I like to
Jesus. What a dumb fuck.
Comments
-
Disagree.
-
So you don't like to be POTUS and not have a fucking clue about economics?Mad_Son said:Disagree.
-
-
Also I am watching this on delay and President Obama just called for raising minimum wage which is what I am not assuming this thread is about. I am in favor of a raising minimum wage but I recognize it is a fairly controversial economic policy and I acknowledge that it is not as proven a concept as others and has legitimate gripes.
-
It's politically controversial, but not economically controversial.Mad_Son said:Also I am watching this on delay and President Obama just called for raising minimum wage which is what I am not assuming this thread is about. I am in favor of a raising minimum wage but I recognize it is a fairly controversial economic policy and I acknowledge that it is not as proven a concept as others and has legitimate gripes.
-
Some mind numbing shit in all regards - had to turn off before I break TV
-
I think it is economically controversial. My view very similarly parallels this editorial.MikeDamone said:
It's politically controversial, but not economically controversial.Mad_Son said:Also I am watching this on delay and President Obama just called for raising minimum wage which is what I am not assuming this thread is about. I am in favor of a raising minimum wage but I recognize it is a fairly controversial economic policy and I acknowledge that it is not as proven a concept as others and has legitimate gripes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/the-minimum-wage-employment-and-income-distribution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I think that there are preferable means of accomplishing what I view the purpose of a minimum wage is (keeping workers out of poverty) such as EIC but that it is better than the other measures we will take which are nothing. Shooting for something that might happen at reduced efficiency is better than shooting for something that won't happen, even if it is better. I think a call for an increased minimum wage is not clueless. I think it is simply a risk averse maneuver.
If President Obama's goal for a minimum wage was to stimulate the economy then it would be clueless. He said it is motivated to help keep working people out of poverty though and I think it can help to that end.
My two cents. -
He did say it's way to boost the economy. It's also certainly not a way to get people out of poverty. In fact, the lowest skilled workers who he proposes to help are the ones hurt the most.Mad_Son said:
I think it is economically controversial. My view very similarly parallels this editorial.MikeDamone said:
It's politically controversial, but not economically controversial.Mad_Son said:Also I am watching this on delay and President Obama just called for raising minimum wage which is what I am not assuming this thread is about. I am in favor of a raising minimum wage but I recognize it is a fairly controversial economic policy and I acknowledge that it is not as proven a concept as others and has legitimate gripes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/the-minimum-wage-employment-and-income-distribution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I think that there are preferable means of accomplishing what I view the purpose of a minimum wage is (keeping workers out of poverty) such as EIC but that it is better than the other measures we will take which are nothing. Shooting for something that might happen at reduced efficiency is better than shooting for something that won't happen, even if it is better. I think a call for an increased minimum wage is not clueless. I think it is simply a risk averse maneuver.
If President Obama's goal for a minimum wage was to stimulate the economy then it would be clueless. He said it is motivated to help keep working people out of poverty though and I think it can help to that end.
My two cents.
Getting past the NY Times view would be a good first step.
socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf -
He did say it's way to boost the economy.
I have no desire to listen to that again. The emphasis in my eyes was certainly on keeping people out of poverty though.It's also certainly not a way to get people out of poverty. In fact, the lowest skilled workers who he proposes to help are the ones hurt the most.
I acknowledged that what I posted was an editorial and since it is in the NYT you know what to expect there. I can assure you I have a more well rounded view than that. I do admit my research on the topic only amounts to a few hours however.
Getting past the NY Times view would be a good first step.
socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf
So far I have only read the abstract and page count of the paper you linked so it will take me a while to formulate a response to that.
-
"In sum, we view the literature – when read broadly and critically as largely solidifying the view that minimum wages reduce employment of low-skilled workers, and as suggesting that the low-wage labor market can be reasonably approximated by the neoclassical competitive model. Of course, as we have argued elsewhere, the effect of the minimum wage on employment represents only one piece of the analysis necessary to assess whether minimum wages are a useful policy tool for improving the economic position of those at the bottom of the income distribution – which we believe is the ultimate goal of minimum wage policy. In particular, a more comprehensive review that includes the implications of the minimum wage for the levels and distributions of wages, employment and hours, incomes, and human capital accumulation, as well as consideration of alternative policies, is ultimately needed to assess whether raising the minimum wage is good economic policy. Given that the weight of the evidence points to disemployment effects, any argument in favor of pursuing higher minimum wages would appear to require that the benefits of a higher minimum wage outweigh the costs of the employment losses for those workers who are adversely affected."
tl;dr in a 184 page study they found more evidence for disemployment effects of a minumum wage but more study on whether it is good policy in the low wage labor market is necessary.
