Fast food CEO: Minimum wage hikes closing locations

[imagep]

The reason is corporate boards are often made up of other CEOs.

Of course they vote each other raises. Why not?

thats exactly what happens.

Which makes me wonder if maybe we should have a requirement that the board of directors include non-cronie stakeholders. Like workers, and community members. Just enough so that the cronie club doesn't have a majority vote without at least one non-cronie stakeholder voting with them.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

thats exactly what happens.

Which makes me wonder if maybe we should have a requirement that the board of directors include non-cronie stakeholders. Like workers, and community members. Just enough so that the cronie club doesn't have a majority vote without at least one non-cronie stakeholder voting with them.

or maybe the shareholders could elect their own board. Wait! Nevermind.

 

[Mithrae]

The bolded above leads me to believe that you think if there is any profit in a business at all it should be paid to the employees in higher wages. Is that true?

No, not at all. Beyond a generally-accepted minimum wage, that's between the employer and employee.

###################

It comes back to Keynsian policy. When the private sector is booming, we reduce government expenditures to pay down government debt, and to avoid the possibility of choking out private employment, then when the private sector is failing to provide ample jobs, we use the underutilized resources (mostly human labor) to create new infrastructure and to improve existing infrastructure. It smooths out the economic cycles, and ensures that available human labor resources are always productive.

From a conservative standpoint, it eliminates the moral hazard of freebie welfare and promotes personal responsibility - if you want to eat, then be productive.

Probably a good idea. It does raise the question of what (if any) are the perks of being a law-abiding citizen of a country - assuming things like education, police and military protection are viewed as bought by tax dollars. Perks for those who benefit the most from a country's infrastructure and economic system are obvious. But what about the lower classes? Do they have only obligatory taxes to pay their share for government services, obligatory rules which they obey under threat of violence... or are there any freebies or perks they might get alongside all the obligations? That decision will probably vary from country to country I suppose.

###################

I have to agree with rabbitcaebannog and imagep (partially) on this. Who'd have thought that would likely happen? Fact is that wealth is anything of value. Shares in a business are wealth. Property is wealth. Roads, therefore, must also be considered "wealth", as long as they are serviceable enough to be of some value. Any asset with value is part of overall "wealth". It is a serious error to conceptualize wealth as currency.

I would disagree that wealth is defined as anything that reduces human suffering, however. A rain during a dry season would reduce human suffering but wouldn't be "wealth". A breeze on a hot day can reduce human suffering and not be "wealth". Additionally, wealth can be something that INCREASES human suffering, like a few kilos of heroin.

Wealth is anything with exchangeable value, I would say. Rain and wind cannot be exchanged. People have value to their nearest and dearest, but cannot be exchanged; having kids does not make you more wealthy :lol: Someone might value their toenail clippings, but if there's no plausible scenario in which someone else would want them, they are not wealth.

 

[Opteron]

NOOOOOO! That's IMPOSSIBLE! Everyone knows that labor costs have nothing to do with whether or not a business is profitable!!!




But Wait! There's More!



Say it ain't so!



Oh. I guess it's so.


:face twists in anguish: Who could have ever seen this coming!?!

So I assume you support getting rid of minimum wage completely?
Also, can i ask where you stand on child labor laws? Do you think they are a good idea, because they put a minimum floor on the age at which you can work.

 

[Papa bull]

Wealth is anything with exchangeable value, I would say. Rain and wind cannot be exchanged. People have value to their nearest and dearest, but cannot be exchanged; having kids does not make you more wealthy :lol: Someone might value their toenail clippings, but if there's no plausible scenario in which someone else would want them, they are not wealth.

That seems to be a suitable characterization of wealth. The value has to be such that someone somewhere would be willing to exchange something else of value for it.

 

[JasperL]

So, that people might receive welfare from the government is justification to step in and dictate the arrangements they make for employment. The more the government does "for" us the less freedom we have. What a shame so many people are OK with that. They have stopped being citizens and have become subjects.

