Optimum Minimum Wages can be calculated

[Spycraft]

To end any debate on what the minimum wage should be, first we must agree that we can optimize a minimum wage, meaning that the minimum wage will increase employment and economic consumption in the same way that a starving person once re-hydrated and re-fed can finally heal and get out of bed.

The US economy is retarded by too-low (artificially low) minimum wages, where the wage is artificially depressed by illegal immigration but allowed by law which allows lower than optimal wages.

http://www.princeton.edu/~davidlee/wp/lee-saez11optminwage_jpubeR2.pdf

 

[Barton]

There is only one way to correct wages.

Tell women to get back in the homes where they belong.

And that is no slight on women at all. they belong in the home because they are well suited to running a home and or raising children. Being at home certainly does not devalue their contributions to society, in fact it actually increases their value.

Just on the economic side of things, what is the first thing employees would have to do if half the existing labor force suddenly wasn't competing for jobs? Well, it's obvious. They would have to increase wages in order to attract employees.

Of course certain industries are better suited for women then men, teaching, porn, that sorta thing, but in general women have hurt both themselves and society by insisting that they can do anything men can do.

They can't, and men can't do anything a woman can do either.

 

[Spycraft]

There is only one way to correct wages.

Tell women to get back in the homes where they belong.

And that is no slight on women at all. they belong in the home because they are well suited to running a home and or raising children. Being at home certainly does not devalue their contributions to society, in fact it actually increases their value.

Just on the economic side of things, what is the first thing employees would have to do if half the existing labor force suddenly wasn't competing for jobs? Well, it's obvious. They would have to increase wages in order to attract employees.

Of course certain industries are better suited for women then men, teaching, porn, that sorta thing, but in general women have hurt both themselves and society by insisting that they can do anything men can do.

They can't, and men can't do anything a woman can do either.

That will simply reduce the wage rates, but since men refuse to stay with their wives and children, how are women supposed to provide for their families?

Say nothing of the immorality of deciding that women can't have the same quality of life as a man, finding work at their leisure to do so.

Although you happened upon (accidentally) this exact phenomenon which happened in Victorian England.

Women used to work, Men politically deprived women the right to work, and Victorian England was born.

The impetus was declining wages among politically powerful male electorate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The optimum is $0 per hour.

 

[Montrovant]

There is only one way to correct wages.

Tell women to get back in the homes where they belong.

And that is no slight on women at all. they belong in the home because they are well suited to running a home and or raising children. Being at home certainly does not devalue their contributions to society, in fact it actually increases their value.

Just on the economic side of things, what is the first thing employees would have to do if half the existing labor force suddenly wasn't competing for jobs? Well, it's obvious. They would have to increase wages in order to attract employees.

Of course certain industries are better suited for women then men, teaching, porn, that sorta thing, but in general women have hurt both themselves and society by insisting that they can do anything men can do.

They can't, and men can't do anything a woman can do either.

Do you think that is really a viable alternative at this point? I think the cat is pretty much out of the bag as far as women working goes.

 

[Barton]

There is only one way to correct wages.

Tell women to get back in the homes where they belong.

And that is no slight on women at all. they belong in the home because they are well suited to running a home and or raising children. Being at home certainly does not devalue their contributions to society, in fact it actually increases their value.

Just on the economic side of things, what is the first thing employees would have to do if half the existing labor force suddenly wasn't competing for jobs? Well, it's obvious. They would have to increase wages in order to attract employees.

Of course certain industries are better suited for women then men, teaching, porn, that sorta thing, but in general women have hurt both themselves and society by insisting that they can do anything men can do.

They can't, and men can't do anything a woman can do either.

That will simply reduce the wage rates, but since men refuse to stay with their wives and children, how are women supposed to provide for their families?

Say nothing of the immorality of deciding that women can't have the same quality of life as a man, finding work at their leisure to do so.

Although you happened upon (accidentally) this exact phenomenon which happened in Victorian England.

