Poll: Majority of Americans Want Government to Reduce Income Gap

[Gimmesometruth]

Please read my posts before commenting on them. Not sure what that came from as I never said nor implied it. And the discussion was around pay and not having anything to do with reasons why they are employed.

I'll be happy to discuss my "thoughts" when you get them right. Thank you.

You said:

"If the business model is to produce and market a product that requires some semblance of engineering, the engineers support the business. The janitor doesn't."

According to you, janitors do not support the business....so if this is true, they are not needed. If this is true, who cleans up the building where this business takes place?

I really can't make it simpler for you to understand or answer. Either a janitor is business support or is not.

Which is it?

 

[mbig]

I guess the rich are "over taxed"?
Whatever your view, one can say income/wealth distribution continually gets more lopsided leading, in the end, to a Worse economy.
When there aren't enough Middle income/wealth consumers, (to buy TVs, cars, computers, middle/low price houses and all their accompanying needs) even the rich's portfolios and overall economy suffers.

Stocks have done well mostly due to the recovery from the crash and very low rates, but Not much 'top-line' revenue growth.


Million-Dollar Home Sales Thrive While Low End Stumbles
By Prashant Gopal May 2, 2014
Million-Dollar Home Sales Thrive While Low End Stumbles - Bloomberg

Luxury-home sales are climbing as an improving economy and stocks that have almost tripled from 2009 lows bolster confidence among affluent buyers. At the same time, slow wagePhotographer: Emile Wamsteker/Bloomberg

Million-dollar homes in the U.S. are selling at double their historical average while middle-class property demand stumbles, showing that the housing recovery is mirroring America’s wealth divide.

Purchases costing $1 million or more rose 7.8% in March from a year earlier, according to data released last week by the National Association of Realtors. Transactions for $250,000 or less, which represent almost 2/3 of the market, plunged 12% in the period as house hunters found few available homes in that price range.

Luxury-home sales are climbing as an improving economy and stocks that have almost tripled from 2009 lows bolster confidence among affluent buyers. At the same time, slow wage growth, tight credit standards and escalating prices are putting homeownership out of reach for many Americans. While investors drain the market of lower-end properties, builders are constructing more expensive houses that generate bigger profits.

“The real estate market is the ultimate reflection of confidence, wealth and income,” said Sam Khater, deputy chief economist at Irvine, California-based CoreLogic Inc.
“The same factors driving the income stagnation in the middle are driving the income momentum at the top.”
[........]

 

[JP Hochbaum]

So WA has had some of the highest min wages in the nation and it has had job growth higher than most other states in this country, which is probably partly due to the tech industry growth. But it is strong evidence that it doesn't harm job growth or the economy. What matters most are results of policy not the ideology behind policy.

Seattle Announces $15 Minimum Wage, Highest In The U.S.

 

[DA60]

So WA has had some of the highest min wages in the nation and it has had job growth higher than most other states in this country, which is probably partly due to the tech industry growth. But it is strong evidence that it doesn't harm job growth or the economy. What matters most are results of policy not the ideology behind policy.

Seattle Announces $15 Minimum Wage, Highest In The U.S.

It does not prove anything...they have not even raised it yet, they have just agreed to raise it 'in the coming years'.

Obviously, an area that is doing well has less unemployment, so there is less labor, so the labor that is available can demand higher wages. That is basic economics/supply and demand.

But the notion that raising the minimum wage somehow magically makes the poor all across America richer is just wrong, IMO.

As I have explained many times...if America raised it's minimum wage tomorrow to $15/hr. That would have a ripple effect and put huge upward pressure on jobs above that wage. You cannot realistically expect to just raise the minimum wage by about 100% and not have jobs at $12, $15, $20+/hr. not to have to be raised significantly.
That would raise the cost of goods produced/sold in America. That would further compromise American goods vs. imports (as the foreign goods have no such minimum wage). That would hurt sales. That would cause layoffs.
Also, many Ma and Pa stores that are just above water now might be forced under if they suddenly have to double their wages...causing more unemployment.
Those working at minimum wage would have more money...but I guarantee you there would be a much higher unemployment rate.

