eliminate minimum wage and MAYBE 3 million immediately employed!

So you think companies just take the extra money and, what? Throw it in the president's office? Bury it in the backyard?
Or invest in more production. Or lower prices to gain market share. Or return the money to shareholders.
But that is a dodge.
If you lower the price of something, you sell more of it. Lower the price of labor and you will sell more of it, i.e. more employment. This is Econ 101, which many of you obviously failed.

Okay, corporations should sell all their goods for 1c. Just imagine how much they'll sell! :cuckoo:

Corporations sell their products at the price that they feel balances consumer demand with maximum profits. They don't set their prices based on how much production costs. They set their prices based on how much they can charge without such reduction in demand offsetting the higher per item profit margin. If you don't understand that then obviously, you failed Econ 102.
Companies don't factor costs of production into their pricing? Have you ever worked for a company in any capacity besides janitor?
Of course production cost is a factor. That sets a floor as companies will rarely sell product at a loss. But they have a range they can sell in and higher profitability vs volume/market share will drive where they sell within that range.
 
So which is better..
Having maybe 3 million or more employed people paying Medicare/SS or
3 million people receiving $250/week in unemployment benefits?

By eliminating minimum wage
In 2010 Among those paid by the hour, 1.8 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.5 million had wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 4.4 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 6.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 25 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 4 percent of workers age 25 and over. (See table 1 and table 7.)

Now there are 27.1 million teenagers from 15 to 19 that are unemployed!

Easily 3 million or more jobs would be open if the minimum wage was competitively based.. i.e would you work for $1/hour.. $3/hour???
Let the market set the wages...

All of a sudden businesses especially minimum wages could lower THEIR prices and economy begins to grow and those out of work.. paying in!

Which is better then paying OUT or 3 million more paying in???
That's the dream of Corporate America. Lowest wages possible and plenty of cheap labor.[/QUOTE]

Which is why we'll never see any kind of meaningful jobs legislation come out of DC.

DC doesn't create jobs. I would think 3 years of Obamanomics would have taught you that. But some people are slow learners.
 
So you think companies just take the extra money and, what? Throw it in the president's office? Bury it in the backyard?
Or invest in more production. Or lower prices to gain market share. Or return the money to shareholders.
But that is a dodge.
If you lower the price of something, you sell more of it. Lower the price of labor and you will sell more of it, i.e. more employment. This is Econ 101, which many of you obviously failed.

Okay, corporations should sell all their goods for 1c. Just imagine how much they'll sell! :cuckoo:

Corporations sell their products at the price that they feel balances consumer demand with maximum profits. They don't set their prices based on how much production costs. They set their prices based on how much they can charge without such reduction in demand offsetting the higher per item profit margin. If you don't understand that then obviously, you failed Econ 102.
Companies don't factor costs of production into their pricing? Have you ever worked for a company in any capacity besides janitor?
Of course production cost is a factor. That sets a floor as companies will rarely sell product at a loss. But they have a range they can sell in and higher profitability vs volume/market share will drive where they sell within that range.

:eusa_hand:

Production costs set the minimum price, not how much they charge.
 
Okay, corporations should sell all their goods for 1c. Just imagine how much they'll sell! :cuckoo:

Corporations sell their products at the price that they feel balances consumer demand with maximum profits. They don't set their prices based on how much production costs. They set their prices based on how much they can charge without such reduction in demand offsetting the higher per item profit margin. If you don't understand that then obviously, you failed Econ 102.
Companies don't factor costs of production into their pricing? Have you ever worked for a company in any capacity besides janitor?
Of course production cost is a factor. That sets a floor as companies will rarely sell product at a loss. But they have a range they can sell in and higher profitability vs volume/market share will drive where they sell within that range.

:eusa_hand:

Production costs set the minimum price, not how much they charge.

Wrong again. Companies can set prices below production cost. They wont for any length of time because they'll go bankrupt doing it. But plenty of companies, mine included, have sold goods at less than cost just to generate cash and get the merchandise out of the warehouse.
But at least you agree that if you lower the cost of something you sell more of it.
 
So which is better..
Having maybe 3 million or more employed people paying Medicare/SS or
3 million people receiving $250/week in unemployment benefits?

By eliminating minimum wage
In 2010 Among those paid by the hour, 1.8 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.5 million had wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 4.4 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 6.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 25 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 4 percent of workers age 25 and over. (See table 1 and table 7.)

Now there are 27.1 million teenagers from 15 to 19 that are unemployed!

Easily 3 million or more jobs would be open if the minimum wage was competitively based.. i.e would you work for $1/hour.. $3/hour???
Let the market set the wages...

All of a sudden businesses especially minimum wages could lower THEIR prices and economy begins to grow and those out of work.. paying in!

Which is better then paying OUT or 3 million more paying in???

