more for an unskilled person, when you can hire someone for the same pay with higher skill that then you can employ to do additional work that the skills allow them to do. The result: HIGHER unemployment for the young and unskilled workers....

it really is not rocket science...basic logical analysis and 'put yourself in their shoes' logic is all that is needed for this concept to be understood....however, the ideologically driven either lack that ability, or purposefully blind themselves to the logic.

It's a lot more complicated than how you worded it.

With high levels of unemployment, and no minimum wages, people will compete for lower wages. This brings salaries down. The result is more people in poverty levels. Don't believe me?

Prices also possibly drop. Deflation may occur. The government does not want deflation as it severely depends on borrowing money. Deflation is extremely painful when you are massively in debt. Raising the minimum wage helps lock in some inflation.

riznick 02-19-2013 01:41 AM

2005 - minimum wage is scheduled to double in the next 3 years. (Yes, GWB increased min wage 50%. shhh)
2008 - unemployment levels are terrible and getting worse

Danman114 02-19-2013 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57675838)
A rising tide lifts all boats.

I think the problem is, there are certain jobs that only have a certain length of rope tide to it. If you raise the tide too high, the rope will sink the boat.

If there is a job that an employer values at $8 an hour, that job will be sunk when the minimum wage tide is raised to $9.

You said "We don't expect zero consequences. We expect poor people to have more money and spend it right away, increasing the rate of growth of the economy."

Well, do you expect cut backs in hours? More unemployment among the poor, teenagers, and working class? Fewer available hours for these people? Higher priced products for all consumers?

How do any of those factor into your math on growing the economy?

TRNT 02-19-2013 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57678196)
I think the problem is, there are certain jobs that only have a certain length of rope tide to it. If you raise the tide too high, the rope will sink the boat.

If there is a job that an employer values at $8 an hour, that job will be sunk when the minimum wage tide is raised to $9.

I disagree with the premise. Right now you can contract a lawn-care outfit to maintain your lawn for say $400 a year. The law care industry heavily relies on min wage workers. So if we increase the min wage to $9 then the same maintenance contract would be at, say, $450.

No big deal.

I still cannot believe some people want us to be a society in which a person working full time would be in poverty. We are better than that and can do better than that.

darkfrog 02-19-2013 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57680858)
I disagree with the premise. Right now you can contract a lawn-care outfit to maintain your lawn for say $400 a year. The law care industry heavily relies on min wage workers. So if we increase the min wage to $9 then the same maintenance contract would be at, say, $450.

No big deal.

I still cannot believe some people want us to be a society in which a person working full time would be in poverty. We are better than that and can do better than that.

Glad to see you agree that we will see inflation and the things that people were buying when they made $8/hour will go up in price so their $9/hour wage will have zero additional purchasing power. I guess we forget the premise that we are actually helping people get out of poverty by increase the mandatory minimum, when all we are doing is raising the level of poverty.
So that you have a question to answer, tell me, if I can buy, let's say a pizza for $8 today, but after the minimum wage increase goes into effect, the pizza will cost $9, and this occurs across all sectors, how exactly is it helping anyone?

Danman114 02-19-2013 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57680858)
I disagree with the premise. Right now you can contract a lawn-care outfit to maintain your lawn for say $400 a year. The law care industry heavily relies on min wage workers. So if we increase the min wage to $9 then the same maintenance contract would be at, say, $450.

No big deal.

And when every lawn-care provider raise stheir prices, how many customers (throughout the whole economy) decide that they no longer wish to purchase $450 worth of services?

Let's say 5%. That's a 5% reduction in the demand for employed minimum wage laborers. That's 5% less work, which results in either 5% fewer workers, or 5% fewer hours worked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57680858)
I still cannot believe some people want us to be a society in which a person working full time would be in poverty. We are better than that and can do better than that.

As has been said, time and time again, this isn't reality. The vast majority of people who work for minimum wage aren't poor. They are retirees, students, working class, and part timers with more than one job.

The poor are those without jobs or full time work. So the question you should be asking is, why do people favor economic policies that create unemployment and reduce the number of full time positions? Minimum wage laws do just this.

Dumpsterdiver 02-19-2013 09:16 AM

Good responses guys. I can't believe someone would type that and not see the problem with it.

empiretc 02-19-2013 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57680858)
So if we increase the min wage to $9 then the same maintenance contract would be at, say, $450.

No big deal.


Until the business loses customers, then the employees lose their job. and where do they end up......... in a place where they realize they can make more by not working.

cutting back on welfare would help the economy way more than raising the minimum wage.

TRNT 02-19-2013 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57681336)
Glad to see you agree that we will see inflation and the things that people were buying when they made $8/hour will go up in price so their $9/hour wage will have zero additional purchasing power. I guess we forget the premise that we are actually helping people get out of poverty by increase the mandatory minimum, when all we are doing is raising the level of poverty.
So that you have a question to answer, tell me, if I can buy, let's say a pizza for $8 today, but after the minimum wage increase goes into effect, the pizza will cost $9, and this occurs across all sectors, how exactly is it helping anyone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57681450)
And when every lawn-care provider raise stheir prices, how many customers (throughout the whole economy) decide that they no longer wish to purchase $450 worth of services?

Let's say 5%. That's a 5% reduction in the demand for employed minimum wage laborers. That's 5% less work, which results in either 5% fewer workers, or 5% fewer hours worked.

As has been said, time and time again, this isn't reality. The vast majority of people who work for minimum wage aren't poor. They are retirees, students, working class, and part timers with more than one job.

The poor are those without jobs or full time work. So the question you should be asking is, why do people favor economic policies that create unemployment and reduce the number of full time positions? Minimum wage laws do just this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57681620)
Until the business loses customers, then the employees lose their job. and where do they end up......... in a place where they realize they can make more by not working.

cutting back on welfare would help the economy way more than raising the minimum wage.

1. Let's stipulate that raising the min wage causes some inflation. So say a full time worker on min wage earns X% of poverty level. Now we increase the min wage to $9 and you say this causes inflation and increase in poverty level. So now the $9/hr min wage earner is at Y% of poverty level. Don't you think that Y would be grater than X? That is, even stipulating inflation and rise in poverty level, the min wage workers will be helped?