On top of which, raising the cost of goods/services would hurt people on fixed incomes - as many can barely get by now.
Sure, the rich wouldn't care...they would just pay a bit/lot (depending on the good/service) more...something they can afford. But to those that are scraping by as it is...it could be devastating.


Cause and effect...there are no easy outs in macroeconomics.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

It does not prove anything...they have not even raised it yet, they have just agreed to raise it 'in the coming years'.

I never claimed it proved anything.

Obviously, an area that is doing well has less unemployment, so there is less labor, so the labor that is available can demand higher wages. That is basic economics/supply and demand.

But the notion that raising the minimum wage somehow magically makes the poor all across America richer is just wrong, IMO.

I never said the poor would become rich.

As I have explained many times...if America raised it's minimum wage tomorrow to $15/hr. That would have a ripple effect and put huge upward pressure on jobs above that wage. You cannot realistically expect to just raise the minimum wage by about 100% and not have jobs at $12, $15, $20+/hr. not to have to be raised significantly.
That would raise the cost of goods produced/sold in America. That would further compromise American goods vs. imports (as the foreign goods have no such minimum wage). That would hurt sales. That would cause layoffs.

I have mentioned numerous times that this would cause a one time inflation event. So not sure what you are debating here?

Also, many Ma and Pa stores that are just above water now might be forced under if they suddenly have to double their wages...causing more unemployment.

Many businesses that are that close to going out a business are that close to going out of business, just a matter of time.

Those working at minimum wage would have more money...but I guarantee you there would be a much higher unemployment rate.

Oh like IN Australia? Where there UE is lower than ours?

 

[DA60]

I never claimed it proved anything.

I never said the poor would become rich.

I have mentioned numerous times that this would cause a one time inflation event. So not sure what you are debating here?

Where did I say you said anything? Answer...I didn't. I was referring to people in general.

Many businesses that are that close to going out a business are that close to going out of business, just a matter of time.

Oh like IN Australia? Where there UE is lower than ours?

Canada has a higher income per capita then Australia but with a far lower minimum wage...your point is moot, IMO. Where is your proof that Australia's unemployment rate could not be even lower TODAY were the minimum wage lower?
Hint...none exists.


I am not going to argue with you... even the CBO admits that a higher minimum wage would cause a rise in unemployment. And they were (if I recall) only referring to $10.10/hr.

You have a problem with that...please take it up with them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ould-cost-1-million-jobs/?tid=pm_politics_pop

'In February, the CBO weighed in and said in a report that a $10.10 minimum wage by 2016 would reduce employment by 500,000 workers because of two key reasons: consumers would buy fewer goods because of higher prices resulting from a minimum wage and because employers would hire fewer workers because the cost of labor has increased.'

 

[imagep]

'In February, the CBO weighed in and said in a report that a $10.10 minimum wage by 2016 would reduce employment by 500,000 workers because of two key reasons: consumers would buy fewer goods because of higher prices resulting from a minimum wage and because employers would hire fewer workers because the cost of labor has increased.'

Consumers tend to purchase more when they get paid more money, not less. It's debateable whether or not an increase in inflation would wipe out the gain from higher wages, actual historic evidence points in the direction of that assumption not being true.

There are several reasons that inflation tends not to rise as much as higher wages do. First off, when demand increases, businesses sell more stuff and make more profit, thus there is not a need for them to increase prices as much a wages went up, especially since they still have to price compete for business. Secondly, when demand increases, businesses increase production, and the per unit cost of production decreases due to economy of scale, offsetting some or all of the additional per hour labor cost.

Also, the fed seeks to achieve a target inflation rate of between 2 and 3 percent. If wage increases were tending to drive inflation, the fed would most likely back off on it's inflationary actions. For those who hate the fed diluting our money supply to drive inflation, they should love the idea of some wage pressures creating inflation as that tends to restrain the fed.