I'm not sure what you mean by macro level decisions.

Macro = currency exchange rates, inflation rates, trade rules (e.g. "free" trade), rules at the state level on unions, immigration rules, and all kinds of policy choices such as tax rates, regulatory regimes, etc. that affect the overall employment rate and therefore affect the wage rate.

The problem is libertarian types assume that there is this "negotiation" between employer and employee. That might happen at the executive level, but for working people there is no 'negotiation' - it's a take it or leave it offer by the employer. And right wingers also complain that setting a minimum wage is some impermissible intervention of the GOVERNMENT!! into that process, ignoring that the government can and does intervene all the time in ways to drive DOWN that wage - open borders is one example, but so are "right to 'work' (fire at will)" rules, monetary policies at the Fed level and trade rules that pit workers here against the developing world. THOSE interventions are OK because they help employers keep wages LOW - interventions that help employees are always somehow illegitimate.

Heck, Greenspan testified in Congress a while back (can't find the link) that one of his responsibilities was to keep unemployment high enough to make sure workers remained insecure in their jobs, and so would/could not demand raises. This was to "fight inflation" of course, but also has the happy and totally coincidental!! side effect of tilting the labor market in favor of employers. Point is I get a little impatient when people whine about 'government intervention' on BEHALF of employees since you're never or almost never hear any whining when the government intervenes on behalf of employers.

Of course the doctor isn't an example, but it did make me wonder if there is an exception in the law for that sort of thing. If not then it would be one more example of the government involving itself where it should not.

There are exceptions - generally salaried people aren't subject to minimum wage rules. It's not that simple, but there is no question extremely wealthy physicians can legally accept a token honorarium for their services.

 

[JasperL]

They have certainly eliminated the spending for the service the restaurant provides.

Yes, but so what? Thanks to trade rules set by government, we've eliminated the TV and mobile phone INDUSTRIES in the U.S.

I'm not sure sending money to China for shirts is a good example of shifting spending to a different part of the American economy.

I agree with that for the most part. People complained that the 2009 stimulus didn't work as well as we'd hoped. Well, for most consumer spending, the chief beneficiary is some overseas manufacturer which creates the lion's share of the wealth in that transaction when it makes a product out of raw materials.

If an employee and employer agree on a wage for a given job then who are we to interfere with that agreement? There are any number of reasons why a person might reasonably agree to a substandard wage and see the arrangement as beneficial, but here we are trying to eliminate the employment opportunity entirely. The choice is not necessarily between low and higher wages. The real choice might be between low wages and no wages at all. And yes, the amount of welfare a person gets does figure into the arrangements that they make for employment. The threat of losing welfare is reason for some of them to stay part time, for example.

Again, government does a lot more than set minimum wage rules.

And you're certainly correct to note that there are perverse side effects of welfare payments. But the thing is when a decent full time position opens up, there might be 20 or 50 or 100 applications or more per opening. The VAST majority don't want to be poor - they prefer to work for living wages. And despite a one page paper by Sessions, there is simply no evidence that on the whole people are 'choosing' to remain in crap low wage jobs to keep their government benefits. I'd love to see one living example of a worker making $14.50 per hour (roughly the $29k in Sessions' example) turning down a $5 an hour raise to keep their sweet government aid.

Bridgestone hiring 200 machine technicians in S.C.
Bridgestone Americas started is adding 200 new machine technicians at its Aiken County facility. The company received nearly 2,500 applications for the open positions.

The $415 million SLS Las Vegas has begun hiring to fill 2,700 jobs at the 1,600-room Strip resort that is expected to open Labor Day Weekend.

....SLS Las Vegas has already received nearly 15,000 applications and counting.

No wonder: Starbucks Corp. attracted 7.6 million job applicants over the past 12 months for about 65,000 corporate and retail job openings; Procter & Gamble Inc. got nearly a million applications last year for 2,000 new positions plus vacant jobs

 

[What if...?]

thats exactly what happens.