Women used to work, Men politically deprived women the right to work, and Victorian England was born.

The impetus was declining wages among politically powerful male electorate.

Oh, you misunderstand if you think I would FORCE anyone out of the workplace by rule of law. Publicly shaming them to do so would suffice.

And yes, I also support publicly shaming men who abandon their familiar responsibilities.

 

[Spycraft]

The optimum is $0 per hour.

No it's not.

 

[Spycraft]

There is only one way to correct wages.

Tell women to get back in the homes where they belong.

And that is no slight on women at all. they belong in the home because they are well suited to running a home and or raising children. Being at home certainly does not devalue their contributions to society, in fact it actually increases their value.

Just on the economic side of things, what is the first thing employees would have to do if half the existing labor force suddenly wasn't competing for jobs? Well, it's obvious. They would have to increase wages in order to attract employees.

Of course certain industries are better suited for women then men, teaching, porn, that sorta thing, but in general women have hurt both themselves and society by insisting that they can do anything men can do.

They can't, and men can't do anything a woman can do either.

That will simply reduce the wage rates, but since men refuse to stay with their wives and children, how are women supposed to provide for their families?

Say nothing of the immorality of deciding that women can't have the same quality of life as a man, finding work at their leisure to do so.

Although you happened upon (accidentally) this exact phenomenon which happened in Victorian England.

Women used to work, Men politically deprived women the right to work, and Victorian England was born.

The impetus was declining wages among politically powerful male electorate.

Oh, you misunderstand if you think I would FORCE anyone out of the workplace by rule of law. Publicly shaming them to do so would suffice.

And yes, I also support publicly shaming men who abandon their familiar responsibilities.

Paul (of the Bible) mentions that we are to "admonish", we should find ways to encourage not to punish people into cooperating with what seems like common sense.

 

[Barton]

There is only one way to correct wages.

Tell women to get back in the homes where they belong.

And that is no slight on women at all. they belong in the home because they are well suited to running a home and or raising children. Being at home certainly does not devalue their contributions to society, in fact it actually increases their value.

Just on the economic side of things, what is the first thing employees would have to do if half the existing labor force suddenly wasn't competing for jobs? Well, it's obvious. They would have to increase wages in order to attract employees.

Of course certain industries are better suited for women then men, teaching, porn, that sorta thing, but in general women have hurt both themselves and society by insisting that they can do anything men can do.

They can't, and men can't do anything a woman can do either.

Do you think that is really a viable alternative at this point? I think the cat is pretty much out of the bag as far as women working goes.

Certainly not. This is one of the issues that I'm afraid our own stupidity as a people has already cost us any chance at repair.

 

[Montrovant]

There is only one way to correct wages.

Tell women to get back in the homes where they belong.

And that is no slight on women at all. they belong in the home because they are well suited to running a home and or raising children. Being at home certainly does not devalue their contributions to society, in fact it actually increases their value.

Just on the economic side of things, what is the first thing employees would have to do if half the existing labor force suddenly wasn't competing for jobs? Well, it's obvious. They would have to increase wages in order to attract employees.

Of course certain industries are better suited for women then men, teaching, porn, that sorta thing, but in general women have hurt both themselves and society by insisting that they can do anything men can do.

They can't, and men can't do anything a woman can do either.

Do you think that is really a viable alternative at this point? I think the cat is pretty much out of the bag as far as women working goes.

Certainly not. This is one of the issues that I'm afraid our own stupidity as a people has already cost us any chance at repair.

I don't think it was stupidity, but I think that women joining the workforce in large numbers had unintended consequences. I think it was inevitable, however, given the way technology has changed work and employment over time.

 

[task0778]

I do not understand how anyone who knows anything about economics cannot realize what happens when you place arbitrary gov't controls over wages. Most of those m-wage jobs are in small businesses that do not have much of a profit margin to begin with, with the result that employers will find ways to cost labor costs somehow. Maybe they cut the hours worked, maybe they cut the number of employees, maybe they cut the benefits, maybe they automate, and maybe they just say fuck it and close the business. None of which is not a positive for many of those people who think raising the m-wage is going to help. Some people yes, other people not so much and I think the numbers of the latter exceeds the former.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is only one way to correct wages.