Now if I had said something like "the CBO says that...", there would have been a dozen posters telling me that the CBO is never right. In this case, I would have to agree with them.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Where did I say you said anything? Answer...I didn't. I was referring to people in general.




Canada has a higher income per capita then Australia but with a far lower minimum wage...your point is moot, IMO. Where is your proof that Australia's unemployment rate could not be even lower TODAY were the minimum wage lower?[/I]

I forget that when debating you I must constantly change goal posts and change the subject ahead of time.

 

[DA60]

I forget that when debating you I must constantly change goal posts and change the subject ahead of time.

No idea what you are going on about.

I was not referring directly to you in my post, yet you assumed I was.

If I did not say it, I did not mean it.


And you indirectly claimed that Australia's higher minimum wage and UR proves it works. Yet Canada has a similar resource-based economy of relatively similar size and yet they have a better GDP per capita with a much smaller minimum wage.

And where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that the unemployment rate in Australia would not be far lower with a lower minimum wage? You gave none. So there is ZERO factual proof that a higher minimum wage has helped Australia AT ALL.


And you skipped over the most important bit...the CBO says that higher minimum wages COST JOBS...LOTS OF THEM - which should be ridiculously obvious as this is just economic common sense.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

No idea what you are going on about.

I was not referring directly to you in my post, yet you assumed I was.

If I did not say it, I did not mean it.


And you indirectly claimed that Australia's higher minimum wage and UR proves it works. Yet Canada has a similar resource-based economy of relatively similar size and yet they have a better GDP per capita with a much smaller minimum wage.

And where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that the unemployment rate in Australia would not be far lower with a lower minimum wage? You gave none. So there is ZERO factual proof that a higher minimum wage has helped Australia AT ALL.


And you skipped over the most important bit...the CBO says that higher minimum wages COST JOBS...LOTS OF THEM - which should be ridiculously obvious as this is just economic common sense.

I don't see how GDP per capita would have anything to do with minimum wage, hence it is just naming an economic factor and changing the subject.

The CBO has made a prediction, they didn't do a study measuring the effects on past increases in minimum wage. There are however numerous studies that have done that and have shown that it has little effect on UE.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

Studies look at what happened when cities raised minimum wage | Local News | The Seattle Times

 

[imagep]

I don't see how GDP per capita would have anything to do with minimum wage, hence it is just naming an economic factor and changing the subject.

The CBO has made a prediction, they didn't do a study measuring the effects on past increases in minimum wage. There are however numerous studies that have done that and have shown that it has little effect on UE.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

Studies look at what happened when cities raised minimum wage | Local News | The Seattle Times

Great links.

It would be interesting to know how minimum wage hikes affected wages that are above min wage. Like if min wage was $7.25 and then increased to $10, how does that effect workers making over the old min wage but less than the new min wage? And how does that effect workers who were already making a little over the new min wage, and how does that effect workers at that median income level?

Something that is rarely pointed out is that the Fed makes an effort to keep inflation in the 2-3% range. One of those articles indicated that a 10% increase in minimum wage would be expected to have a one time inflationary event of 0.4%, so I would assume that the fed would tend to back off of any inflationary actions that it normally does, at least to reduce it enough so that inflation doesn't exceed 3%. If I am correct about the Feds action, then the net inflation result due to a hike in the interest rate may be a 0% increase in the inflation rate over what would have occured anyway. If the feds minimum inflation rate target is 2%, then we could possibly have a min wage increase as much as 50% in a year, without seeing any additional inflation (due to restraining the Fed from inflationary policy)

 

[DA60]

I don't see how GDP per capita would have anything to do with minimum wage, hence it is just naming an economic factor and changing the subject.