Which makes me wonder if maybe we should have a requirement that the board of directors include non-cronie stakeholders. Like workers, and community members. Just enough so that the cronie club doesn't have a majority vote without at least one non-cronie stakeholder voting with them.

Like volkswagen in Germany.

At minimum it keeps folks who never built a.car from telling those who have how to do it.

 

[DA60]

So at worst, we could see a 30% increase in prices for industries that rely heavily on min wage labor. That doesn't offset the 100% increase in income for low wage employees.

But I would seriously doubt we would have that much inflation in those industries due to the fact that competition, automation, economy of scale, and even the federal reserve would likely constrain wage push inflation.

And with fewer people on welfare, and a broader tax base, our deficit would be reduced.

Nationwide, less than 6% of our population makes min wage, so maybe at worst we get a one time OVERALL 3% increase in inflation out of a doubling of min wage plus the upward push on wages for all lower paid workers. thats at the upper end of the federal reserves target inflation rate, which essentially means that the fed would take a year off from trying to force inflation, netting us a normal inflation rate, with no additional inflation other than what would have happened otherwise.

Somehow I can't see a downside to increasing min wage - at least not a downside that outweighs the upside.

I can...lost jobs.

I assume you are familiar with the CBO report tha claims 500,000 lost jobs if the American minimum wage (WG) goes to just $10.10/hour.

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income - CBO

It makes sense to me.

You raise minimum wage and that causes an upward cascade of hourly wages as each group of workers demands more money to keep a similar space to the ones below them. This causes a massive increase in wages without ANY gain in productivity.

And since foreign workers are not affected, this causes a further loss of U.S. competitiveness to other countries...which further raises the trade deficit.
It will also increase the difference in America of prices on U.S. compared to foreign manufactured goods. This further hurts sales of domestic products. This reduces manufacture of these products and results in layoffs.
Plus, domestic corporations will be under more economic pressure to move even more manufacturing jobs offshore (btw, apparently not one smartphone is manufactured in America)...further hurting U.S. employment.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27643474

Sure, those that make minimum wage will have more money under a higher MW.

But clearly there will be less Americans working...perhaps millions less.

 

[imagep]

I can...lost jobs.

I assume you are familiar with the CBO report tha claims 500,000 lost jobs if the American minimum wage (WG) goes to just $10.10/hour.

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income - CBO

It makes sense to me.

You raise minimum wage and that causes an upward cascade of hourly wages as each group of workers demands more money to keep a similar space to the ones below them. This causes a massive increase in wages without ANY gain in productivity.

And since foreign workers are not affected, this causes a further loss of U.S. competitiveness to other countries...which further raises the trade deficit.
It will also increase the difference in America of prices on U.S. compared to foreign manufactured goods. This further hurts sales of domestic products. This reduces manufacture of these products and results in layoffs.
Plus, domestic corporations will be under more economic pressure to move even more manufacturing jobs offshore (btw, apparently not one smartphone is manufactured in America)...further hurting U.S. employment.

BBC News - Google to close Motorola smartphone factory in Texas

Sure, those that make minimum wage will have more money under a higher MW.

But clearly there will be less Americans working...perhaps millions less.

There would only be two instances in which there would be fewer people working.

The first is if demand didn't increase due to higher wages. I can't imagine that. Human "want" is no where near fulfilled at the lower income levels, all those people need is more income and that want will become actual demand.

The second would be if employers were to somehow magically become more efficient to the point that they didn't need as many workers. That's something that is happening anyway, due to technology replacing workers. Yes, higher wages could speed that up, but conservatives constantly tell me that automation is good as it frees up humans to do other things. Is the Luddite fallacy not a fallacy? Does technology actually perminately decrease the number of total jobs available, or do those just just shift to something else?