2. Some one mentioned reducing welfare programs in order to help the economy. Is it far-fetched to think that increasing min wage would relieve some of the pressure on welfare programs?

darkfrog 02-19-2013 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57682618)
1. Let's stipulate that raising the min wage causes some inflation. So say a full time worker on min wage earns X% of poverty level. Now we increase the min wage to $9 and you say this causes inflation and increase in poverty level. So now the $9/hr min wage earner is at Y% of poverty level. Don't you think that Y would be grater than X? That is, even stipulating inflation and rise in poverty level, the min wage workers will be helped?

2. Some one mentioned reducing welfare programs in order to help the economy. Is it far-fetched to think that increasing min wage would relieve some of the pressure on welfare programs?

How about you attempt to answer the question directed toward you rather than deflect with a question of your own?

TRNT 02-19-2013 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57683192)
How about you attempt to answer the question directed toward you rather than deflect with a question of your own?

Do you really claim that a say 20% increase in min wage cause 20% inflation and 20% rise in poverty level. If not, then raising min wage indeed helps the min wage worker.

empiretc 02-19-2013 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57683436)
Do you really claim that a say 20% increase in min wage cause 20% inflation and 20% rise in poverty level.


the number of people on welfare is constantly going up, unemployment is still high, and burger combos are not $3.50 anymore.


to quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57671900)
We've had steady growth ever since....

Yep, of

1.) the national deficit
2.) foreclosures
3.) debt defaults
4.) welfare recipients

riznick 02-19-2013 10:58 AM

It would help them in some ways, and not in others. It might help them with rent or medical. Prices of cheap items will likely increase at about the same rate as the min wage increase. Yes, those fast food prices will go up. For a period of time, it may become more difficult to get a min wage job. Some jobs will be cut.

Raising the minimum wage will help lock in inflation, which the government needs. Since so many things that we spend money on are not tied into inflation calculations, the increase may appear significant.

Raising the minimum wage also helps shrink the between the rich and poor and redistributes wealth.

Danman114 02-19-2013 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57682618)
1. Let's stipulate that raising the min wage causes some inflation. So say a full time worker on min wage earns X% of poverty level. Now we increase the min wage to $9 and you say this causes inflation and increase in poverty level. So now the $9/hr min wage earner is at Y% of poverty level. Don't you think that Y would be grater than X? That is, even stipulating inflation and rise in poverty level, the min wage workers will be helped?

There are two problems. First, you can see the effects, and it's easy to envision a $1 rise in minimum wage as far as it puts $1 dollar extra per hour worked. You don't see the rise in prices. You don't see the cut back in hours. You don't see the rise in unemployment among those who need jobs the most and the jobs not created because they have to pay $9.00 instead of $8.00.

It's not possible to say if x% is greater or less than y%, nor is it possible to pretend the other consequences of such a law don't exist.


Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57682618)
2. Some one mentioned reducing welfare programs in order to help the economy. Is it far-fetched to think that increasing min wage would relieve some of the pressure on welfare programs?

It's also impossible to say. If it increases unemployment among the poorest, I'd say it'd probably hurt.

TRNT 02-19-2013 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57684974)
There are two problems. First, you can see the effects, and it's easy to envision a $1 rise in minimum wage as far as it puts $1 dollar extra per hour worked. You don't see the rise in prices. You don't see the cut back in hours. You don't see the rise in unemployment among those who need jobs the most and the jobs not created because they have to pay $9.00 instead of $8.00.

It's not possible to say if x% is greater or less than y%, nor is it possible to pretend the other consequences of such a law don't exist.

It's also impossible to say. If it increases unemployment among the poorest, I'd say it'd probably hurt.

I agree with most everything you said except for this: I think it is near certainty that Y is greater than X.

andyfico 02-19-2013 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57682618)
2. Some one mentioned reducing welfare programs in order to help the economy. Is it far-fetched to think that increasing min wage would relieve some of the pressure on welfare programs?

This will result in inflation which will increase the cost of living which will then result in lower income requirements to qualify for welfare. And then we're right back to "needing" to increase the min wage again.

124nic8 02-19-2013 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riznick (Post 57684556)
Raising the minimum wage also helps shrink the between the rich and poor and redistributes wealth.

Is it only "redistribution" when the gap is closed?

Or just when the government is involved?

Who here would prefer the gap to widen (even more than it has)?

Danman114 02-19-2013 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57685082)
I agree with most everything you said except for this: I think it is near certainty that Y is greater than X.

Unless he loses his job, or gets his hours scaled back, which is why you can't say with any certainty one way or the other.

You just have to relish in the misery then caused to the rest of society in higher prices.

TRNT 02-19-2013 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyfico (Post 57685134)
This will result in inflation which will increase the cost of living which will then result in lower income requirements to qualify for welfare. And then we're right back to "needing" to increase the min wage again.

Really? We "need" to increase min wage again because of:

1. inflation,or
2. increase in the cost of living, or
3. lower income requirements to qualify for welfare?

(And I do not see #3 either.)

TRNT 02-19-2013 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57686720)
Unless he loses his job, or gets his hours scaled back, which is why you can't say with any certainty one way or the other.

Correct.....but other than for those two cases, it is a certainty. Right?

DJPlayer 02-19-2013 12:49 PM

just to add I did read a story about some companies complaining. I remember one of the companies being a type of 7-11 type mini mart and had employees making below and above the federal minimum wage.

Their claim was that the increase would place would force them to increase the pay structure for all the employees. Their profit margins are extremely slim and their only choice would be to cut employees or go out of business.

What's occurring is pretty common sense that I've stated.. hundreds of times. By raising lower incomes you affect the majority, because of their size they feel the brunt of cost increases. By vastly taxing the upper class you bring them slightly closer to middle. You're trying to fit everyone into the bell curve.. but since there are so many lower class individuals the average income ends up with a slight shift downward. (whether it be directly income wise, or increased cost of living).

andyfico 02-19-2013 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57687332)
Really? We "need" to increase min wage again because of:

1. inflation,or
2. increase in the cost of living, or
3. lower income requirements to qualify for welfare?

(And I do not see #3 either.)

Why do YOU think we need to raise the minimum wage?

Rebound 02-19-2013 01:52 PM

Yeah, the NY Times publishes both conservative and liberal editorial pieces. The editorials don't necessarily reflect a unified mind known as "New York Times."