So it brings us into a standard of living debate. -
You should read the paper.CollegeDoog said:"In sum, we view the literature – when read broadly and critically as largely solidifying the view that minimum wages reduce employment of low-skilled workers, and as suggesting that the low-wage labor market can be reasonably approximated by the neoclassical competitive model. Of course, as we have argued elsewhere, the effect of the minimum wage on employment represents only one piece of the analysis necessary to assess whether minimum wages are a useful policy tool for improving the economic position of those at the bottom of the income distribution – which we believe is the ultimate goal of minimum wage policy. In particular, a more comprehensive review that includes the implications of the minimum wage for the levels and distributions of wages, employment and hours, incomes, and human capital accumulation, as well as consideration of alternative policies, is ultimately needed to assess whether raising the minimum wage is good economic policy. Given that the weight of the evidence points to disemployment effects, any argument in favor of pursuing higher minimum wages would appear to require that the benefits of a higher minimum wage outweigh the costs of the employment losses for those workers who are adversely affected."
tl;dr in a 184 page study they found more evidence for disemployment effects of a minumum wage but more study on whether it is good policy in the low wage labor markert is necessary.
So it brings us into a standard of living debate. -
Yes all 184 pages...MikeDamone said:
You should read the paper.CollegeDoog said:"In sum, we view the literature – when read broadly and critically as largely solidifying the view that minimum wages reduce employment of low-skilled workers, and as suggesting that the low-wage labor market can be reasonably approximated by the neoclassical competitive model. Of course, as we have argued elsewhere, the effect of the minimum wage on employment represents only one piece of the analysis necessary to assess whether minimum wages are a useful policy tool for improving the economic position of those at the bottom of the income distribution – which we believe is the ultimate goal of minimum wage policy. In particular, a more comprehensive review that includes the implications of the minimum wage for the levels and distributions of wages, employment and hours, incomes, and human capital accumulation, as well as consideration of alternative policies, is ultimately needed to assess whether raising the minimum wage is good economic policy. Given that the weight of the evidence points to disemployment effects, any argument in favor of pursuing higher minimum wages would appear to require that the benefits of a higher minimum wage outweigh the costs of the employment losses for those workers who are adversely affected."
tl;dr in a 184 page study they found more evidence for disemployment effects of a minumum wage but more study on whether it is good policy in the low wage labor markert is necessary.
So it brings us into a standard of living debate.
I read all of the conclusion.
Please dispute my tl;dr explanation. -
You didn't explain anything
-
I "summarized" it.
Is it wrong or are you just vindictive? -
It reminds me of teachers who think teachers should be paid more. They think it's a simple matter of giving current teachers more money. The reality is many of the current teachers will be replaced by smarter, more ambitious, more qualified people who are currently employed elsewhere. So yes, teachers would be paid more, but guess what complaining teacher, you no longer have a job.
-
I'm not sure what you're asking. But if you are asking if I agree that it's a standard of living debate, I guess it could be looked at that way. As low skilled jobs are eliminated, people with low skills will certainly be worse off. Since we know the unemployment rate won't be 100%, some people will be employed at the higher wage (the ones whose skills are closer to what the wage demands). Those people will be better off and will have a higher standard of living. Essentially what we have done is increased income inequality among the lowest skilled workers in the economy. Some people get a raise and some people get no income at all.CollegeDoog said:I "summarized" it.
Is it wrong or are you just vindictive?
Using government force to set price floors isn't a good solution to fight poverty nor is it compassionate. But it is good political theater and appeals to the uneducated masses. -
And I'd partly agree with you.MikeDamone said:
I'm not sure what you're asking. But if you are asking if I agree that it's a standard of living debate, I guess it could be looked at that way. As low skilled jobs are eliminated, people with low skills will certainly be worse off. Since we know the unemployment rate won't be 100%, some people will be employed at the higher wage (the ones whose skills are closer to what the wage demands). Those people will be better off and will have a higher standard of living. Essentially what we have done is increased income inequality among the lowest skilled workers in the economy. Some people get a raise and some people get no income at all.CollegeDoog said:I "summarized" it.
Is it wrong or are you just vindictive?
Using government force to set price floors isn't a good solution to fight poverty nor is it compassionate. But it is good political theater and appeals to the uneducated masses.