One of the things that we all demand is leisure time, so if employers can produce just as much by replacing human labor with equipment, then that simply reduces the need for human labor, without reducing the aggregate size of our pie, thus the average standard of living remains the same economically, while the quality of living may improve due to additional leisure time. The only real issue with technology replacing jobs is figuring out how to distribute the goods produced by robots, and there are lots of different options available.

As far as CBO projections, it never fails to amaze me that those on the right will declaim them "invalid" when they point to something contrary to what conservatives claim (like when the CBO estimated that Obamacare would reduce the federal deficit, or when it estimated that the Spendulous bill "saved or created X millions of jobs"), but they will defend them to the death when they support a conservative point. Are they valid or not, don't argue both sides.

 

[DA60]

There would only be two instances in which there would be fewer people working.

The first is if demand didn't increase due to higher wages. I can't imagine that. Human "want" is no where near fulfilled at the lower income levels, all those people need is more income and that want will become actual demand.

But the cost of those higher wages is higher prices of the products they produce. You cannot have a nationwide very large increase in wages with zero increase in productivity without also having a substantial jump in prices.
And since foreign manufactured goods are not similarly affected, their price advantage will just grow. Like smartphones; soon, none will be manufactured in America (only one is now) and so those people that can now afford a nicer smartphone will just be sending more money overseas. The same with many/most other products.
So sure, those that have a job will make more money...but since the products they want that are American-made will be less competitive, they will buy more imports which will cause a drop in domestically-produced items which will cause more layoffs.

The second would be if employers were to somehow magically become more efficient to the point that they didn't need as many workers. That's something that is happening anyway, due to technology replacing workers. Yes, higher wages could speed that up, but conservatives constantly tell me that automation is good as it frees up humans to do other things. Is the Luddite fallacy not a fallacy? Does technology actually perminately decrease the number of total jobs available, or do those just just shift to something else?

One of the things that we all demand is leisure time, so if employers can produce just as much by replacing human labor with equipment, then that simply reduces the need for human labor, without reducing the aggregate size of our pie, thus the average standard of living remains the same economically, while the quality of living may improve due to additional leisure time. The only real issue with technology replacing jobs is figuring out how to distribute the goods produced by robots, and there are lots of different options available.

My point is nothing to do with workers replaced by machines but workers laid off because their products are more expensive to produce, thusly less competitive with imports, thus sales will suffer and thus layoffs will probably occur.

As far as CBO projections, it never fails to amaze me that those on the right will declaim them "invalid" when they point to something contrary to what conservatives claim (like when the CBO estimated that Obamacare would reduce the federal deficit, or when it estimated that the Spendulous bill "saved or created X millions of jobs"), but they will defend them to the death when they support a conservative point. Are they valid or not, don't argue both sides.

I am not a right or a left or a central 'winger'.

Are you challenging the competence and/or impartiality of the CBO?

 

[imagep]

But the cost of those higher wages is higher prices of the products they produce.

I agree that higher wages would create an inflationary pressure. However, that inflationary pressure would be offset or at least partially offset by deflationary pressures. First, the fed seeks an inflation goal of between 2-3% (like it or not, right or wrong), so asssumably any inflation up to the top end of that range would be offset by the fed (not engaging in inflationary actions). Secondly, any increase in demand would cause an increase in production, which would result in a cost savings per unit produced due to economy of scale (each additional unit produced is produced at a lower cost), so economy of scale would tend to offset some or all of the wage push inflation. Third, companies still have to compete, those who desire a larger market share will be unlikely to increase prices, thus even those companies that don't desire to increase market share will be somewhat price increase constrained as they still have to remain competitively priced.

You cannot have a nationwide very large increase in wages with zero increase in productivity without also having a substantial jump in prices.

You are correct that we probably can't increase min wage to the $15 that some people are suggesting, not in a single year, but history has indicated that smaller increases in minimum wage do not lead to any increases in the inflation rate. Probably because of the above stated reasons. I'll go with historic reality. Several links have been posted that indicate we would see a 3-4% price increase in industries that are heavily reliant on low wage labor, and something like 0.2-.04% overall inflationary pressure - which is within the federal reserve's target range, so effectively there would be no increase in the inflation rate over what the fed creates anyway.