Dumpsterdiver 02-19-2013 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyfico (Post 57688354)
Why do YOU think we need to raise the minimum wage?

It helps illegals.

darkfrog 02-19-2013 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57683436)
Do you really claim that a say 20% increase in min wage cause 20% inflation and 20% rise in poverty level. If not, then raising min wage indeed helps the min wage worker.

Deflecting with another question is still not an answer.

thikthird 02-19-2013 02:28 PM

when confronted with facts these people just resort to their position of wanting whats worst for the most.

more money for workers? whoa whoa, can't have that.

darkfrog 02-19-2013 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57683436)
Do you really claim that a say 20% increase in min wage cause 20% inflation and 20% rise in poverty level. If not, then raising min wage indeed helps the min wage worker.

Here's another question that you'll probably ignore-

You are the owner of a small company. You have a few minimum wage workers that were recently hired, within the last 6 months. You have a larger group of employees that make anywhere from $7.50 to $10, and each of them got there from merit raises, by working hard, showing up, etc. 60% of these workers are making under $9, the other 40% over. You have a few salaried employees in management positions that average $18-20/hour if you were to average their salary over a 40 hour work week, but since they aren't required to punch a clock, they often work more than 40, until the job is done.

How will you address everyone's wages when the new federal minimum takes affect? IOW, do you only raise the wages of everyone under $9 and everyone else SOL? Do you increase everyone's pay by a certain percent? Can you at least understand why a new minimum wage does not affect only the lowest paid worker?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57690268)
when confronted with facts these people just resort to their position of wanting whats worst for the most.

more money for workers? whoa whoa, can't have that.

get back to us after you've run a business for a few years.

thikthird 02-19-2013 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57690396)

get back to us after you've run a business for a few years.

nah. i won't. i don't care about the business owners' perspective on this. i care about the workers. this puts you out of business? good riddance. someone else who thinks that they can make a buck exploiting workers will take your place. there are far more workers than business owners and forgive me if i don't shed a tear if a few of you have to close of up shop.

empiretc 02-19-2013 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57690524)
i don't care about the business owners' perspective on this. i care about the workers. this puts you out of business? good riddance. someone else who thinks that they can make a buck exploiting workers will take your place. there are far more workers than business owners and forgive me if i don't shed a tear if a few of you have to close of up shop.


and you don't see the problem with that???

bho supporters.... either work for the government, or live off welfare. sure, raise the minimum wage to $9. people will lose jobs and fast food will get more expensive. won't matter, they will receive more benefits out of necessity and ff joints will probably have to start accepting SNAP benefits.

darkfrog 02-19-2013 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57690524)
nah. i won't. i don't care about the business owners' perspective on this. i care about the workers. this puts you out of business? good riddance. someone else who thinks that they can make a buck exploiting workers will take your place. there are far more workers than business owners and forgive me if i don't shed a tear if a few of you have to close of up shop.

So you won't explain where the extra revenue is supposed to come from in order to pay workers more, you just want to declare, "more money"

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57662600)
If government can magically make more money appear when the minimum wage is raised to $9, why not more? ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57663028)
Who said the government could do that (besides you).

Here you go 'nic, thikthird is the type of person I was referring to.

bridgeburner 02-19-2013 02:51 PM

This argument doesn't really make any sense to me. Raising the minimum wage is going to mostly affect people in low/no skilled jobs (like fast food), or other entry level positions. It's not like McDonalds is going to suddenly fire people because they're not "skilled" enough to work a cash register. There will always be entry level positions. What raising the minimum wage would do is make sure the people getting those entry level positions can actually pay their rent and buy groceries instead of having to live off of welfare WHILE they're working.

darkfrog 02-19-2013 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57690524)
nah. i won't. i don't care about the business owners' perspective on this. i care about the workers. this puts you out of business? good riddance. someone else who thinks that they can make a buck exploiting workers will take your place. there are far more workers than business owners and forgive me if i don't shed a tear if a few of you have to close of up shop.

You are making a fatal error. Businesses are going to be fine. They will find a way to get the job done. The people hurt are the ones that will be laid off or not get a job in the first place because of their lack of skills and work experience.

No one is getting exploited at $7.25, get over yourself.

empiretc 02-19-2013 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 57690838)
What raising the minimum wage would do is make sure the people getting those entry level positions can actually pay their rent and buy groceries instead of having to live off of welfare WHILE they're working.


you seriously think they will let it go??


:lol:

TRNT 02-19-2013 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57690396)
Here's another question that you'll probably ignore-

You are the owner of a small company. You have a few minimum wage workers that were recently hired, within the last 6 months. You have a larger group of employees that make anywhere from $7.50 to $10, and each of them got there from merit raises, by working hard, showing up, etc. 60% of these workers are making under $9, the other 40% over. You have a few salaried employees in management positions that average $18-20/hour if you were to average their salary over a 40 hour work week, but since they aren't required to punch a clock, they often work more than 40, until the job is done.

How will you address everyone's wages when the new federal minimum takes affect? IOW, do you only raise the wages of everyone under $9 and everyone else SOL? Do you increase everyone's pay by a certain percent? Can you at least understand why a new minimum wage does not affect only the lowest paid worker?

I do "at least" understand.

And I would increase the wage of others too.

bridgeburner 02-19-2013 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57690868)
you seriously think they will let it go??


:lol:


It's not up to them. You have to meet a certain criteria to get welfare.

empiretc 02-19-2013 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 57690894)
It's not up to them. You have to meet a certain criteria to get welfare.


of course, and they know the criteria well.

bridgeburner 02-19-2013 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57690942)
of course, and they know the criteria well.


Despite what republicans think, not everyone on welfare is gaming the system.

paperboy05 02-19-2013 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 57690838)
This argument doesn't really make any sense to me. Raising the minimum wage is going to mostly affect people in low/no skilled jobs (like fast food), or other entry level positions. It's not like McDonalds is going to suddenly fire people because they're not "skilled" enough to work a cash register. There will always be entry level positions. What raising the minimum wage would do is make sure the people getting those entry level positions can actually pay their rent and buy groceries instead of having to live off of welfare WHILE they're working.

You're right, it won't effect large businesses like McDonalds, however, it will effect small business in which they won't be able to afford the new rates and will just have other current employees take over the jobs done prior.