But would no minimum wage depress wages for low skilled workers even further?
Another relevant question is the magnitude of disemployment in the low wage labor market. If it's relatively low than other economic factors could outweigh those losses. If it's high then probably not.
I think it's a lot more complex than some of the issues you bring up.
-
You didn't read anything but the summary..... I said the president is woefully inadequate in his understanding of economics. That's how this started. You summarized the summary of an 184 page paper and asked if I agreed with your one liner....and I gave you an answer on that point....now you say It's more complex than the issues I bought up? No shit fuck head. I've read all 184 pages. A few times. I'm not sure if you really want to understand the issue or are just being vindictive. Invest some time in it if you want to understand it. If not,fuck off.CollegeDoog said:
And I'd partly agree with you.MikeDamone said:
I'm not sure what you're asking. But if you are asking if I agree that it's a standard of living debate, I guess it could be looked at that way. As low skilled jobs are eliminated, people with low skills will certainly be worse off. Since we know the unemployment rate won't be 100%, some people will be employed at the higher wage (the ones whose skills are closer to what the wage demands). Those people will be better off and will have a higher standard of living. Essentially what we have done is increased income inequality among the lowest skilled workers in the economy. Some people get a raise and some people get no income at all.CollegeDoog said:I "summarized" it.
Is it wrong or are you just vindictive?
Using government force to set price floors isn't a good solution to fight poverty nor is it compassionate. But it is good political theater and appeals to the uneducated masses.
But would no minimum wage depress wages for low skilled workers even further?
Another relevant question is the magnitude of disemployment in the low wage labor market. If it's relatively low than other economic factors could outweigh those losses. If it's high then probably not.
I think it's a lot more complex than some of the issues you bring up. -
And I responded to your reply. The essence of the study you posted was, while bringing up important issues, that it's too narrow in scope and it admits that in the conclusion.MikeDamone said:
You didn't read anything but the summary..... I said the president is woefully inadequate in his understanding of economics. That's how this started. You summarized the summary of an 184 page paper and asked if I agreed with your one liner....and I gave you an answer on that point....now you say It's more complex than the issues I bought up? No shit fuck head. I've read all 184 pages. A few times. I'm not sure if you really want to understand the issue or are just being vindictive. Invest some time in it if you want to understand it. If not,fuck off.CollegeDoog said:
And I'd partly agree with you.MikeDamone said:
I'm not sure what you're asking. But if you are asking if I agree that it's a standard of living debate, I guess it could be looked at that way. As low skilled jobs are eliminated, people with low skills will certainly be worse off. Since we know the unemployment rate won't be 100%, some people will be employed at the higher wage (the ones whose skills are closer to what the wage demands). Those people will be better off and will have a higher standard of living. Essentially what we have done is increased income inequality among the lowest skilled workers in the economy. Some people get a raise and some people get no income at all.CollegeDoog said:I "summarized" it.
Is it wrong or are you just vindictive?
Using government force to set price floors isn't a good solution to fight poverty nor is it compassionate. But it is good political theater and appeals to the uneducated masses.
But would no minimum wage depress wages for low skilled workers even further?
Another relevant question is the magnitude of disemployment in the low wage labor market. If it's relatively low than other economic factors could outweigh those losses. If it's high then probably not.
I think it's a lot more complex than some of the issues you bring up.
I'm not sure how you could draw a broad based conclusion on the effect of the minimum wage on just that study. So why was your study relevant to the President's understanding of economics when you admit it is much more complex than that. The issue is that you applied a narrow part of our understanding of minimum wage effects to the President's economic policy. There's more information needed and he may yet be a dumbass for wanting a higher minimum wage. But your link wouldn't fully support that.
So don't post one narrow study to make a broader statement on minimum wage like, "It's also certainly not a way to get people out of poverty. In fact, the lowest skilled workers who he proposes to help are the ones hurt the most." That very well may not be true.
I'm challenging you.
-
Since capitalism in its pure form seeks maximum exploiting of the workforce for maximum profit (a good definition of pure greed), it is a system that has to have checks and balances and be properly controlled. Minimum wage is one of those checks and balances. The goodness of people, and by extent corporations and businesses, is not trustworthy enough to be left to its own devices. In the current economy wages would plunge to a truly abysmal level if there were not a wage floor preventing corporations and businesses from taking advantage of the poor economy by depressing their wages to the ultimate minimum. There are people that would work for $1 an hour and if there are people that will work for $1, what's to prevent corporations/businesses from setting that as the market's minimum wage? Nothing.