Higher wages would most certainly be an incentive for companies to find ways to increase productivity. Possibly through technology, possibly simply from running a tighter ship. But regardless, we don't actually have to have an increase in productivity (productivity = units produced per work hour), all we need is an increase in PRODUCTION to have a bigger pie. The larger the pie, the bigger the slice that we can ALL have.

So let's say that companies don't have an increase in productivity (which is unlikely, but just pretend for a second, your the one who brought the issue up), but they do experience an increase in demand, and thus they have to hire more workers. Now people who would have otherwise been sitting on the couch watching TV and living off the welfare, are producing goods and services that would have otherwise not been produced - our pie is now bigger, thus higher wages can be justified because there is simply more stuff available, we can all have more.

And since foreign manufactured goods are not similarly affected, their price advantage will just grow. Like smartphones; soon, none will be manufactured in America (only one is now) and so those people that can now afford a nicer smartphone will just be sending more money overseas. The same with many/most other products.

Yes, it's possible that we may lose a few jobs (very few) to overseas competition, but we are going to lose that anyway - eventually. Wages are rising overseas (also) and manufacturing is slowly coming back to the US, but in the long run, manufacturing jobs are going to be fewer due to automation. Even China is now losing manufacturing jobs because they are automating. Regardless, few manufacturing jobs in the US use minimum wage labor - most manufacturing jobs in the US pay substantially more than minimum wage. Also most min wage jobs in the US CAN NOT be outsourced to China. Think about it, can we outsource the people who collect buggies in the parking lot of Walmart to someone in China? Can we outsource burger flipping at the McDonalds in your home town so someone in China?

Now think about this, we will either have wage push inflation, as employers pass on the cost of higher labor to the consumer, or we will lose jobs. We can't actually do both. If companies can just jack up prices to recoup the cost of higher labor, then why would they need to lay people off or to outsource to China? And if we can just outsource low wage jobs to China, then why would there be any inflation? It's HIGHLY unlikely that we would see significant job loss AND inflation. Pick one or the other for your anti-minimum wage argument, but not both - the arguments are almost mutually exclusive.

Are you challenging the competence and/or impartiality of the CBO?

Are you not? I mean honestly, tell me the last time that they got ANYTHING right? When the CBO claimed that Obamacare was going to reduce the deficit, did you REALLY believe that?

 

[DA60]

I agree that higher wages would create an inflationary pressure. However, that inflationary pressure would be offset or at least partially offset by deflationary pressures. First, the fed seeks an inflation goal of between 2-3% (like it or not, right or wrong), so asssumably any inflation up to the top end of that range would be offset by the fed (not engaging in inflationary actions). Secondly, any increase in demand would cause an increase in production, which would result in a cost savings per unit produced due to economy of scale (each additional unit produced is produced at a lower cost), so economy of scale would tend to offset some or all of the wage push inflation. Third, companies still have to compete, those who desire a larger market share will be unlikely to increase prices, thus even those companies that don't desire to increase market share will be somewhat price increase constrained as they still have to remain competitively priced.



You are correct that we probably can't increase min wage to the $15 that some people are suggesting, not in a single year, but history has indicated that smaller increases in minimum wage do not lead to any increases in the inflation rate. Probably because of the above stated reasons. I'll go with historic reality. Several links have been posted that indicate we would see a 3-4% price increase in industries that are heavily reliant on low wage labor, and something like 0.2-.04% overall inflationary pressure - which is within the federal reserve's target range, so effectively there would be no increase in the inflation rate over what the fed creates anyway.