There will subsequently be less overall entry level positions due to the increase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 57690894)
It's not up to them. You have to meet a certain criteria to get welfare.

And the subsequent rising costs of goods will make them still meet that criteria.

empiretc 02-19-2013 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 57690962)
Despite what republicans think, not everyone on welfare is gaming the system.


it is amazing how much is thrown at them.

http://www.benefits.gov/

darkfrog 02-19-2013 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 57690838)
This argument doesn't really make any sense to me. Raising the minimum wage is going to mostly affect people in low/no skilled jobs (like fast food), or other entry level positions. It's not like McDonalds is going to suddenly fire people because they're not "skilled" enough to work a cash register. There will always be entry level positions. What raising the minimum wage would do is make sure the people getting those entry level positions can actually pay their rent and buy groceries instead of having to live off of welfare WHILE they're working.

As even some of the more liberal posters have pointed out, it will also directly lead to inflation. The food and rent will go up when it costs more to maintain properties and produce, deliver and stock food.
A better solution is to fix the economy and get more people back to work would be to drop the minimum. We have a surplus of potential employees currently, raising the price of labor is NOT the answer to a basic supply-demand issue.

Danman114 02-19-2013 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 57690838)
This argument doesn't really make any sense to me. Raising the minimum wage is going to mostly affect people in low/no skilled jobs (like fast food), or other entry level positions. It's not like McDonalds is going to suddenly fire people because they're not "skilled" enough to work a cash register. There will always be entry level positions. What raising the minimum wage would do is make sure the people getting those entry level positions can actually pay their rent and buy groceries instead of having to live off of welfare WHILE they're working.

McDonald's is actually a great example. Have you seen some of the innovations this company has made to avoid hiring people?

I ordered a soda once, a cup drops down, goes along a conveyor belt, predetermined amount of ice drops in, goes further along the conveyor belt, soda is inserted, pause, fizzle dies down, more soda tops it off. A human doesn't come back into the equation until it's time to put the lid on.

This used to be a person doing this job. This person used to have low skills, and needed job experience. McDonalds found it more efficient to have a machine do the work, and reduced the total number of hours worked needed to operate a McDonalds through automation. And this is just one way to reduce the number of labor hours needed to run this type of restaurant.

bridgeburner 02-19-2013 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57691190)
As even some of the more liberal posters have pointed out, it will also directly lead to inflation. The food and rent will go up when it costs more to maintain properties and produce, deliver and stock food.
A better solution is to fix the economy and get more people back to work would be to drop the minimum. We have a surplus of potential employees currently, raising the price of labor is NOT the answer to a basic supply-demand issue.


Seems to me that would just lead to more people making less money, which would lead to more people on welfare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57691216)
McDonald's is actually a great example. Have you seen some of the innovations this company has made to avoid hiring people?

I ordered a soda once, a cup drops down, goes along a conveyor belt, predetermined amount of ice drops in, goes further along the conveyor belt, soda is inserted, pause, fizzle dies down, more soda tops it off. A human doesn't come back into the equation until it's time to put the lid on.

This used to be a person doing this job. This person used to have low skills, and needed job experience. McDonalds found it more efficient to have a machine do the work, and reduced the total number of hours worked needed to operate a McDonalds through automation. And this is just one way to reduce the number of labor hours needed to run this type of restaurant.


Hell are you talking about? Every fast food place I've ever been to just gives you the cup and expects you to fill it your self. What kinds of mcdonalds are you going to?

thikthird 02-19-2013 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57690654)
So you won't explain where the extra revenue is supposed to come from in order to pay workers more, you just want to declare, "more money"


sure i'll explain where it comes from. the pockets of those who employ the workers. that's never something that even seems to come up though. it's always "well, we'll have to either fire some or raise prices or both." the greed of those that exploit the workers can only continue unabated for so long.

thikthird 02-19-2013 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57691190)
As even some of the more liberal posters have pointed out, it will also directly lead to inflation. The food and rent will go up when it costs more to maintain properties and produce, deliver and stock food.
A better solution is to fix the economy and get more people back to work would be to drop the minimum. We have a surplus of potential employees currently, raising the price of labor is NOT the answer to a basic supply-demand issue.

a better solution would be to have people work for no money. that would put the surplus back to work real fast.

this is NOT a supply-demand issue.

paperboy05 02-19-2013 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 57691218)
Seems to me that would just lead to more people making less money, which would lead to more people on welfare.

Do you think higher unemployment will add or remove people from welfare rolls?

andyfico 02-19-2013 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 57690894)
It's not up to them. You have to meet a certain criteria to get welfare.

And that criteria will be expanded when raising the minimum wage causes inflation. Then we will need to raise the minimum wage again because more people will fall below the poverty line which will cause the cycle to repeat.

bridgeburner 02-19-2013 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57691276)
sure i'll explain where it comes from. the pockets of those who employ the workers. that's never something that even seems to come up though. it's always "well, we'll have to either fire some or raise prices or both." the greed of those that exploit the workers can only continue unabated for so long.


This. It also never even occurs to anyone that we could always do what Japan does and mandate that a company can't pay the executives more than x% above what the lowest paid employee makes. (That's the queue for the advocates of corporate greed to start screaming about "socialism")

Quote:

Originally Posted by paperboy05 (Post 57691344)
Do you think higher unemployment will add or remove people from welfare rolls?


Doesn't matter, since I've already stated that I don't see how this would cause unemployment. Does anyone have evidence that this would be the case?

paperboy05 02-19-2013 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 57691372)
Doesn't matter, since I've already stated that I don't see how this would cause unemployment. Does anyone have evidence that this would be the case?

Yes, the past.