Just about the most stupid ass post in a long time. Every try to pay rent and eat on minimum wage? No, the businesses will not lower their prices. They have already demonstrated that as people increase productivity at the same time the average wage in this nation is going downward.
 
That's the dream of Corporate America. Lowest wages possible and plenty of cheap labor.[/QUOTE]

Which is why we'll never see any kind of meaningful jobs legislation come out of DC.

DC doesn't create jobs. I would think 3 years of Obamanomics would have taught you that. But some people are slow learners.

LOL After 8 years of Bush, you people are still banging the drum for tax cuts to jazz up the economy. Talk about slow learners!

You might talk to a few of the old timers about the CCC's and the WPA. Also there is the little matter of the Interstate Highway System.

Rabid, nutters like you are simply not allowed to rewrite history. People like you and Stalin love to do that sort of thing.
 
DC doesn't create jobs. I would think 3 years of Obamanomics would have taught you that. But some people are slow learners.

LOL After 8 years of Bush, you people are still banging the drum for tax cuts to jazz up the economy. Talk about slow learners!

You might talk to a few of the old timers about the CCC's and the WPA. Also there is the little matter of the Interstate Highway System.

Rabid, nutters like you are simply not allowed to rewrite history. People like you and Stalin love to do that sort of thing.

The CCC and WPA prolonged the Depression, as it took available labor out of the workforce. You might want to talk to an economist sometime.
Funny you mention Stalin. He guaranteed jobs for everyone, which is why the Soviet Union was an economic powerhouse and Obama has taken some of his ideas from it.
 
So inflation causes layoffs?
You flunked Econ 101, right?

I was specifically talking about artificially induced inflation and not the slow gradual inflation from economic growth. The market will correct itself and even if demand on goods is high at first from the increased wages it will eventually collapse when cost of goods outstrips the ability of the consumers to purchase them. This will cause a surplus of goods and companies will adjust by decreasing production. It is in effect an employment bubble.
OK, you really did flunk Econ. Assuming you ever actually took it.

This guy agrees with me. I guess he flunked econ 101 too?

A High Unemployment Rate Correlates
To A High Rate Of Inflation
Michael Pento
June 22, 2009
It absolutely amazes me how sanguine the Fed, Treasury and Administration are about the prospects for subdued inflation. What they and many economists like to point to as the source of their optimism is the high rate of unemployment, which is currently 9.4%.

But the truth is that inflation actually causes higher rates of unemployment, while it is false to believe that inflation can be prevented by a labor slack in the economy.

To prove this point, I would like you to observe the following two charts.
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/images/pento062209a.gif

I chose 1971 (the year Nixon broke the gold window) as the starting point, as that was the year we began a 100% fiat currency system. The correlation between Consumer Price Inflation and the Unemployment Rate is impossible to ignore. You can clearly see that unemployment rises when CPI increases, with a small lag. The point is this; if inflation causes rising rates of unemployment, is it reasonable to assume that high rates of unemployment must necessarily prevent inflation from occurring? Clearly that would be false.

A closer look at the data

The cyclical high 12.2% Y.O.Y. rise in CPI that occurred in November of 1974 led to the cyclical high of 9% unemployment during May of 1975. Likewise, in 1979 the Y.O.Y increase in CPI reached a high of 14.6% in March and April of 1980, which was followed by another cyclical high 10.8% unemployment print in November and December of 1982. Finally, CPI increased from 1.2% in December 1986 to 6.4% in October of 1990. That again corresponded with the rise in unemployment that occurred from the 5% level in March of '89 to 7.8% in June of '92.

There is substantial evidence from the above data to conclude that a rise in unemployment does not serve as a depressant to inflation but rather that inflation leads to an increase in job loss.

However, there is one noted exception. What's going on today you may ask? We see a huge increase to 9.4% in the unemployment rate and yet CPI decreased 1% Y.O.Y in May-which belies the 38 years of historical data. I believe much of what the CPI is picking up today is the plummet in oil and commodity prices that occurred last year. The price of oil dropped 75% and that caused a onetime temporary distortion in the inflation data. Meanwhile, since then much of the decline in commodity prices has been reversed. Oil is up 70% and copper is up 60% this year while the US dollar is down 10% since March. The CRB Index gained 14% and gas prices are up 26% just in the month of May.

Those who are relying on a high rate of unemployment to keep inflation in check will be severely disappointed. There just isn't any historical basis for that belief in this country or any other. In fact, there are some extreme examples today of countries that experience high rates of unemployment along with runaway inflation.

The reason for this is simple. More people working and producing more goods to consume has nothing to do with inflation. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon and is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. In fact, fewer people in the work force mean fewer goods and services available to soak up money supply. Higher rates of inflation cause the dissolution of the middle class, as new money created always goes to the rich first. What money the non-rich do possess is subject to the same destruction in purchasing power of the rich, only they have much less of it. One of the consequences of this is a loss of discretionary purchases, which directly leads to a rising rate of unemployment.