The CBO has made a prediction, they didn't do a study measuring the effects on past increases in minimum wage. There are however numerous studies that have done that and have shown that it has little effect on UE.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

Studies look at what happened when cities raised minimum wage | Local News | The Seattle Times

1) The GDP per capita is just as valid as you suddenly throwing a different country into the mix...both are apples and oranges.

2) I could care less what your studies have shown...they CANNOT show what those economies would have been like had the minimum wage not gone up during the same time period...so they are totally irrelevant if they state the raising the minimum wage had little/no negative effect on unemployment as it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what something would have been like under different circumstances.

Look, it is SIMPLE common sense...if you pay people more money without ANY increase in productivity, then that means the products and services they make/provide WILL go up in price eventually...it is a certainty. You cannot have higher production costs to produce exactly the same product with the exact same level of quality in the exact same time frame and not have higher product costs...IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

By making the products more expensive, you make them less competitive - in this case - with foreign manufactured goods. So U.S. produced goods will sell less compared to similar foreign produced goods. Thus people will be laid off.

This is all - in essence - the CBO is saying.

And remember, the CBO report was only for $10.10/hr. - not $15.


On top of all this, people on fixed incomes will be able to afford these goods and services less then they could before. This puts more hardship on to them.
Strange how you seem to not care much what happens to these people, you will not benefit in the slightest from your doubling-the-minimum-wage scheme...quite the opposite.


If the national minimum wage was raised to $15/hr. there is ZERO way you can prove that there will not be hundreds of thousands of layoffs.

Now, if you want to go against macroeconomic common sense just because you want this really badly - fine.

 

[imagep]

1)...

2) I could care less what your studies have shown...they CANNOT show what those economies would have been like had the minimum wage not gone up during the same time period...so they are totally irrelevant if they state the raising the minimum wage had little/no negative effect on unemployment as it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what something would have been like under different circumstances.

While that may be true, it's fairly easy to observe the general trends just before and after changes in minimum wage, and to thus be able to gauge if minimum wage had any significant effect on either employment or inflation. The reality is that if increasing the minimum wage did have an effect, it was negligible. Stop making excuses as to why historic reality doesn't match your theoretical rhetoric.

Look, it is SIMPLE common sense...if you pay people more money without ANY increase in productivity, then that means the products and services they make/provide WILL go up in price eventually...it is a certainty. You cannot have higher production costs to produce exactly the same product with the exact same level of quality in the exact same time frame and not have higher product costs...IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

It's not impossible at all. When there is more demand, more is produced, and thus it creates an economy of scale which tends to offset inflationary pressures. There are zillions of other factors that may offset wage driven inflationary pressure, such as slightly lower profits or incomes at the upper end of the wage bracket. Regardless, the studies didn't indicate that there was no inflation, only that inflation was very slight. Again, the issue is that you are rejecting actual historic data, because it doesn't match your rhetoric.

By making the products more expensive, you make them less competitive - in this case - with foreign manufactured goods. So U.S. produced goods will sell less compared to similar foreign produced goods. Thus people will be laid off.

Minimum wage workers in the US do not compete with foreign workers. How is a foreign worker going to stock the shelves at a store in America, or return buggy carts at an American grocery store, or flip a burger at your local McDonalds. Foreign workers generally are competing against the US manufacturing sector, which typically pays wages that exceed minimum wage by quite a bit. Your theory is bullcrap.

This is all - in essence - the CBO is saying.

Please remind me when the last time the CBO was correct. For some reason I can't remember.

On top of all this, people on fixed incomes will be able to afford these goods and services less then they could before. This puts more hardship on to them.

Since when have you been concerned about welfare slackers? Anyhow, there is no such thing as a "fixed income". When we speak of fixed incomes, we are generally talking about people living on social security, and it's not fixed, they typically get a raise in excess of the inflation rate every year. Anyhow, if they are that poor, maybe they should stop eating at McDonalds and start cooking at home.

Strange how you seem to not care much what happens to these people, you will not benefit in the slightest from your doubling-the-minimum-wage scheme...quite the opposite.

