- Joined
- Jul 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,136
- Reaction score
- 915
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Did you read your own source?
Here's a nice paper that encapsulates a large variety of studies on the effects of minimum wage hikes on youth and low-skill employment. You'll find that not only do a handful of analyses show much more modest effects than those claimed, some, given the right market and locale, result in an improvement.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf
Higher spending by individuals at the lower income levels means higher demand.
I like how these arguments always take it as a foregone conclusion that employer profits cannot ever be allowed to go down.
been there, DONE THAT. Sorry borgeois, your agruments are just as dumb in 2013 as 1880.
Yeah, and this is why Leftist economies fail-- because Leftists fundamentally reject economic principles as being scientifically valid. Point blank, the laws of economics are as immutable as the laws of physics. Stupid policies have negative consequences.
It's not about principles, or science, or math. It's about power. It's about who has it, and how its used. But ideas like the invisible hand of the market, or a maxim that centralizing things dooms them to failure aren't principles or science. They're political positions that are also about power. Communal ownership, and gearing the economy for the benefit of all, rather than for a few, that's about power, too. And it's about power for many, instead of power for the few. Much as lessez faire capitalists like to pretend otherwise, their way is not mathematically superior, nor necessary for a healthy, happy, and powerful culture.
And higher demand (and increased labor costs) leads to higher prices, which would negate any increase in the minimum wage, and also hurt everyone who earns anything above minimum wage who won't be getting a government mandated pay raise.
Higher demand doesn't lean to higher prices when coming out of a recession (see figure 2.7 graph a in this PDF). So what would actually end up happening with an increased minimum wage? More aggregate demand. And more aggregate demand would cause total output to increase, as the equilibrium point would shift to the right, closer to Long Range Aggregate Supply.
Increased cost of labor = Increased Prices.
Increased Prices = Decreased Demand.
The increased cost of labor is more than offset by workers' increased purchasing power.
Higher spending by individuals at the lower income levels means higher demand. I thought that was obvious! Even in an enclosed system with no other variables income equals spending. Hence why it's impossible to create some ficticious sitution where "all things are equal".
Some may go for those things some will go into disposable income. You seem to have a habit of pulling numbers out of thin air or arguing against made up statements.
The increased cost of labor is more than offset by workers' increased purchasing power.
No it's not.
Folks earning minimum wage still have very little disposable income, but the costs for everyone else would go up, whether they made minimum wage or not, creating a DRAG on the economy.
That's the same reason President Poodle Stew didn't raise taxes on the rich when he FIRST had the opportunity to do so...
And why both Kennedy and Reagan CUT taxes to stimulate the economy.
Taking money away from folks to give to people who just buy for mainly their necessities would hurt all.
Well then gee whiz, we should make the minimum wage $1,000,000/hour and we would just have a booming economy with all that purchasing power!
Demand for what? What is an extra $25 in some teenagers pocket going to increase demand for? Beer? You have to keep in context what a minimum wage job is: It is a no skill, entry level, transient position. Demanding that employers pay more than that job is worth only causes a market distortion elsewhere. Prices for the goods that business sells will go up or the number of people employed there or their hours will be cut. Chances are, the business is not going to increase its employee expense, it will simply cut the hours for those people who work there. Explain how that helps them.It creates a net benefit for the economy, as demand goes up.
It creates a net benefit for the economy, as demand goes up. For people whose incomes don't rise with the minimum wage increase, they have a little bit less purchasing power; for people on the minimum wage, they have a lot more purchasing power. A minimum wage hike is not "taking money away" from anybody.
How can we think of raising the minimum wage when there isn't a demand to suport this? Nearly a hundred million people are not in the work force so the price of labor is lower.
Demand for what? What is an extra $25 in some teenagers pocket going to increase demand for? Beer? You have to keep in context what a minimum wage job is: It is a no skill, entry level, transient position. Demanding that employers pay more than that job is worth only causes a market distortion elsewhere. Prices for the goods that business sells will go up or the number of people employed there or their hours will be cut. Chances are, the business is not going to increase its employee expense, it will simply cut the hours for those people who work there. Explain how that helps them.
been there, DONE THAT. Sorry borgeois, your agruments are just as dumb in 2013 as 1880.
View attachment 67142631
It seems comical to me that someone can be smart and charismatic enough to become the POTUS, and still lack a basic understanding of how things actually work in the world.
Raising the minimum wage doesn't help working class families. In fact, its going to dramatically hurt them
Assuming it could be realistically enforced (fat change, but let's just assume), and assuming not all jobs are outsource-able (again, fat chance, but let's just assume),
It's not about principles, or science, or math. It's about power. It's about who has it, and how its used. But ideas like the invisible hand of the market, or a maxim that centralizing things dooms them to failure aren't principles or science. They're political positions that are also about power. Communal ownership, and gearing the economy for the benefit of all, rather than for a few, that's about power, too. And it's about power for many, instead of power for the few. Much as lessez faire capitalists like to pretend otherwise, their way is not mathematically superior, nor necessary for a healthy, happy, and powerful culture.
Is this another misleading statistic where percentage is touted and actual effect in relation to other eras is ignored?Might I remind you, that the period from 1860-1920 was the period of the fastest wage growth in our countries history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?