Actually Mr. President, we should get rid of the minimum wage

[CanadaJohn]

Only a few actually enjoy being regularly humiliated. The number isn't zero, mind you, but it is just a few. I guess you just aren't one of them. By the way, I just touched base with the RCMP Protective Policing Services unit to see if they are providing a 24/7, tight as a drum security envelope for Messrs. Harper and Johnston and their families today or not, and they are.

LOL - the only humiliation one would experience with you would be that of being in the same company.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Scientists don't "believe" in stuff. They do research and have theories to explain the facts. The Card-Krueger studies debunks the OP and its troglogyte view of MW. That's that.

The work of Card and Krueger was both rigrous and impressive, but no single study, regardless of its quality and persausiveness, should be relied upon as having had the final word. The fact is however that nearly every signficiant study done since has led to very similar conclusions, and that various of those where the data did not at first appear to support such conclusions were later extended with newly available data, a thing that caused the signficance of the earlier claims for contradiction to vanish. All in all, it comes to a big and impressive pile of stuff against a tiny and insignificant pile of stuff. You make the call.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Let's just say 80% of economists don't buy that *ONE* study. Which has been pretty much sent to the birdcage...

Heritage Foundation nonsense. Neumark and Wascher used only a sample of state employment records, and when researchers obtained their original data sets and couldn't find the results that had been first reported, the authors edited the data sets so that such an effect would be discovered. That's not exactly kosher. But most of this is going on 10-20 years ago. In research since, Card and Krueger have unequivocally documented the publication bias inherent in studies finding negative effects on employment, a result that has been repeatedly confirmed by other researchers. Not a peep out of the Heritage Foundation about that problem. In fact, it's been deafening silence on the matter from the right-wing in general.

As opposed to those made of gingerbread, the majority of actual economists today would likely favor eliminating the minmimum wage altogether and replacing it with something else, just as most would likely in theory favor elimination of the home mortage interest deduction. But among those who would be willing to see the minimum wage live on, most would prefer to see it raised, knowing that it is needed to counter recet income-redistribution and to help in levellig grossly unequal labor markets, all while knowing full well that any potential effects on employment are simply not significant enough to matter.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Powerless people? You sound as if these people are serfs who were "assigned" to the job they do by a Central Committee somewhere. This is not China or North Korea, where you are told what job you will do. If the people working there feel exploited, they should leave and find better employment elsewhere. Otherwise, they will no doubt vent their frustration in any number of ways, human ingenuity being what it is. My opinion only.

And a sorry opinion it is. If minimum-wage workers could have found better employment opportunites elsewhere, they would have applied for and accepted such positions. You may as well tell people who can't get a job on a loading dock that they should simply become bank vice-presidents instead. How hard could THAT be? You need to face up to the facts, including the fact that whenever a very powerful entity routinely sits acress the table from a powerlesss entity, exploitation is the all but certain outcome.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Regarding earning the minimum wage, are you saying 20% who earn it are over 25 and married and 23% of teenagers who earn it are married or something different?

Boy oh boy. About 20% of those who earn the minimum wage or less are over 25 and are married with a spouse present in the home. About 23% of those who earn the minimum wage or less are teenagers.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

So 80% of economists think MW raises unemployment and you're citing one of the 20% of the ones who don't. Look whose the denier now?

LOL! The gingerbread numbers all come from the 1970's and 1980's. The huge increases in processing power that have occurred since then have enabled far more sophisticated analysis that has consistently shown no meaningful connection between the minimum wage and either inflation or unemployment. These later studies use much larger samples and have much better t-statistics and find litttle if any measureable effect. Further, in cases where the methodologies of older studies could be replicated against the original data extended out to include data from modern time periods, the reported effects were no longer significant either.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Yes. When I worked for minimum wage I had to share an apartment to afford a cheap used car. That wage is likely to go up (it cannot go down) with very little time on the job. Few work at that wage for very long, as employers will raise it to keep their better workers. The next question is: what happens to those that now make MW +10%, MW +20%, MW +30% or are on fixed income pensions, such as SS, when that MW is raised by 20%?

