I like to

MikeDamone

Be the POTUS and not have a fucking clue about economics...that's what I like to be.

Jesus. What a dumb fuck.

Mad_Son

Disagree.

MikeDamone

Mad_Son said:

Disagree.

So you don't like to be POTUS and not have a fucking clue about economics?

Mad_Son

MikeDamone said:

Mad_Son said:

Disagree.

So you don't like to be POTUS and not have a fucking clue about economics?

Both. Abundance.

(I just like to be POTUS)

Mad_Son

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.

MikeDamone

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.

It's politically controversial, but not economically controversial.

unfrozencaveman

Some mind numbing shit in all regards - had to turn off before I break TV

Mad_Son

MikeDamone said:

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.

It's politically controversial, but not economically controversial.

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.

MikeDamone

Mad_Son said:

MikeDamone said:

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.

It's politically controversial, but not economically controversial.

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.

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.

Getting past the NY Times view would be a good first step.

socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf

Mad_Son

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.

Getting past the NY Times view would be a good first step.

socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

"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.

MikeDamone

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.

You should read the paper.

[Deleted User]

MikeDamone said:

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.

You should read the paper.

Yes all 184 pages...

I read all of the conclusion.

Please dispute my tl;dr explanation.

MikeDamone

You didn't explain anything

[Deleted User]

I "summarized" it.

Is it wrong or are you just vindictive?

MikeDamone

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.

MikeDamone

CollegeDoog said:

I "summarized" it.

Is it wrong or are you just vindictive?

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

MikeDamone said:

CollegeDoog said:

I "summarized" it.

Is it wrong or are you just vindictive?

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.

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.

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.

MikeDamone

CollegeDoog said:

MikeDamone said:

CollegeDoog said:

I "summarized" it.

Is it wrong or are you just vindictive?

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.

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

MikeDamone said:

CollegeDoog said:

MikeDamone said:

CollegeDoog said:

I "summarized" it.

Is it wrong or are you just vindictive?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

oregonblitzkrieg

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.