The facts are that today that the Fed Funds target rate is near zero, the monetary base has more than doubled and the country needs to sell trillions of dollars in record shattering debt. Those factors alone are a perfect recipe to send CPI inflation rocketing up to meet the level of unemployment. Given the very strong historical relationship between inflation and unemployment, coupled with the recent surge in commodities, along with renewed weakness in the dollar, and it is reasonable to expect the rate of inflation to increase significantly in the very near future. Meanwhile we can only hope that Messrs. Geithner and Bernanke stop believing low inflation must persist just because there are less people out there producing.

Michael Pento

Chief Economist

Delta Global Advisors
800-485-1220
[email protected]
www.deltaga.com

With more than 17 years of industry experience, Michael Pento acts as Chief Economist for Delta Global Advisors and is a senior contributor to GreenFaucet.com. He is a well-established specialist in the Austrian School of economic theory and a regular guest on CNBC and other national media outlets. Mr. Pento has worked on the floor of the N.Y.S.E. as well as serving as vice president of investments for Gunn Allen Financial immediately prior to joining Delta Global.

A High Unemployment Rate Correlates To A High Rate Of Inflation
 
peasants-for-plutocracy-by-michael-dal-cerro2.jpg
 
Eliminate the minimum wage....the dream of every Republican.

Bring back slavery!

Raise the minimum wage. Bring on state slavery! The dream of every Democrat looking for his next voter.

Yes, because people being able to live properly is bad for everyone.

We must keep a group of people in perpetual misery to profit properly.

Ah, so you've discovered the Democratic playbook. Yes, make people dependent on the gov't and they will vote for you.
 
eliminate minimum wage and MAYBE 3 million immediately employed!


Not one of whom will pay any FICA taxes, most of whom will ALSO be eligible for TAX GAINS for filing their taxes that are greater than any taxes they paid on their labors.






 
So which is better..
Having maybe 3 million or more employed people paying Medicare/SS or
3 million people receiving $250/week in unemployment benefits?

By eliminating minimum wage
In 2010 Among those paid by the hour, 1.8 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.5 million had wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 4.4 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 6.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 25 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 4 percent of workers age 25 and over. (See table 1 and table 7.)

Now there are 27.1 million teenagers from 15 to 19 that are unemployed!

Easily 3 million or more jobs would be open if the minimum wage was competitively based.. i.e would you work for $1/hour.. $3/hour???
Let the market set the wages...

All of a sudden businesses especially minimum wages could lower THEIR prices and economy begins to grow and those out of work.. paying in!

Which is better then paying OUT or 3 million more paying in???

more baseless trash from the shill...

no one lowers their prices. they just take more profit.

and i suppose what you're supporting might work if you want to live in a banana republic.

although if someone wanted to hire you, they might be well within their rights to think you're only worth $3 an hour.
 
So which is better..
Having maybe 3 million or more employed people paying Medicare/SS or
3 million people receiving $250/week in unemployment benefits?

By eliminating minimum wage
In 2010 Among those paid by the hour, 1.8 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.5 million had wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 4.4 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 6.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 25 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 4 percent of workers age 25 and over. (See table 1 and table 7.)

Now there are 27.1 million teenagers from 15 to 19 that are unemployed!

Easily 3 million or more jobs would be open if the minimum wage was competitively based.. i.e would you work for $1/hour.. $3/hour???
Let the market set the wages...

All of a sudden businesses especially minimum wages could lower THEIR prices and economy begins to grow and those out of work.. paying in!

Which is better then paying OUT or 3 million more paying in???

more baseless trash from the shill...

no one lowers their prices. they just take more profit.

and i suppose what you're supporting might work if you want to live in a banana republic.

although if someone wanted to hire you, they might be well within their rights to think you're only worth $3 an hour.

$3/hr? They cannot hire 12 yr olds :)
 
So which is better..
Having maybe 3 million or more employed people paying Medicare/SS or
3 million people receiving $250/week in unemployment benefits?

By eliminating minimum wage
In 2010 Among those paid by the hour, 1.8 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.5 million had wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 4.4 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 6.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 25 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 4 percent of workers age 25 and over. (See table 1 and table 7.)

Now there are 27.1 million teenagers from 15 to 19 that are unemployed!

Easily 3 million or more jobs would be open if the minimum wage was competitively based.. i.e would you work for $1/hour.. $3/hour???
Let the market set the wages...

All of a sudden businesses especially minimum wages could lower THEIR prices and economy begins to grow and those out of work.. paying in!

Which is better then paying OUT or 3 million more paying in???

more baseless trash from the shill...

no one lowers their prices. they just take more profit.

and i suppose what you're supporting might work if you want to live in a banana republic.

although if someone wanted to hire you, they might be well within their rights to think you're only worth $3 an hour.

$3/hr? They cannot hire 12 yr olds :)

well, there are a lot of work rules around that. and he'd need a guardian's consent.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top