Anecdotes from your soon-to-be-published autobiography are of course completely irrelevant, but what isn't irrelevant is the simple fact that while $7.25 would have been worth $1.16 in 1969, the minimum wage back then had already been set to $1.60 the year before. That's a pretty big gap, probably bigger than most would have expected. $1.60 back then would be worth $10.56 today. And people are out in the street whining about an eventual $9.00.

The facts here are that for decades now, corporate types have been padding profits by stabbing low-end and other workers in the back. They've done that by diverting greater and greater shares of productivity gains toward corporate profits and away from wage increases, by trying to bust up every sort of union they could find, and by trying to convince employed low-wage workers that unemployed low-wage workers are their enemy and the boss-man is their friend. There are probably some darned fools who actually believe this.

 

[polgara]

And a sorry opinion it is. If minimum-wage workers could have found better employment opportunites elsewhere, they would have applied for and accepted such positions. You may as well tell people who can't get a job on a loading dock that they should simply become bank vice-presidents instead. How hard could THAT be? You need to face up to the facts, including the fact that whenever a very powerful entity routinely sits acress the table from a powerlesss entity, exploitation is the all but certain outcome.

Your opinion of my opinion is duly noted. We could, of course, discuss why minimum wage workers remain in those jobs. Is it lack of other jobs such as in manufacturing, which unfortunately seems to be the case these days; is it that they don't have the schooling, training or even the interest to pursue those options to get another job, or are they just thinking that this is the best they can do? I don't know, but raising the minimum wage is not going to handle the problem, because the cost of everything they buy will probably also go up. How are they going to be better off?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Did you read any of my first post? I didn't just make it up, I got it from sources and data. If you would like to criticize the data that I used, I'm all ears.

LOL!!! It contained pointless links to PPP and lists of countries by per capita PPP/GDP along with more shopworn slop based on the notion that because the US has the third largest population in the world, no other country's experiences can be relevant to us. Except India and China, I guess. The post then concluded with claims that in this country, minimum wage results in higher unemployment, higher discrimination against minority groups, and higher poverty due to increase in prices, all of which are untrue.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Your opinion of my opinion is duly noted. We could, of course, discuss why minimum wage workers remain in those jobs.

No one has presented any evidence that they do. Those who show up on time, work hard, and have a positive attitude are soon enough apt to get monetary and other sorts of rewards. Those who don't are apt either to be let go or to be made miserable enough that they ultimately quit.

Is it lack of other jobs such as in manufacturing, which unfortunately seems to be the case these days...

All of the world's twelve largest manufacturing economies (we are #1 or #2 depending on what China's latest data actually are) have lost manufacturing jobs since the mid-1990's. China since then has in fact lost more manufacturing jobs than the US presently has. US losses have been about average for the group. All of this has occurred as manufacturing output has soared. The simple fact here is that manufacturing is not a jobs-engine anymore and never will be again.

; is it that they don't have the schooling, training or even the interest to pursue those options to get another job, or are they just thinking that this is the best they can do?

Right, always character flaws in other people somehow.

I don't know, but raising the minimum wage is not going to handle the problem, because the cost of everything they buy will probably also go up. How are they going to be better off?

Raising the minimum wage in traditional-type increments rasies the purchasing power of individual low-wage workers, but has no measureable effect on inflation overall. Even if we were closer to full-employment of labor and capital, there are not enough workers affected by the increase and the increase itself is too small to create such an effect that would be noticeable within in a nearly $16 trillion economy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Anecdotes from your soon-to-be-published autobiography are of course completely irrelevant, but what isn't irrelevant is the simple fact that while $7.25 would have been worth $1.16 in 1969, the minimum wage back then had already been set to $1.60 the year before. That's a pretty big gap, probably bigger than most would have expected. $1.60 back then would be worth $10.56 today. And people are out in the street whining about an eventual $9.00.