Minimum wage is an attempt to inject a conscience into the free market. Work should pay. Every working person has a right to a livable wage, unless we want to become China. The federal minimum wage of just over $7 needs to be hiked. If that's so tuff for large business and corporations, then maybe they need to consider cutting their top executives' pay in order to compensate. Instead of paying their CEOs $250 million dollars a year + stock incentives (really, not one human being on Earth is worth that kind of obscene wage) pay him a more reasonable $250,000 - $750,000 salary, and they can use all that wasted excess on giving the rest of their employees (you know, the ones who are the nuts and bolts of their operations and make the machine run, without whom they would be nothing and have nothing) a slightly better life by giving them better wages. Just a fucking idea. -
I like to argue over entry jobs for a tenth of a percent of the workforce. If you stay on minimum wage you're a moron
-
Your premise is wrong, therefore the rest of your points fall apart.oregonblitzkrieg said:Since capitalism in its pure form seeks maximum exploiting of the workforce for maximum profit (a good definition of pure greed), it is a system that has to have checks and balances and be properly controlled. Minimum wage is one of those checks and balances. The goodness of people, and by extent corporations and businesses, is not trustworthy enough to be left to its own devices. In the current economy wages would plunge to a truly abysmal level if there were not a wage floor preventing corporations and businesses from taking advantage of the poor economy by depressing their wages to the ultimate minimum. There are people that would work for $1 an hour and if there are people that will work for $1, what's to prevent corporations/businesses from setting that as the market's minimum wage? Nothing.
Minimum wage is an attempt to inject a conscience into the free market. Work should pay. Every working person has a right to a livable wage, unless we want to become China. The federal minimum wage of just over $7 needs to be hiked. If that's so tuff for large business and corporations, then maybe they need to consider cutting their top executives' pay in order to compensate. Instead of paying their CEOs $250 million dollars a year + stock incentives (really, not one human being on Earth is worth that kind of obscene wage) pay him a more reasonable $250,000 - $750,000 salary, and they can use all that wasted excess on giving the rest of their employees (you know, the ones who are the nuts and bolts of their operations and make the machine run, without whom they would be nothing and have nothing) a slightly better life by giving them better wages. Just a fucking idea.
-
I think everyone should get a raise and a lollypop and a unicorn to ride to the free health clinic.
I care about people -
Unicorns don't exist. Would you settle for a pony? Or maybe a cab ride?RaceBannon said:I think everyone should get a raise and a lollypop and a unicorn to ride to the free health clinic.
I care about people
Is also think they should get two weeks in Maui. Any working person deserves a decent vacation. It makes them more productive so the employer benefits. -
Unicorns have been extinct since the flood. Noah caught his wife sitting on a unicorn's head in a weird way and he wouldn't let them on.RaceBannon said:I think everyone should get a raise and a lollypop and a unicorn to ride to the free health clinic.
I care about people -
I still care about people. I care enough to want other people to help them. I'm too busy
-
Mad_Son said:
$MikeDamone said:
It's politically controversial, but not economically controversial.Mad_Son said:Also I am watching this on delay and President Obama just called for raising minimum wage which is what I am not assuming this thread is about. I am in favor of a raising minimum wage but I recognize it is a fairly controversial economic policy and I acknowledge that it is not as proven a concept as others and has legitimate gripes.
I think it is economically controversial. My view very similarly parallels this editorial.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/the-minimum-wage-employment-and-income-distribution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I think that there are preferable means of accomplishing what I view the purpose of a minimum wage is (keeping workers out of poverty) such as EIC but that it is better than the other measures we will take which are nothing. Shooting for something that might happen at reduced efficiency is better than shooting for something that won't happen, even if it is better. I think a call for an increased minimum wage is not clueless. I think it is simply a risk averse maneuver.
If President Obama's goal for a minimum wage was to stimulate the economy then it would be clueless. He said it is motivated to help keep working people out of poverty though and I think it can help to that end.
My two cents.
10.10 an hour for a family of 2 is still poverty. All it will do is insure that less of the entry level people make that $10.10 an hour and get back on UI.
Wages are market driven. You get paid for what your skills are.
Has inflation eaten away at the relative income of the min wage? Sure.
But join the club partner. All middle class wages have been eaten away by inflation. Artificially raising the minimum wage only hurts those in poverty by taking away their job and it hurts the American economy as a whole.