Quote:

For many years it has been a matter of conventional wisdom among economists that the minimum wage causes fewer jobs to exist than would be the case without it. This is simply a matter of price theory, taught in every economics textbook, requiring no elaborate analysis to justify. Were this not the case, there would be no logical reason why the minimum wage could not be set at $10, $100, or $1 million per hour. Historically, defenders of the minimum wage have not disputed the disemployment effects of the minimum wage, but argued that on balance the working poor were better off. In other words, the higher incomes of those with jobs offset the lower incomes of those without jobs, as a result of the minimum wage [See, for example, Levitan and Belous, (1979)]. Now, the Clinton Administration is advancing the novel economic theory that modest increases in the minimum wage will have no impact whatsoever on employment. This proposition is based entirely on the work of three economists: David Card and Alan Krueger of Princeton, and Lawrence Katz of Harvard. Their studies of increases in the minimum wage in California, Texas and New Jersey apparently found no loss of jobs among fast food restaurants that were surveyed before and after the increase [See Card (1992b), Card and Krueger (1994), and Katz and Krueger (1992)]. While it is not yet clear why Card, Katz and Krueger got the results that they did, it is clear that their findings are directly contrary to virtually every empirical study ever done on the minimum wage. These studies were exhaustively surveyed by the Minimum Wage Study Commission, which concluded that a 10% increase in the minimum wage reduced teenage employment by 1% to 3%. The following survey of the academic research on the minimum wage is designed to give nonspecialists a sense of just how isolated the Card, Krueger and Katz studies are. It will also indicate that the minimum wage has wide-ranging negative effects that go beyond unemployment. For example, higher minimum wages encourage employers to cut back on training, thus depriving low wage workers of an important means of long-term advancement, in return for a small increase in current income. For many workers this is a very bad trade-off, but one for which the law provides no alternative.

TRNT 02-19-2013 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57691216)
McDonald's is actually a great example. Have you seen some of the innovations this company has made to avoid hiring people?

I ordered a soda once, a cup drops down, goes along a conveyor belt, predetermined amount of ice drops in, goes further along the conveyor belt, soda is inserted, pause, fizzle dies down, more soda tops it off. A human doesn't come back into the equation until it's time to put the lid on.

This used to be a person doing this job. This person used to have low skills, and needed job experience. McDonalds found it more efficient to have a machine do the work, and reduced the total number of hours worked needed to operate a McDonalds through automation. And this is just one way to reduce the number of labor hours needed to run this type of restaurant.

Are you actually suggesting McDonalds using technology ad innovation is bad for our society? Wow! If as a result of increase in min wage McDonalds does even more innovation, I say more power to them.

thikthird 02-19-2013 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 57691218)
Seems to me that would just lead to more people making less money, which would lead to more people on welfare.




Hell are you talking about? Every fast food place I've ever been to just gives you the cup and expects you to fill it your self. What kinds of mcdonalds are you going to?

some mcdonalds do that. meanwhile, they made 5.5 billion last year. if every mcdonalds in the world hired an additional cup filler per store they still would have made over 5 billion. yet to raise the worker's wages to $9 they either fire a couple per store or raise the price on an extra value meal $1 or give you a few less fries. or better yet, when they see a store can operate with 2 less employees they still charge you that extra $1 and make $6 billion next year. 2 years down the line mcdonalds will love an minimum wage hike.

TRNT 02-19-2013 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 57691372)
Doesn't matter, since I've already stated that I don't see how this would cause unemployment. Does anyone have evidence that this would be the case?

Right now I wash my own clothes. If someone is willing to do it for me for 50 dents an hour, I would employ that person. So what? It would be terrible to reduce the min wage to 50 cents an hour even if it results in more employment.......of people earning 50 cents an hour.

thikthird 02-19-2013 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paperboy05 (Post 57691426)
Yes, the past.

or, the past [cepr.net].

darkfrog 02-19-2013 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57691276)
sure i'll explain where it comes from. the pockets of those who employ the workers. that's never something that even seems to come up though. it's always "well, we'll have to either fire some or raise prices or both." the greed of those that exploit the workers can only continue unabated for so long.

Some employees are a net benefit to a company. Without them, the company could lose money. They get paid based on their value to the company. Some employees, often the unskilled, low wage earner is a net loss. They cost the company money to hire, but they do some of the jobs so the higher paid people don't have to do them and they can be more productive. There comes a point when the unskilled worker's wages will not cover the extra loss from having the higher paid worker do the same job.

It has nothing to do with paying more out of pocket of some rich guy you fantasize all business owners are like, it has to do with can the worker be an asset to the company. Businesses are not running a charity. If you want people to pay others out of their pocket out of the goodness of their hearts, then start a charity, but business owners will make their hiring decisions on self-interest and economics.

bridgeburner 02-19-2013 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57691558)
Right now I wash my own clothes. If someone is willing to do it for me for 50 dents an hour, I would employ that person. So what? It would be terrible to reduce the min wage to 50 cents an hour even if it results in more employment.......of people earning 50 cents an hour.


I see you've confused telling me a story with evidence.

darkfrog 02-19-2013 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57691558)
Right now I wash my own clothes. If someone is willing to do it for me for 50 dents an hour, I would employ that person. So what? It would be terrible to reduce the min wage to 50 cents an hour even if it results in more employment.......of people earning 50 cents an hour.

Do you think you can find someone willing to do that for $.50 an hour?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57691330)
a better solution would be to have people work for no money. that would put the surplus back to work real fast.

this is NOT a supply-demand issue.

When you can find me a supply of people willing to work for no wages, then you can come here and tell me it's not a supply-demand issue.

thikthird 02-19-2013 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57691652)
Some employees are a net benefit to a company. Without them, the company could lose money. They get paid based on their value to the company. Some employees, often the unskilled, low wage earner is a net loss. They cost the company money to hire, but they do some of the jobs so the higher paid people don't have to do them and they can be more productive. There comes a point when the unskilled worker's wages will not cover the extra loss from having the higher paid worker do the same job.

It has nothing to do with paying more out of pocket of some rich guy you fantasize all business owners are like, it has to do with can the worker be an asset to the company. Businesses are not running a charity. If you want people to pay others out of their pocket out of the goodness of their hearts, then start a charity, but business owners will make their hiring decisions on self-interest and economics.

yes, this is exactly what i'm getting at. this attitude. either this guy is an asset or not. either i'm profiting off him or not. either i can exploit him or not. yes, we know it's not a charity. this attitude is the problem. it's not a charity to pay someone who does work for you. all that matters to business owners as you say is self-interest and economics. plain as day. straight from the horse's mouth. if you can't exploit someone what good are they to you?

thikthird 02-19-2013 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57691852)
Do you think you can find someone willing to do that for $.50 an hour?