The facts here are that for decades now, corporate types have been padding profits by stabbing low-end and other workers in the back. They've done that by diverting greater and greater shares of productivity gains toward corporate profits and away from wage increases, by trying to bust up every sort of union they could find, and by trying to convince employed low-wage workers that unemployed low-wage workers are their enemy and the boss-man is their friend. There are probably some darned fools who actually believe this.

I agree that gov't will be very reluctant to adjust MW for the real effects of inflation. As I said, that inflation "admission" then has huge impacts on SS and federal (and state) gov't retirement payments. The last thing Obama and the congress critters want is more non-discretionary spending to deal with.

 

[head of joaquin]

Your opinion of my opinion is duly noted. We could, of course, discuss why minimum wage workers remain in those jobs. Is it lack of other jobs such as in manufacturing, which unfortunately seems to be the case these days; is it that they don't have the schooling, training or even the interest to pursue those options to get another job, or are they just thinking that this is the best they can do? I don't know, but raising the minimum wage is not going to handle the problem, because the cost of everything they buy will probably also go up. How are they going to be better off?

Actually the US remains a manufacturing powerhouse. I think you better go back and look at the actual data rather than Fox news sky is falling stuff.

Raising the MW will solve only one problem -- people making less than the new MW. For them, that's a big problem and the solution of raising the MW is elegantly simple and important.

 

[RGacky3]

Wait you just they can cut wages when profits go away now you are saying the cut jobs.

Now which is it?

They can, and they do, both ...

 

[RGacky3]

That's not the point. Sweden has a population the equivalent of North Carolina or Georgia. Besides, they also have a 37% higher price level then what we have in the U.S. Purchasing power parity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comparing PPP/capita Norway is the only country higher then the U.S. from the EU. List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regardless, in this country, minimum wage results in higher unemployment, higher discrimination against minority groups, and higher poverty due to increase in prices.

PPP isn't a good level, median PPP might be good, or perhaps measuring the bottom half PPP, because the US has a HUGE economy and huge wealth inequality, so vast amounts of poverty in those statistics are made up for by consentrations of vast amounts of wealth.

the fact is the average worker is doing better in Sweden than in the US, poverty levels are lower and workers wages are higher.

In the US it would'nt result in higher unemployment, as aggrigate demand would rise, it would'nt result in more discrimination ... I don't see how it would.

ANd it wouldn't result in higher poverty, since inflation would'nt outpace the rise in wages.

 

[RGacky3]

1. There aren't jobs that people can just leave to go to for better pay because of the failure of maldistribution of skills and because of failed regulations of the labor market.

2. Minimum wage isn't meant to be a living wage. Its meant to be a point of entry for teenagers and young college students to get working experience. If you're raising a family of four on a minimum wage, you're doing something wrong.

1. Or maybe there just arn't jobs because thats the way Capitalism works.

2. The market dictates what a mimimum wage is supposed to be ... if a minimum wage job is all one can get then you need to live on it.

 

[cpwill]

1. Or maybe there just arn't jobs because thats the way Capitalism works.

2. The market dictates what a mimimum wage is supposed to be ... if a minimum wage job is all one can get then you need to live on it.

....not really - not for most. the idea that minimum wage workers are all trying to support families of four is... not generally correct.

nor does the market determine what a minimum wage is supposed to be. the government does that, by creating an artificial price floor.

which, it should be noted, has the effect of pricing some people out of the labor market. which, it should also be noted, was precisely it's intention. back then it was supposed to have the efficacious effect of starving all of the genetically inferior stock out of breeding. Now it just pushes the poor into welfare . If ever there was a policy that was most dastardly in its' effect on the most vulnerable among us, this hiking of the bottom rung of the ladder of economic advancement just out of their reach is in contention.

 

[RGacky3]

....not really - not for most. the idea that minimum wage workers are all trying to support families of four is... not generally correct.

nor does the market determine what a minimum wage is supposed to be. the government does that, by creating an artificial price floor.

