• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

So your source is an appeal to authority, hate to break it to you but in the real world that's a fallacy not a source.
LOL! You deny that prices of virtually all goods tend to be in a constant state of flux? Didn't the failure of Nixon's wage-price controls teach you anything?
 
But half of them are 16-24.
The more than half of that group who are 20-24 are NOT TEENAGERS. Neither is anybody aged 25 and over. Teenagers are teenagers. That's all. Nobody else.

Not to mention, we are currently at the lowest teenage employment in 50 years, so even so that is artificially low.
So what? 77% of people who work for minimum wage are still NOT TEENAGERS.

Already been over this, if your prices increase as a result of minimum wage increases and as a result you have less costumers shopping at your business, then suddenly your number of required busboys might go down from 3 to 2.
And if my restaurant burns to the ground, I won't have any busboys at all for a while. You simply fail to understand business economics at all. What does the pizza delivery joint do when the price of gasoline goes up by 10%? Drive 90% of the way to the customer's house and then leave the pizza on the curb? Probably not. Gasoline is a necessary input to a pizza delivery joint just as busboys are to a restaurant. It doesn't matter how the price goes up or down. Demand remains the same. This is the definition of price-inelasticity.

capitalism2.webp
 
That is fine too. I working adult per household and wages will double.
Really? The fact that people have only half as much income to spend isn't going to enter into this somehow? I think a return to the drawing board may be in order.
 
See the words "based on" and what follows. Even medical practitioners need a basic command of English, you know.

View attachment 67143254

Says a self professed 'economist' that uses a little picture to show the world how much closer to 'have agenda, will travel' than 'economist' he is.
 
The more than half of that group who are 20-24 are NOT TEENAGERS. Neither is anybody aged 25 and over. Teenagers are teenagers. That's all. Nobody else.


So what? 77% of people who work for minimum wage are still NOT TEENAGERS.


And if my restaurant burns to the ground, I won't have any busboys at all for a while. You simply fail to understand business economics at all. What does the pizza delivery joint do when the price of gasoline goes up by 10%? Drive 90% of the way to the customer's house and then leave the pizza on the curb? Probably not. Gasoline is a necessary input to a pizza delivery joint just as busboys are to a restaurant. It doesn't matter how the price goes up or down. Demand remains the same. This is the definition of price-inelasticity.

View attachment 67143258

That's because pizza delivery guys usually have to pay for their own gas.

I'll repeat this point again. Over half of all minimum wage workers are between 16-24, half of which are 16-19. These %'s were higher before the minimum wage was raised. And that is considering that teenage unemployment is currently at an all time low. This number was much higher when the minimum wage was lower.
 
That's because pizza delivery guys usually have to pay for their own gas.
Even if that were true, you would merely be running away from the point, rather than responding to it in any meaningful way. You are meanwhile still stuck in completely bogus understandings of low-wage labor markets.

I'll repeat this point again.
Of course you will. It's dredged-up drivel that substantiates no relevant point at all, but it's still the best you've got.

capitalism2.webp
 
Even if that were true, you would merely be running away from the point, rather than responding to it in any meaningful way. You are meanwhile still stuck in completely bogus understandings of low-wage labor markets.


Of course you will. It's dredged-up drivel that substantiates no relevant point at all, but it's still the best you've got.

View attachment 67143273

Its not running away from the point, I'm shooting down your silly hypothetical situation.

And you'll just keep trying to talk above my head to hide from the fact that you don't have a counter argument.
 
You mean the 80% or so of economists who agree that there is a correlation between the minimum wage and unemployment?
LOL! That's been covered already, and you're j-u-u-u-u-s-t a little bit behind the times. The 80% number comes from the "old days" -- that bygone era of two decades and more ago now that existed before your side began slowly sinking in the west. Card and Krueger put a torpedo amidships in the 90's and Dube and Reich put the finishing touches on things in 2007 and again in 2010. You're still stuck with determined-to-go-down-with-the-ship David Neumark. Once again, a poor choice on your part.

capitalism2.webp
 
Perhaps you missed the part where the words "based on" came after the words "and/or" indicating that they are separate statements.
LOL!!! Got grammar? The only appearance of "and/or" in Rule #20 defines the status of "violence" and "prejudicial actions" as equal objects of the verb "incite". All such inciting as well as any ridiculing, debasing, degrading, or intimidating must be based on race, gender (including transgendered), ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability to run afoul of the rule. Only too happy to explain such things to you.

capitalism2.webp
 
Its not running away from the point, I'm shooting down your silly hypothetical situation.
The point is your complete misunderstanding and mischaracterization of low-wage labor markets. To try and hide behind the meaningless notion that some pizza delivery joints make their drivers pay for gas is to run, run, run away from that point. You don't have the courage to confront the point because you know full well that the only way to address it frankly is simply to admit that all of your claims to date have been just as completely bunged up as I have been indicating.