When you can find me a supply of people willing to work for no wages, then you can come here and tell me it's not a supply-demand issue.

more! i love hearing the business owner's perspective on this! my supply of these worker things are low! i demand more workers to exploit but the supply of cheap slave labor is too low! are you trying to sound like a caricature?

darkfrog 02-19-2013 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57691912)
yes, this is exactly what i'm getting at. this attitude. either this guy is an asset or not. either i'm profiting off him or not. either i can exploit him or not. yes, we know it's not a charity. this attitude is the problem. it's not a charity to pay someone who does work for you. all that matters to business owners as you say is self-interest and economics. plain as day. straight from the horse's mouth. if you can't exploit someone what good are they to you?

Exploit? Please give me YOUR definition of the word. I think offering a certain amount of money to do a job and someone else agreeing to those terms is hardly exploitation.

thikthird 02-19-2013 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57691982)
Exploit? Please give me YOUR definition of the word. I think offering a certain amount of money to do a job and someone else agreeing to those terms is hardly exploitation.

is $9 not a certain amount of money?

darkfrog 02-19-2013 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57692020)
is $9 not a certain amount of money?

Non-responsive.

thikthird 02-19-2013 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57692066)
Non-responsive.

you implied you'd have no problem offering a certain amount of money. $9 is a certain amount of money, you seem to have a problem offering that certain amount.

Danman114 02-19-2013 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57691462)
Are you actually suggesting McDonalds using technology ad innovation is bad for our society? Wow! If as a result of increase in min wage McDonalds does even more innovation, I say more power to them.

It's bad for the poor if the government prevents McDonalds from hiring an employee for the true market wage for something as mundane and simple as filling fountain sodas.

Now it's entirely possible the tech, r&d, installation, and maintenance is lower than the market wage of the sum of all fountain soda fillers, but the example holds.

In addition to the unemployment created that was mentioned in my previous posts, there also exists the added incentive for business to automate low skill work. Is tech bad on its face? Of course not. But we don't need government encouraging it and thereby further impoverishing its poor and working class.

riznick 02-19-2013 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57686500)
Is it only "redistribution" when the gap is closed?[

Or just when the government is involved?

No and No. I'm not sure what you are asking. Do you dislike the term "redistribution"? It seems like a perfectly valid and reasonable term.

The government is heavily involved with the topic at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57686500)
Who here would prefer the gap to widen (even more than it has)?

I'm not sure if you are suggesting something or implying something. I'd like to see the gap shrink. I don't know if I agree with some methods, though.

thikthird 02-19-2013 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57692196)
It's bad for the poor if the government prevents McDonalds from hiring an employee for the true market wage for something as mundane and simple as filling fountain sodas.

Now it's entirely possible the tech, r&d, installation, and maintenance is lower than the market wage of the sum of all fountain soda fillers, but the example holds.

In addition to the unemployment created that was mentioned in my previous posts, there also exists the added incentive for business to automate low skill work. Is tech bad on its face? Of course not. But we don't need government encouraging it and thereby further impoverishing its poor and working class.

just think, mcdonalds is being prevented from hiring tons of employees at the low, low wage of $0/hour by the big bad government.

Danman114 02-19-2013 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57692240)
just think, mcdonalds is being prevented from hiring tons of employees at the low, low wage of $0/hour by the big bad government.

They aren't. I'm sure they might have unpaid internships, much to your horror.

Dumpsterdiver 02-19-2013 03:58 PM

Sorry, what's keeping these underpaid individuals from starting their own company just like their masters have done,...

darkfrog 02-19-2013 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57692094)
you implied you'd have no problem offering a certain amount of money. $9 is a certain amount of money, you seem to have a problem offering that certain amount.

Wrong. I asked you a specific definition about a word you like to throw around here a lot. I said quite clearly, no implication, that I offer a certain amount of money for a specific job and that if someone accepts that amount for that job, to me it's not exploitation. If you disagree, which by your own words appears you do, you are free to elaborate, but stop trying to purposely misconstrue what I type.

darkfrog 02-19-2013 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57692240)
just think, mcdonalds is being prevented from hiring tons of employees at the low, low wage of $0/hour by the big bad government.

Yet you have been unable, or unwilling to point to a supply of people willing to work for zero salary, which would in fact support your position that this is not a supply-demand issue.

andyfico 02-19-2013 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57692394)
Sorry, what's keeping these underpaid individuals from starting their own company just like their masters have done,...

Money. It takes millions or even billions of dollars to start a business and the evil rich bastards have all the money in their vaults.

It's much easier to whine and cry than to create something.

empiretc 02-19-2013 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyfico (Post 57693828)
Money. It takes millions or even billions of dollars to start a business and the evil rich bastards have all the money in their vaults.


That's the problem with the liberal mindset (as pointed out earlier). You own a business-- you are a kajillionaire!

And you didn't build that!

Why have so many businesses gone under since 2009 then?

DJPlayer 02-19-2013 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyfico (Post 57693828)
and the evil rich bastards have all the money in their vaults.

they swim in it too..

http://www.oocities.org/theyasher/scrooge.jpg

which now makes me wonder.. could cartoon even exist in today's times without him being the villain?

trancepire 02-19-2013 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 57691218)
Hell are you talking about? Every fast food place I've ever been to just gives you the cup and expects you to fill it your self. What kinds of mcdonalds are you going to?

I think he went through Drive Thru.

darkfrog 02-19-2013 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57697638)
they swim in it too..

http://www.oocities.org/theyasher/scrooge.jpg

which now makes me wonder.. could cartoon even exist in today's times without him being the villain?

You just reminded me of

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiUNjclpvk0

Gotchaforce 02-20-2013 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57691982)
Exploit? Please give me YOUR definition of the word. I think offering a certain amount of money to do a job and someone else agreeing to those terms is hardly exploitation.

Those who do not have capital stand to be exploited. This is fact. You cant bargain against those who hold all the cards. The only reason they agree to terms is so they can eat and put a roof over their heads (and realistically min wage doesnt afford that in california most are on government assistance). You act as if its not in the business owners interest to find the cusp of rebellion when thats literally what you espouse!!! Pay the worker as little as possible, thats what the free market demands. The worker needs food and shelter, so they cant do things like just be jobless for months while they look for a job that is hiring under the workers bargaining terms (im stifling laughter btw). If labor was telepathically linked then you would have a point that its two parties bargaining, but as soon as they do anything close to that (unions) you call it the anti-christ.

