- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,131
- Reaction score
- 58,867
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
oops, you were right. :3oops:
The proportions of both of your fractions should be the same. However both of you had math errors. The only difference between yours and patriots (if he had divided the correct numbers) would have been yours would be 34.2 times smaller. They would be the same proportions. It does not matter if you compare with 1 day, 1 hour, or 1 minute.
Let me illustrate:
.59/3.25 = .1815
1.09/7.5 = .1453
.1815/.1453 = 1.249
.59/(3.25 * 34.2) = .005308
1.09/(7.5 * 34.2) = .0042495
.005308/.0042495 = 1.249
The scalar cancels out.
Also, since the inflation adjusted price of the burger is a higher percentage of the 3.25 wage, the lower wage is worse off.
They get a big paycheck, plus all they can steal. We should all be paid so well...Congress should just get paid MW. :2razz:
Do you have any statistics to back up this malarkey?
That's a typical response from those that are against the minimum wage.
:failpail:
I can't find the full text but here is the abstract:
-Charles Brown, Curtis Gilroy, and Andrew Kohen "Time Series Evidence on the Effect of the Minimum Wage on Youth Employment and Unemployment"
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Earlier this year, economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, wrote on these pages that the 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers.
. . .
Hardest hit of all: black male teens, whose unemployment rate shot up to a catastrophic 50.4%. It was merely a terrible 39.2% in July.
Your second question:
If we have competitive markets a company cannot set prices, remember. If we have a monopsony, or some amount of market power firms will obviously price labor to benefit them more. There is evidence though that some companies would pay more than the market clearing price willingly though, it is called efficiency wages.
Yes. Labor is essentially a market good; its price is determined by the same forces of supply and demand that govern every other market good. Government policies, like price controls on other goods, can alter the price of a good but not its value meaning that the minimum wage decreases the demand for labor and thus reduces the amount of labor that businesses choose to purchase. It drives people out of jobs and depresses the wages of jobs that would otherwise be worth more than the minimum wage.
If we want to help the working class in this country, we should working on keeping jobs here rather than driving them overseas.
Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Read the Background section, as a minimum. An employer has a certain amount of funding available and will spend that to get the best workers, leaving a limit amount to hire unskilled workers. The higher the min wage the less the number that can be hired.
yes the MW should be eliminated on a federal level because the constitution does not authorize such a law and means people not worth MW won't be hired.
Well thats all wel and good but are you suggesting people should be working for like 10 cents an hour?
You're saying that employers hire employees the same way housewives shop at the grocery store? That's just silly, they hire employees to get the job done.
Who would work for 10 cents an hour when they could easily get paid more elsewhere?
Your assuming jobs are just gonna spring up.
your likely to head for civil war if you dont.
Companies tend pay toward marginal productivity. If they can hire you a below your marginal productivity, then why wouldn't they hire you?
Because workers cant compete with wages from china etc
Marginal produvity is higher here than most workers from China. Fact is, we are better suited for different work. So while China has a relative advantage in labor-intensive manufacturing, we are better in information technologies, finance, etc. Surely you've heard of comparative advantage and aren't engaging in the Luddite Fallacy.
Your listing industries that have no way near enough demand for the amount of people you suggest they can employ.Yes this is the classic arguement it doesent matter about losing the "old jobs" because through education etc are people wont need them.How many people do ya think can work in finance and IT ?
Look up the Luddite Fallacy before you try to guess what I'm arguing!
Im asking for ya to show where the jobs will come from not the voodoo economics libertarians like to use.
Wikipedia article on Luddite Fallacy said:According to neoclassical economists, labour-saving technologies will increase output per worker and thus the production of goods, causing the costs of goods to decline and demand for goods to increase. As a result, the demand for workers to produce those goods will not decrease. Thus, the "fallacy" of the Luddites lay in their assumption that employers would keep production constant by employing a smaller albeit more productive workforce instead of allowing production to grow while keeping workforce size constant.[1] Economist Alex Tabarrok summarises the neoclassical presentation of the fallacy as such:
If the Luddite fallacy were true we would all be out of work because productivity has been increasing for two centuries.[2]
Free-market economists adamantly disagree with the notion that mass unemployment is possible in a completely free labor market. Ludwig von Mises went as far as to claim that in a free market such thing as involuntary unemployment is impossible, since if one offers his labor for low enough a price he will always find a buyer.[17] Of course, knowing that the market is in constant disequilibrium, one recognizes that involuntary unemployment is not necessarily impossible but simply rare and based only on imperfect information.[18] In short, outside of the existence of imperfect information, in a free-market the only limitation to employment is an individual's reservation wage.
Generally speaking, involuntary unemployment must be a product of government interventionism.[19] At its basis, involuntary unemployment is a product of disequilibrium between demand for labor and supply of labor, where the aggregate price of labor is too high relative to the aggregate demand for labor.[20] It stands to reason that such disequilibrium is likely to happen in the event of a cyclic fluctuation and from there we can logically deduct that the most efficient remedy to high unemployment is a fall in wages.
As mentioned above, the Keynesian framework tends to regard long-term structural unemployment as involuntary. The reason why an individual, who has been unemployed for what we assume to be a very long time, cannot find a job is because his skills are no longer applicable to the trade he is looking in. Such unemployment is actually voluntary in nature, because while the individual may not be able to find a job with similar pay to his last, there are nevertheless employers looking for labor in industries that require less skill, even if these employers therefore offer a lesser wage. Or an employer may offer the individual a lesser wage, but in exchange offer him the relevant training necessary to acquire the demanded skills. The individual rejects this offer because it is under his reservation wage. As such, this type of unemployment is firmly voluntary.
To REMOVE the Minimum Wage would be the SINGLE most assinine thing someone could vote more. In FACT it would be such a dumb-ass move that it defies logic. Anyone that would want to repeal it I feel would be an Enemy of the State because it would be like terrorism. It would screw millions of people PLUS screw the economy.
Let me do the research that you should have done.
You fail to realize that production creates its own demand! There is no situation where there is a permanent sector of the economy that it just out of work.
Affording the Unemployed - Jonathan M. Finegold Catalan - Mises Daily
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?