Strange how you suddenly pretend to care about people who live on the government dole. Anyhow, if they are that poor, lots of grocery stores and fast food places do like to hire older folks, so maybe they should get a job, stop contributing to the dropping labor force participation rate, and enjoy a higher minimum wage.

If the national minimum wage was raised to $15/hr. there is ZERO way you can prove that there will not be hundreds of thousands of layoffs.

There is ZERO way that you can prove that there will be hundreds of thousands of layoffs. Australia has a minimum wage pretty close to that amount, and they have a lower unemployment rate that we do. I suggest that we should experiment with the minimum wage, and try to determine from the real life results of that experimentation what the economic growth maximizing minimum wage is. If it is $0, then so be it, if it is $25/hr, then so be that. Why would anyone not want to attempt to achieve an economy that maximizes wealth production? the only way that we can prove anything, is through experimentation, just repeating theory that his already been disproven certainly isn't going to make any progress - you do know what the definition of "crazy" is don't you?

Now, if you want to go against macroeconomic common sense just because you want this really badly - fine.

I will take proven macroeconomic reality over cherry picked macroeconomic "common sense" any day of the week. Seriously, by not being willing to accept actual proven and factual reality, this indicates to me that you have some sort of secrete agenda.

 

[DA60]

While that may be true, it's fairly easy to observe the general trends just before and after changes in minimum wage, and to thus be able to gauge if minimum wage had any significant effect on either employment or inflation. The reality is that if increasing the minimum wage did have an effect, it was negligible. Stop making excuses as to why historic reality doesn't match your theoretical rhetoric.



It's not impossible at all. When there is more demand, more is produced, and thus it creates an economy of scale which tends to offset inflationary pressures. There are zillions of other factors that may offset wage driven inflationary pressure, such as slightly lower profits or incomes at the upper end of the wage bracket. Regardless, the studies didn't indicate that there was no inflation, only that inflation was very slight. Again, the issue is that you are rejecting actual historic data, because it doesn't match your rhetoric.



Minimum wage workers in the US do not compete with foreign workers. How is a foreign worker going to stock the shelves at a store in America, or return buggy carts at an American grocery store, or flip a burger at your local McDonalds. Foreign workers generally are competing against the US manufacturing sector, which typically pays wages that exceed minimum wage by quite a bit. Your theory is bullcrap.



Please remind me when the last time the CBO was correct. For some reason I can't remember.



Since when have you been concerned about welfare slackers? Anyhow, there is no such thing as a "fixed income". When we speak of fixed incomes, we are generally talking about people living on social security, and it's not fixed, they typically get a raise in excess of the inflation rate every year. Anyhow, if they are that poor, maybe they should stop eating at McDonalds and start cooking at home.



Strange how you suddenly pretend to care about people who live on the government dole. Anyhow, if they are that poor, lots of grocery stores and fast food places do like to hire older folks, so maybe they should get a job, stop contributing to the dropping labor force participation rate, and enjoy a higher minimum wage.



There is ZERO way that you can prove that there will be hundreds of thousands of layoffs. Australia has a minimum wage pretty close to that amount, and they have a lower unemployment rate that we do. I suggest that we should experiment with the minimum wage, and try to determine from the real life results of that experimentation what the economic growth maximizing minimum wage is. If it is $0, then so be it, if it is $25/hr, then so be that. Why would anyone not want to attempt to achieve an economy that maximizes wealth production? the only way that we can prove anything, is through experimentation, just repeating theory that his already been disproven certainly isn't going to make any progress - you do know what the definition of "crazy" is don't you?



I will take proven macroeconomic reality over cherry picked macroeconomic "common sense" any day of the week. Seriously, by not being willing to accept actual proven and factual reality, this indicates to me that you have some sort of secrete agenda.

Sorry man...while I do respect you, I try to avoid the huge, multi-quote posts (no matter who the other person is)...especially when they are made up primarily or entirely of opinions.