Yes, it's possible that we may lose a few jobs (very few) to overseas competition, but we are going to lose that anyway - eventually. Wages are rising overseas (also) and manufacturing is slowly coming back to the US, but in the long run, manufacturing jobs are going to be fewer due to automation. Even China is now losing manufacturing jobs because they are automating. Regardless, few manufacturing jobs in the US use minimum wage labor - most manufacturing jobs in the US pay substantially more than minimum wage. Also most min wage jobs in the US CAN NOT be outsourced to China. Think about it, can we outsource the people who collect buggies in the parking lot of Walmart to someone in China? Can we outsource burger flipping at the McDonalds in your home town so someone in China?

Now think about this, we will either have wage push inflation, as employers pass on the cost of higher labor to the consumer, or we will lose jobs. We can't actually do both. If companies can just jack up prices to recoup the cost of higher labor, then why would they need to lay people off or to outsource to China? And if we can just outsource low wage jobs to China, then why would there be any inflation? It's HIGHLY unlikely that we would see significant job loss AND inflation. Pick one or the other for your anti-minimum wage argument, but not both - the arguments are almost mutually exclusive.



Are you not? I mean honestly, tell me the last time that they got ANYTHING right? When the CBO claimed that Obamacare was going to reduce the deficit, did you REALLY believe that?

Look, now both of us are just getting into assumptions...something I usually find to be pointless.

I say that raising the minimum wage will cost jobs...so does the CBO.

I have stated why I think that (many times before as well as now).

Btw, I will add one more. If U.S. wages go way up while foreign ones do not, clearly American companies will have far more incentive to move production overseas.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to convince me that a government mandated huge raise in wages with ZERO added productivity can be ANYTHING but overall bad news for the country.
And the CBO apparently agrees with me.

I think it is best to just agree to disagree.

 

[imagep]

Look, now both of us are just getting into assumptions...something I usually find to be pointless.

I say that raising the minimum wage will cost jobs...so does the CBO.

I have stated why I think that (many times before as well as now).

Btw, I will add one more. If U.S. wages go way up while foreign ones do not, clearly American companies will have far more incentive to move production overseas.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to convince me that a government mandated huge raise in wages with ZERO added productivity can be ANYTHING but overall bad news for the country.
And the CBO apparently agrees with me.

I think it is best to just agree to disagree.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, that might be the only thing we can agree on, but let me present one more theory...

So let's say that companies don't have an increase in productivity (which is unlikely, but just pretend for a second, your the one who brought the issue up), but they do experience an increase in demand (due to consumers having more money to spend), and thus they have to hire more workers. Now people who would have otherwise been sitting on the couch watching TV and living off the welfare, are producing goods and services that would have otherwise not been produced - our pie is now bigger, higher wages can be justified because there is simply more stuff available, we can all have more.

 

[DA60]

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, that might be the only thing we can agree on, but let me present one more theory...

So let's say that companies don't have an increase in productivity (which is unlikely, but just pretend for a second, your the one who brought the issue up), but they do experience an increase in demand (due to consumers having more money to spend), and thus they have to hire more workers. Now people who would have otherwise been sitting on the couch watching TV and living off the welfare, are producing goods and services that would have otherwise not been produced - our pie is now bigger, higher wages can be justified because there is simply more stuff available, we can all have more.

Raising minimum wages does not mean more 'printing' of money. So all this does is take money from other sources to give to the poorer people.
And since more of that money will go overseas then now (because of the less competitive U.S. prices vs. foreign), then that means there will be less money staying in America.
There is no way that you can have the same number of jobs in America if wages go up and there is less money staying in America.
It's impossible.

Raising the minimum wage makes the poor that have a job, richer. But it will hurt the U.S. Economy and will raise unemployment.

The well respected and politically neutral CBO (generally) agrees with me. So if you can factually prove they are wrong here...fine. No offense, I doubt you or anyone else can.

But until then, I don't see the point in further discussion on this.


I will add that it is usually a pleasure to debate with you. You stay civil and you make logical points.

All too rare around here, IMO.

 

[imagep]

Raising minimum wages does not mean more 'printing' of money.