But that's why our president wants it. That way his base of the 47 Million plus on food stamps grows and the educated clueless stay on his side, because He's helping those poor saps, at least in their libtard minds.
-
Disagree. There won't be any jobs lost if the wage goes from $7 to $10. It's not as if companies have not already maximized the use of their labor. Are they going to trim their burger flippers from 6 flippers to 5 when the 6 flippers can already just barely keep up on the burger assembly line? Pure propaganda. Jobs will be lost only if companies improve their efficiency and develop new ways for less people to do more. Most have already done this.salemcoog said:Mad_Son said:
$MikeDamone said:
It's politically controversial, but not economically controversial.Mad_Son said:Also I am watching this on delay and President Obama just called for raising minimum wage which is what I am not assuming this thread is about. I am in favor of a raising minimum wage but I recognize it is a fairly controversial economic policy and I acknowledge that it is not as proven a concept as others and has legitimate gripes.
I think it is economically controversial. My view very similarly parallels this editorial.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/the-minimum-wage-employment-and-income-distribution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I think that there are preferable means of accomplishing what I view the purpose of a minimum wage is (keeping workers out of poverty) such as EIC but that it is better than the other measures we will take which are nothing. Shooting for something that might happen at reduced efficiency is better than shooting for something that won't happen, even if it is better. I think a call for an increased minimum wage is not clueless. I think it is simply a risk averse maneuver.
If President Obama's goal for a minimum wage was to stimulate the economy then it would be clueless. He said it is motivated to help keep working people out of poverty though and I think it can help to that end.
My two cents.
All it will do is insure that less of the entry level people make that $10.10 an hour and get back on UI.
Artificially raising the minimum wage only hurts those in poverty by taking away their job and it hurts the American economy as a whole.
But that's why our president wants it. That way his base of the 47 Million plus on food stamps grows and the educated clueless stay on his side, because He's helping those poor saps, at least in their libtard minds.
My view is that capitalism, for now, is probably the best out of a range of inferior choices that govern an economic system. It's better than communism but it has serious flaws. For instance there is a no man's land at the very top and the very bottom. There is not an endless supply of money because most governments are responsible enough not to print an endless amount of it because it would cause crushing inflation and make money worthless. Those at the very top hoard an inordinate amount of it, while those at the very bottom barely get by and often need government aid because the shitty pay of minimum wage just isn't enough. But imagine if there were no minimum wage at all.
If there were no minimum wage at all, and our fuckstick president went ahead with his geenyus idea of immigration reform, there will 8 million more fucking Mexicans willing to work for next to nothing. These Mexicans will snap up all the $1 hour jobs that were previously paying $7 because most US citizens would refuse to work for such a fuck poor wage, as they should. No more fast food jobs are available because the Mexicans are working them. The Mexicans are working in the shoe stores and the clothing stores. They've taken all the gas pumping jobs. Now there are bunch of US citizens that previously would have had jobs on the dole and relying on Uncle Sam to keep them alive. These underpaid Mexicans are also on the dole getting paid by Uncle Sam. Is that the kind of shit you want to see?
On the other end you have the people at the very top that are multi millionaires or billionaires. Most of them got there by preying on the economic system. We're not talking about Joe Blow who worked hard, started a small business and became a millionaire from his own effort. We're talking about the Lloyd Blankfeins, the Henry Paulsons. Some of them are Wall Street maggots. Their companies hoard commodities, speculate in vital markets and have a 100% negative impact on the economy. These are the same people whose companies sold trashy derivatives and contributed to the housing bubble, causing a worldwide crisis, and then were bailed out with taxpayer money! (Goldman Sachs hoards precious metals in their Detroit warehouses and shuttles them back and forth between adjacent buildings to circumvent delivery time laws, causing the prices of these metals to rise). Some of them own corporations that don't even provide jobs in the US, their workers are Chinese, then they sell their products back over here and make a killing. Hi Phil Knight. That's capitalism at work without boundaries. But I guess if you want this type of pure capitalism we may get our Nike jobs back from overseas since they can pay their Mexican US workforce 50 cents per hour to sew shirts and make shoes back here in the United States of Rockerfeller and Ford. BTW Ford was such a believer in unrestrained capitalism that he used slave labor in Nazi Germany. -
All I know is I am voting for Wood Chips in the next election.
-
If it's CollegeDoog vs Woodchips, I'm voting for woodchips too.Swaye said:All I know is I am voting for Wood Chips in the next election.
![[Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/0207c5b8d9863e3a221f61582bd6bfa3_100.png)