Weird how your same arguments were coming from the libertarians when child labor was revealed as exploiting children (paying them less, having them do more dangerous jobs, etc)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57692394)
Sorry, what's keeping these underpaid individuals from starting their own company just like their masters have done,...

are you for real? why doesnt the walmart worker just start their own walmart competitor. GOSH WHY ARE THE POOR SO STUPID

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

TRNT 02-20-2013 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 57691734)
I see you've confused telling me a story with evidence.

It was not evidence, nor was it per se a story. It was an argument.

rrc06 02-20-2013 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57700946)
Note how he avoided my point earlier, about how his taxes indirectly subsidize walmart by paying for their workers government welfare. The truth is he rather welfare be extinguished, if people go starving then good riddance

If wal-mart didn't exist, another corporation would step in and offer entry-level wages for entry-level work.

Wal-mart should be lauded for keeping welfare recipients, teens, retirees etc employed. If you actually talk to most people who work for wal-mart, they aren't as unhappy as people with a liberal agenda might suggest. Wal-mart pays above minimum wage and has a bonus program for employees.

Danman114 02-20-2013 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57703896)
If wal-mart didn't exist, another corporation would step in and offer entry-level wages for entry-level work.

Does KMart, Target, or Best Buy pay that much more than Wal-Mart?

loop610bob 02-20-2013 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57697638)
they swim in it too..

http://www.oocities.org/theyasher/scrooge.jpg

which now makes me wonder.. could cartoon even exist in today's times without him being the villain?

Scrooge is his own sort of villain in the show. Only his nephews' prodding and shaming him to do the right thing stops him from being a true villain. He's always stealing or otherwise trying to screw over other people. He does bad things purely for his own enjoyment.

What's weird is that you internalized him as a good guy.

Source: I watch Ducktales with my kids all the time.

darkfrog 02-20-2013 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57700968)
Those who do not have capital stand to be exploited. This is fact. You cant bargain against those who hold all the cards. The only reason they agree to terms is so they can eat and put a roof over their heads (and realistically min wage doesnt afford that in california most are on government assistance). You act as if its not in the business owners interest to find the cusp of rebellion when thats literally what you espouse!!! Pay the worker as little as possible, thats what the free market demands. The worker needs food and shelter, so they cant do things like just be jobless for months while they look for a job that is hiring under the workers bargaining terms (im stifling laughter btw). If labor was telepathically linked then you would have a point that its two parties bargaining, but as soon as they do anything close to that (unions) you call it the anti-christ.

True or false - labor is a commondity.

Quote:

Weird how your same arguments were coming from the libertarians when child labor was revealed as exploiting children (paying them less, having them do more dangerous jobs, etc)
We can discuss this red herring if you would like to start a new thread. But there are good reasons other than your exploitation bogeyman to oppose restrictive child labor laws.

DJPlayer 02-20-2013 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loop610bob (Post 57704590)
Scrooge is his own sort of villain in the show. Only his nephews' prodding and shaming him to do the right thing stops him from being a true villain.

but he's not the villain.. there's always a villain in the show.. and if I recall correctly.. the villain is always trying to break into his vault and steel his gold.

So it's a children's show about thieves (villains) trying to steal from another villain? I haven't watched in more than a decade.. but the worst I recall was he was very very cheap (excessively to a ridiculous level). If the show were remade today.. the good guys would be the people trying to steel his money.. because it's quite obvious he has far far to much. Obama could play the guy who busts into his vault and let's the gold flow through the streets for everyone else to share.

rrc06 02-20-2013 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57704558)
Does KMart, Target, or Best Buy pay that much more than Wal-Mart?

Not from what I've heard. It's amazing how much Target gets overlooked

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13508

Quote:

Of more than 1,400 Target stores employing more than 300,000 people nationwide, not one has a union. Employees at various stores say an anti-union message and video is part of the new-employee orientation. At stores in the Twin Cities, where Target is headquartered, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union Local 789 has been trying for several years to help Target employees organize, with little luck.

“People ask what the difference between Wal-Mart and Target is,” said UFCW organizer Bernie Hesse. “Nothing, except that Wal-Mart is six times bigger. The wages start at $7.25 to $7.50 an hour [at Target]. They’ll say that’s a competitive wage, but they can’t say it’s a living wage. We know a lot of their managers are telling people, ‘If we find out you’re involved in organizing a union you’ll get fired.’”

Wal-Mart has about 3,800 stores nationwide and another 2,600 worldwide, employing about 1.6 million people. Target plans to open at least 600 more stores by 2010, for a total of about 2,000 in 47 states. Like Wal-Mart, a typical Target sells a wide range of consumer goods including clothing, household items, office supplies, toys, sports equipment, furniture, art, and electronics; and the stores often have photo laboratories and pharmacies. About 160 SuperTargets nationwide also sell “upscale” groceries, as the company’s website describes them, and often contain banks, Starbucks, and Pizza Hut Express outlets. Total revenue was up 12.3 percent in 2005 – $52.6 billion compared to $46.8 billion in 2004.

thikthird 02-20-2013 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57692404)
Wrong. I asked you a specific definition about a word you like to throw around here a lot. I said quite clearly, no implication, that I offer a certain amount of money for a specific job and that if someone accepts that amount for that job, to me it's not exploitation. If you disagree, which by your own words appears you do, you are free to elaborate, but stop trying to purposely misconstrue what I type.

i've misconstrued nothing. i pretty plainly said back to you what you've said and it seems you're ashamed or angered by your own words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57692446)
Yet you have been unable, or unwilling to point to a supply of people willing to work for zero salary, which would in fact support your position that this is not a supply-demand issue.

no one is willing to work for zero dollars. this is not a supply issue.

loop610bob 02-20-2013 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57704844)
but he's not the villain.. there's always a villain in the show.. and if I recall correctly.. the villain is always trying to break into his vault and steel his gold.

So it's a children's show about thieves (villains) trying to steal from another villain? I haven't watched in more than a decade.. but the worst I recall was he was very very cheap (excessively to a ridiculous level).

There are episodes where people are trying to break into the vault, but most of them involve Scrooge either stealing an artifact or treasure out from under an indigenous people (haha) or intentionally attacking other rich people for having the gall to want more money than Scrooge has.