And you'll just keep trying to talk above my head to hide from the fact that you don't have a counter argument.
More pure fluff. If you can't understand the concept of price-inelasticity of demand, you don't belong anywhere near a discussion of economic issues. Fourth graders should sooner be doing heart transplants.

capitalism2.webp
 
You mean the 80% or so of economists who agree that there is a correlation between the minimum wage and unemployment?

Modest wage increases do not adversely impact employment in the US. There is no data to indicate what happens when you increase minimum wage in a recessionary economy though so it would be uncharted territory.
 
And you'll just keep trying to talk above my head to hide from the fact that you don't have a counter argument.

It's not 'above your head'... it's 'no practical application' on his part... theories and speculation, nothing more. You are wasting your time with an ideologue.
 
The point is your complete misunderstanding and mischaracterization of low-wage labor markets. To try and hide behind the meaningless notion that some pizza delivery joints make their drivers pay for gas is to run, run, run away from that point. You don't have the courage to confront the point because you know full well that the only way to address it frankly is simply to admit that all of your claims to date have been just as completely bunged up as I have been indicating.


More pure fluff. If you can't understand the concept of price-inelasticity of demand, you don't belong anywhere near a discussion of economic issues. Fourth graders should sooner be doing heart transplants.

View attachment 67143276

You thought you had an example to prove me wrong, I shot down your example. Even so, if gas prices result in less pizzas demanded due to increases in price, the consumption of gas would still go down, albeit indirectly.

There isn't complete in elasticity. There is always some measured value of elasticit. I would imagine the elasticity of the overall economy is tied to economic growth. Economic growth usually increases wages anyways, so the increases are merely moving with overall wages, not making as big of an impact.

And lastly, lol! I'm calling your bluff ;)
 
LOL! That's been covered already, and you're j-u-u-u-u-s-t a little bit behind the times. The 80% number comes from the "old days" -- that bygone era of two decades and more ago now that existed before your side began slowly sinking in the west. Card and Krueger put a torpedo amidships in the 90's and Dube and Reich put the finishing touches on things in 2007 and again in 2010. You're still stuck with determined-to-go-down-with-the-ship David Neumark. Once again, a poor choice on your part.

View attachment 67143274

The Kruger Card study was inheritantly flawed by a statistically insignificant sample size and only looking at fast food joints (an inferior good, which goes up in demand with decreases in overall employment.) The Hofmann Trace study shows how other industries, unemployment went up as predicted.
 
Modest wage increases do not adversely impact employment in the US. There is no data to indicate what happens when you increase minimum wage in a recessionary economy though so it would be uncharted territory.
The last two increases -- of 70 cents per hour each time -- were in July 2008 and July 2009.
 
You thought you had an example to prove me wrong, I shot down your example. Even so, if gas prices result in less pizzas demanded due to increases in price, the consumption of gas would still go down, albeit indirectly.
More worthless weasel-slinking. Address the subject matter for once. Low-wage labor is not a purchase of choice. One does not purchase more of it when the price goes down or less of it when the price goes up. One purchases the minimum quantity that meets one's needs regardless of what its price is. What you have claimed about the matter has all been useless derivative hogwash. DEAL WITH IT.

capitalism2.webp
 
More worthless weasel-slinking. Address the subject matter for once. Low-wage labor is not a purchase of choice. One does not purchase more of it when the price goes down or less of it when the price goes up. One purchases the minimum quantity that meets one's needs regardless of what its price is. What you have claimed about the matter has all been useless derivative hogwash. DEAL WITH IT.

View attachment 67143287

Debunked example+ debunked study = debunked argument
 
The Kruger Card study was inheritantly flawed by a statistically insignificant sample size and only looking at fast food joints (an inferior good, which goes up in demand with decreases in overall employment.) The Hofmann Trace study shows how other industries, unemployment went up as predicted.
Thus, our findings here provide evidence for teen workers that is broadly consistent with the positive effects found by Card-Krueger.
-- Saul Hoffman and Diane Trace

See what happens when all you do is run off to wikipedia? And claiming an "insignificant sample size"? What a hoot. We can obviously add statistics to the growing list of things you know nothing about.

capitalism2.webp
 
Debunked example+ debunked study = debunked argument
I love the smell of desperation at the lunch hour! You can't deal with the point. You don't know what your own studies say. Your whole side has been utterly sunk by Dube and Reich. You just don't have a leg left to stand on. Just the worthless weasel-slinking.

capitalism2.webp
 
Thus, our findings here provide evidence for teen workers that is broadly consistent with the positive effects found by Card-Krueger.
-- Saul Hoffman and Diane Trace

See what happens when all you do is run off to wikipedia? And claiming an "insignificant sample size"? What a hoot. We can obviously add statistics to the growing list of things you know nothing about.

View attachment 67143288

"We find consistent evidence that employment of “at-risk” groups was negatively affected in PA relative to other groups in PA and to comparable groups in NJ."

http://sites.udel.edu/saul-hoffman/files/2011/11/Hoffman_Trace_EEJ.pdf
 
Back
Top Bottom