It just ends up with GIGANTIC back and forths that often just end up heated with little accomplished.

I realize my post looked long - but it was just dealing with two points.

WHy don't we just say you have some good points and I (hopefully) have some good points and leave it at that?

Unless you want to give me a Reader's Digest version?

 

[TurtleDude]

another whine about the rich thread. I want the gap to be reduced-I want people who aren't productive to actually start working harder and smarter. So I guess that poll applies to me. What I do not want is more envy based solutions that involve taking more from hard workers to give to losers so the losers vote for the Dems who give them handouts

 

[JP Hochbaum]

2) I could care less what your studies have shown...they CANNOT show what those economies would have been like had the minimum wage not gone up during the same time period...so they are totally irrelevant if they state the raising the minimum wage had little/no negative effect on unemployment as it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what something would have been like under different circumstances.

Then you REALLY need to read the studies, because that is exactly what they did. The Card study is famous for looking at growth in employment rates at counties that had lower min wages that were neighbors of counties with higher min wages.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Look, it is SIMPLE common sense...

The appeal to common sense is a fallacy of ad populum, which means that it is excused from logical warrant.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Great links.

It would be interesting to know how minimum wage hikes affected wages that are above min wage. Like if min wage was $7.25 and then increased to $10, how does that effect workers making over the old min wage but less than the new min wage? And how does that effect workers who were already making a little over the new min wage, and how does that effect workers at that median income level?

Something that is rarely pointed out is that the Fed makes an effort to keep inflation in the 2-3% range. One of those articles indicated that a 10% increase in minimum wage would be expected to have a one time inflationary event of 0.4%, so I would assume that the fed would tend to back off of any inflationary actions that it normally does, at least to reduce it enough so that inflation doesn't exceed 3%. If I am correct about the Feds action, then the net inflation result due to a hike in the interest rate may be a 0% increase in the inflation rate over what would have occured anyway. If the feds minimum inflation rate target is 2%, then we could possibly have a min wage increase as much as 50% in a year, without seeing any additional inflation (due to restraining the Fed from inflationary policy)

Well people making between $7-$10 an hour would get the new wage at $10.10 an hour. Other people who make a little above that may ask for raises once they see people also getting raises.

Technically speaking inflation is something that occurs over months of time, so a one time price level increase in one month isn't technically inflation, so the Feds could almost wash that out of their inflation targeting.

 

[TurtleDude]

Great links.

It would be interesting to know how minimum wage hikes affected wages that are above min wage. Like if min wage was $7.25 and then increased to $10, how does that effect workers making over the old min wage but less than the new min wage? And how does that effect workers who were already making a little over the new min wage, and how does that effect workers at that median income level?

Something that is rarely pointed out is that the Fed makes an effort to keep inflation in the 2-3% range. One of those articles indicated that a 10% increase in minimum wage would be expected to have a one time inflationary event of 0.4%, so I would assume that the fed would tend to back off of any inflationary actions that it normally does, at least to reduce it enough so that inflation doesn't exceed 3%. If I am correct about the Feds action, then the net inflation result due to a hike in the interest rate may be a 0% increase in the inflation rate over what would have occured anyway. If the feds minimum inflation rate target is 2%, then we could possibly have a min wage increase as much as 50% in a year, without seeing any additional inflation (due to restraining the Fed from inflationary policy)

for years Unions-not low wage unskilled labor-were the main drivers for increasing MW because many union contracts are tied to the MW-such as journeyman members get 2XMW, masters 4XMW or stuff like that.

MW is something smart people get out of the way long before they want to start a family

 

[DA60]

Then you REALLY need to read the studies, because that is exactly what they did. The Card study is famous for looking at growth in employment rates at counties that had lower min wages that were neighbors of counties with higher min wages.

Still means nothing.

Counties? What difference would it make between counties? You are not even following the CBO's/my point. I am talking about a national minimum wage...the only way what I am talking about applies is on a national/nearly national scale. Local differences are a TOTALLY different animal.