DJPlayer 02-20-2013 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loop610bob (Post 57706232)
There are episodes where people are trying to break into the vault, but most of them involve Scrooge either stealing an artifact or treasure out from under an indigenous people (haha) or intentionally attacking other rich people for having the gall to want more money than Scrooge has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckTales

Quote:

In a typical story, the villains are after McDuck's fortune or his Number One Dime; another common theme is a race after some sort of treasure.

The show's primary villains consist of characters Magica De Spell, Flintheart Glomgold and the Beagle Boys. Although they are all financial threats to Scrooge in one way or another, they each have different motives: Magica wants Scrooge's Number One Dime to complete her magic spell, which will enable her to take over the world; Glomgold wants to replace Scrooge as the "Richest duck in the world"; and the Beagle Boys want to rob Scrooge of his fortune.

as silly as this conversation may be.. it's all coming back to me now after reading this. Scrooge is always either protecting his wealth or going after some mysterious treasure that he has information on. When he goes after it... One of the villains is always there trying to beat him to it, or stop him from acquiring it. "Wealthiest duck in the world" he should be ashamed of himself.. I wonder what his effective tax rate is.....

empiretc 02-20-2013 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57704844)
but he's not the villain.. there's always a villain in the show.. .. .

his slogan is "Work Smarter, Not Harder". Work..... yeah, he is the villain.


Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57704844)
Obama could play the guy who busts into his vault and let's the gold flow through the streets for everyone else to share.

He has all that money and should just GIVE it away- they do not need to work for it, HE already did that. he "didn't build that" so he should "spread the wealth around."

Dumpsterdiver 02-20-2013 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57700968)
are you for real? why doesnt the walmart worker just start their own walmart competitor. GOSH WHY ARE THE POOR SO STUPID

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

If they're that stupid, why should I pay them any more than I already am.

If they're smarter than the guy who's life skill is to say "hello" when you walk in the door, I'd give them raises to bribe them to not leave.

It's a pretty obvious supply and demand situation.

[edit]and no where did I suggest they start a business to compete with walmart. But I guess that's how the stupid poor think?

loop610bob 02-20-2013 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57706586)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckTales



as silly as this conversation may be.. it's all coming back to me now after reading this. Scrooge is always either protecting his wealth or going after some mysterious treasure that he has information on. When he goes after it... One of the villains is always there trying to beat him to it, or stop him from acquiring it. "Wealthiest duck in the world" he should be ashamed of himself.. I wonder what his effective tax rate is.....

Nobody is saying anything half as interesting as we are. ;)

Yea, the Magician Chick episodes are boring even though the Beagle Boys are mildly entertaining. I tune those out. Glomgold is my favorite character. He's Scrooge without the nephews and their conscience. My daughter loves Webby, naturally.

It's kind of an interesting show. The takeaway for me is that Scrooge would be absolutely horrible if not for the people around him tempering him. Money lust doesn't cast Scrooge in a good light. And it's not like Scrooge is a particularly endearing character throughout Disney lore. Ms. Beakley's entire purpose is basically to call out Scrooge.

andyfico 02-20-2013 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57706586)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckTales



as silly as this conversation may be.. it's all coming back to me now after reading this. Scrooge is always either protecting his wealth or going after some mysterious treasure that he has information on. When he goes after it... One of the villains is always there trying to beat him to it, or stop him from acquiring it. "Wealthiest duck in the world" he should be ashamed of himself.. I wonder what his effective tax rate is.....

It's funny how some people can watch something as simple as a cartoon and what they are seeing in their head differs from what is actually happening in the show. It's pretty enlightening.

empiretc 02-20-2013 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyfico (Post 57709192)
It's funny how some people can watch something as simple as a cartoon and what they are seeing in their head differs from what is actually happening in the show. It's pretty enlightening.


Wonder what they get out of NEWer cartoons???

skiman 02-20-2013 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loop610bob (Post 57708884)
Nobody is saying anything half as interesting as we are. ;)

Yea, the Magician Chick episodes are boring even though the Beagle Boys are mildly entertaining. I tune those out. Glomgold is my favorite character. He's Scrooge without the nephews and their conscience. My daughter loves Webby, naturally.

It's kind of an interesting show. The takeaway for me is that Scrooge would be absolutely horrible if not for the people around him tempering him. Money lust doesn't cast Scrooge in a good light. And it's not like Scrooge is a particularly endearing character throughout Disney lore. Ms. Beakley's entire purpose is basically to call out Scrooge.

Not to mention the obvious allusion to Dickens.

loop610bob 02-20-2013 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyfico (Post 57709192)
It's funny how some people can watch something as simple as a cartoon and what they are seeing in their head differs from what is actually happening in the show. It's pretty enlightening.

I watched it this weekend. The first four, just because they're my favorites. They really went off the rails about halfway through the 1st season and the 2nd is just a hot mess.

When was the last time you watched a full episode of Ducktales, hmmm?

Right. Shush then.

darkfrog 02-20-2013 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57705670)
i've misconstrued nothing. i pretty plainly said back to you what you've said and it seems you're ashamed or angered by your own words.

No, I'm annoyed that you can't seem to offer up a simple definition of what you think the word "exploit" means and instead insist on dodging and deflecting.

Now you come here acting accusing me of being angry or ashamed. This reeks more of an attempt at a personal attack rather than any kind of discussion.

Quote:

no one is willing to work for zero dollars. this is not a supply issue.
Do even you understand the concept of supply-demand? Labor is a commodity and like all commodities, pricing sends valuable information as to the relative availability of that commodity. When there is an oversupply of labor, like during a down-turn in the economy, people become willing to work for less because otherwise they work for nothing. When the economy is booming, the price of labor goes up because the supply becomes more limited.
To deny this is incredibly naive. Even the most liberal economists would agree. If you disagree, instead of trying to make a new personal attack, how about if you provide a link to demonstrate your position is correct.

The best thing we can do to increase the pay that entry-level workers get is to fix the economy.

darkfrog 02-20-2013 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57705670)
no one is willing to work for zero dollars. this is not a supply issue.

http://www.econoclass.com/economi...rkets.html

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_...-9781.html

http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com...-1805.html

Dumpsterdiver 02-20-2013 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57718274)

Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!"
Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57718274)

There she goes again!
Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57718274)

She blinded me,.. with basic economics.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:08 AM.