Did'nt say that most minimum wage workers are trying tu support families of for.

nor did I say the market determines what the minimum wage is supposed to be, I said it determines who gets it.

which, it should be noted, has the effect of pricing some people out of the labor market. which, it should also be noted, was precisely it's intention. back then it was supposed to have the efficacious effect of starving all of the genetically inferior stock out of breeding. Now it just pushes the poor into welfare . If ever there was a policy that was most dastardly in its' effect on the most vulnerable among us, this hiking of the bottom rung of the ladder of economic advancement just out of their reach is in contention.

It doesn't price people out of the labor market, if people NEED to labor, they are going to hire, at whatever price necessary, if you drop the minimum wage all that's gonna happen is the same amount of people will get hired at a lower rate (raising profits) and you're gonna lower aggrigate demand.

As far as it's intention, all that is is a conspiracy theory, and a nonsense one at that.

 

[ReformCollege]

PPP isn't a good level, median PPP might be good, or perhaps measuring the bottom half PPP, because the US has a HUGE economy and huge wealth inequality, so vast amounts of poverty in those statistics are made up for by consentrations of vast amounts of wealth.

the fact is the average worker is doing better in Sweden than in the US, poverty levels are lower and workers wages are higher.

In the US it would'nt result in higher unemployment, as aggrigate demand would rise, it would'nt result in more discrimination ... I don't see how it would.

ANd it wouldn't result in higher poverty, since inflation would'nt outpace the rise in wages.

Go read my original post, I showed how it results in discrimination with a cite.

 

[ReformCollege]

Did'nt say that most minimum wage workers are trying tu support families of for.

nor did I say the market determines what the minimum wage is supposed to be, I said it determines who gets it.



It doesn't price people out of the labor market, if people NEED to labor, they are going to hire, at whatever price necessary, if you drop the minimum wage all that's gonna happen is the same amount of people will get hired at a lower rate (raising profits) and you're gonna lower aggrigate demand.

As far as it's intention, all that is is a conspiracy theory, and a nonsense one at that.

It prices people out of the market. Those that it prices out of the market are primarily young people, and black males ages 16-24. Young black males have had unemployment rates in the 20% range for quite a few decades now.

You don't think their inability to get a job hurts future employability, future wages, or increases crime levels?

You say if all one can get is a minimum wage job..... Well maybe if we didn't have a minimum wage, they would've gotten that job 10 years ago and would now have the skills to at the very least move into a manager position. You say the market determines what one can get, well maybe you should consider why the market is making that determination.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Apparently, you are not able to think of any reason why it wouldn't be. The more you post, the less you surprise me.

There are plenty of reasons why it shouldn't be the biggest being you can't, and are not suppose, live you life on it.

Good thing you aren't the one in charge solving anything.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Bain Capital? How many Chinese jobs have they created anyway? None of those people ever make anything close to $7.25 an hour...

So again you make a claim and cannot back it up. Figures.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

No, the studies show MW doesn't have the job loss affect you and the knownothings in the tea party keep repeating. The Card-Krueger analysis has been strengthened by subsequent research. http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf

No it hasn't. It has been shown to be flawed and is debunked. But don't let that stop you from posting more useless things, you have a shot at reaching 5,000 by the end of this week.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Only a few actually enjoy being regularly humiliated. The number isn't zero, mind you, but it is just a few.

Aside from you? Technically 1 is just a few jut usually it's not referred to like that.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Boy oh boy. About 20% of those who earn the minimum wage or less are over 25 and are married with a spouse present in the home. About 23% of those who earn the minimum wage or less are teenagers.

Then try typing clearer as your post can be read either way.

Not that your posts make a lot of sense to begin with but no point in making them stupider than they normally are.

 

[mak2]

Actually I heard that on Rush. Dittos.

There is a class of voters that will choose style over substance every time. We call them low-information voters, and we are screwed when they outnumber the rest of us.