Talk about apples and oranges.

Either stick to the subject or please do not waste my time.

I will say one last time (for now) it is impossible to know what something in the past would be like under different circumstance...IMPOSSIBLE.

Sure you can guess, hope, prey, believe...but you cannot know.


Your love of big government and massive debt is well known. Your closed-minded attitude towards both past the point of logic is also well known.

Sure, you convince the weak/ignorant with your reams of (usually) utterly useless 'data'...but those that better understand macroeconomics and don't live in a fantasy world know better.

Your 'feel good' economic theories are nothing but lazy, copout economics. Something for nothing. Pixie dust 101. Moocher's Paradise.
And there are a ton of like minded, macroeconomic-ignoramus economists/profs/think tankers that desperately try and prove you are right.
And they always utterly fail...and then pat themselves on the back because they actually think they succeeded.

One day, if you ever clear your head and see reality, you will learn that.

Events will one day prove me right and your theories dead wrong.

The question is...will you have the clarity of thought to accept it when it happens?


Good day.

 

[DA60]

The appeal to common sense is a fallacy of ad populum, which means that it is excused from logical warrant.

Lol...ohhh, there is proof that it is wrong.


Good day.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Still means nothing.

Counties? What difference would it make between counties? You are not even following the CBO's/my point. I am talking about a national minimum wage...the only way what I am talking about applies is on a national/nearly national scale. Local differences are a TOTALLY different animal.

Talk about apples and oranges.

Either stick to the subject or please do not waste my time.

I will say one last time (for now) it is impossible to know what something in the past would be like under different circumstance...IMPOSSIBLE.

Sure you can guess, hope, prey, believe...but you cannot know.


Your love of big government and massive debt is well known. Your closed-minded attitude towards both past the point of logic is also well known.

Sure, you convince the weak/ignorant with your reams of (usually) utterly useless 'data'...but those that better understand macroeconomics and don't live in a fantasy world know better.

Your 'feel good' economic theories are nothing but lazy, copout economics. Something for nothing. Pixie dust 101. Moocher's Paradise.
And there are a ton of like minded, macroeconomic-ignoramus economists/profs/think tankers that desperately try and prove you are right.
And they always utterly fail...and then pat themselves on the back because they actually think they succeeded.

One day, if you ever clear your head and see reality, you will learn that.

Events will one day prove me right and your theories dead wrong.

The question is...will you have the clarity of thought to accept it when it happens?


Good day.

Wow, what a diatribe of insults and false assumptions. a higher min wage actually makes the government smaller. It would create lower payments in welfare and in UE and in many other welfare programs.

Please don't insult when you aren't actually debating the topic.

 

[DA60]

Wow, what a diatribe of insults and false assumptions. a higher min wage actually makes the government smaller. It would create lower payments in welfare and in UE and in many other welfare programs.

Please don't insult when you aren't actually debating the topic.

1) You do not know what a higher national MW would do...you can only believe/guess.

And considering the CBO (and 'common sense', IMO) says that it would raise unemployment and prices (which would hurt those on fixed-incomes which would force the government to increase payments to them to maintain their minimal standard of living)...your theory seems completely implausible.
You don't like it...take it up with the CBO.

2) I say what I think, you are free to do the same. You don't like what I say...then do not debate with me. But I will not be muzzled by anyone except the mods.
I am not saying what I say to insult...I like you from what I know of you.
I am saying what I say to educate you as I truly believe you do not see how 'non-believer's' see you on economic matters. I would want you to do the same were our positions reversed.

Good day.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not solve for a natural rate of unemployment and simple poverty, at the same time?

 

[imagep]

1) You do not know what a higher national MW would do...you can only believe/guess.

It's well know what a higher national MW does. It's not like it has never been raised before, and that the results of those increases have never been studied before. You only pretend that actual historic proof doesn't exist because that proof doesn't backup your theory.