No, but if it results in more demand, it would mean more creation of good and services. Our money is backed by whatever goods and services it will purchase, so if the money supply stays the same, and if it is represented by more goods and services, we would have deflation, not inflation. But of course the money supply doesn't even matter that much, because the same money can spend over and over and over again.

So all this does is take money from other sources to give to the poorer people.

It may take money from people who have a lower propensity to spend and distribute that to people who have a higher propensity to spend, yes. That creates more spending, more jobs, and a bigger pie for all of us to share in - even the rich. Companies make money by selling goods and services, not by paying low wages. Look at Microsoft, do they pay their people minimum wage, or do they pay them darned good money?

And since more of that money will go overseas then now (because of the less competitive U.S. prices vs. foreign)

Again, the Chinese worker can't flip burgers at your hometown McDonalds, and the manufacturing plant in your town probably already pays a decent wage.

then that means there will be less money staying in America.

The US dollar is only legal tender in the US, so that money ALWAYS repatriates itself. Mostly by foreign companies investing in America. It may be US treasuries that they purchase, but as long as we can finance our gov by issuing treasuries, that means we don't have increase our tax rates. Would you rather our government tax your money away, or just borrow it away from a foreign country?

There is no way that you can have the same number of jobs in America if wages go up and there is less money staying in America. It's impossible.

Our money supply is litterally unlimited. The government can print as much as it likes. We are no longer on the gold standard. But regardless, the same money can spend over and over again - we don't even have to have more of it to have more demand and more production.

Raising the minimum wage makes the poor that have a job, richer. But it will hurt the U.S. Economy and will raise unemployment.

Never happened before when we increase minimum wage. I don't know why you would expect a min wage increase to have any effect other than what it has had in the past.

The well respected and politically neutral CBO (generally) agrees with me.

I'm glad to know that you think Obamacare is going to lower the budget deficit. Never realized that you were such a strong Obamacare supporter. (just kidding about that part of course).

 

[DA60]

No, but if it results in more demand, it would mean more creation of good and services. Our money is backed by whatever goods and services it will purchase, so if the money supply stays the same, and if it is represented by more goods and services, we would have deflation, not inflation. But of course the money supply doesn't even matter that much, because the same money can spend over and over and over again.



It may take money from people who have a lower propensity to spend and distribute that to people who have a higher propensity to spend, yes. That creates more spending, more jobs, and a bigger pie for all of us to share in - even the rich. Companies make money by selling goods and services, not by paying low wages. Look at Microsoft, do they pay their people minimum wage, or do they pay them darned good money?


And since more of that money will go overseas then now (because of the less competitive U.S. prices vs. foreign)

Again, the Chinese worker can't flip burgers at your hometown McDonalds, and the manufacturing plant in your town probably already pays a decent wage.



The US dollar is only legal tender in the US, so that money ALWAYS repatriates itself. Mostly by foreign companies investing in America. It may be US treasuries that they purchase, but as long as we can finance our gov by issuing treasuries, that means we don't have increase our tax rates. Would you rather our government tax your money away, or just borrow it away from a foreign country?



Our money supply is litterally unlimited. The government can print as much as it likes. We are no longer on the gold standard. But regardless, the same money can spend over and over again - we don't even have to have more of it to have more demand and more production.



Never happened before when we increase minimum wage. I don't know why you would expect a min wage increase to have any effect other than what it has had in the past.



I'm glad to know that you think Obamacare is going to lower the budget deficit. Never realized that you were such a strong Obamacare supporter. (just kidding about that part of course).

I think they are sometimes mistaken _ especially when they use models/theories for their conclusions (though this time I think their data seems accurate and their conclusions, logical). But I have heard time and again how Obama supporters praise them when they (the CBO) agreed with them. They would often say how reputable, respected and unbiased they were.

So, it is difficult for them to now take it back when it goes against the Obama/MW supporters.

Finally, this does prove that they (the CBO) are indeed not biased.


I think it's best for the rest if we just agree to disagree and move on since I doubt either of us will soon change his mind on this.