Tell women to get back in the homes where they belong.

And that is no slight on women at all. they belong in the home because they are well suited to running a home and or raising children. Being at home certainly does not devalue their contributions to society, in fact it actually increases their value.

Just on the economic side of things, what is the first thing employees would have to do if half the existing labor force suddenly wasn't competing for jobs? Well, it's obvious. They would have to increase wages in order to attract employees.

Of course certain industries are better suited for women then men, teaching, porn, that sorta thing, but in general women have hurt both themselves and society by insisting that they can do anything men can do.

They can't, and men can't do anything a woman can do either.

Do you think that is really a viable alternative at this point? I think the cat is pretty much out of the bag as far as women working goes.

50 million women now working here is not a economic problem any more than a billion Chinese working in their economy is a problem.

 

[Montrovant]

There is only one way to correct wages.

Tell women to get back in the homes where they belong.

And that is no slight on women at all. they belong in the home because they are well suited to running a home and or raising children. Being at home certainly does not devalue their contributions to society, in fact it actually increases their value.

Just on the economic side of things, what is the first thing employees would have to do if half the existing labor force suddenly wasn't competing for jobs? Well, it's obvious. They would have to increase wages in order to attract employees.

Of course certain industries are better suited for women then men, teaching, porn, that sorta thing, but in general women have hurt both themselves and society by insisting that they can do anything men can do.

They can't, and men can't do anything a woman can do either.

Do you think that is really a viable alternative at this point? I think the cat is pretty much out of the bag as far as women working goes.

50 million women now working here is not a economic problem any more than a billion Chinese working in their economy is a problem.

Whether or not it constitutes a problem, it does make for a different economic dynamic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The optimum is $0 per hour.

No it's not.

Anything higher than that tends to price new and unskilled workers out of the job market.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Whether or not it constitutes a problem, it does make for a different economic dynamic.

so????

 

[Montrovant]

Whether or not it constitutes a problem, it does make for a different economic dynamic.

so????

So while women working in large numbers may not be a problem (and I don't consider it one), it is something to take into account when comparing the economies and economic policies of different time periods. So while I may disagree that having women go back to staying at home is a solution to current economic/wage issues, I acknowledge that having a smaller pool of total potential workers might make it more likely for wages to raise with inflation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, I acknowledge that having a smaller pool of total potential workers might make it more likely for wages to raise with inflation.

subject is immigrants and wage level, not wages and inflation.
Ship 30 million illegals home and wages will go up, as will prices. as population grows from 300 million to 600 million it should have no effect on wages in well managed economy .

 

[Barton]

There is only one way to correct wages.

Tell women to get back in the homes where they belong.

And that is no slight on women at all. they belong in the home because they are well suited to running a home and or raising children. Being at home certainly does not devalue their contributions to society, in fact it actually increases their value.

Just on the economic side of things, what is the first thing employees would have to do if half the existing labor force suddenly wasn't competing for jobs? Well, it's obvious. They would have to increase wages in order to attract employees.

Of course certain industries are better suited for women then men, teaching, porn, that sorta thing, but in general women have hurt both themselves and society by insisting that they can do anything men can do.

They can't, and men can't do anything a woman can do either.

Do you think that is really a viable alternative at this point? I think the cat is pretty much out of the bag as far as women working goes.

50 million women now working here is not a economic problem any more than a billion Chinese working in their economy is a problem.

What are you talking about? OF COURSE women in the work place has created a myriad of problems, from an overabundance of labor to keylatch children to everything in between.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

To end any debate on what the minimum wage should be, first we must agree that we can optimize a minimum wage, meaning that the minimum wage will increase employment and economic consumption in the same way that a starving person once re-hydrated and re-fed can finally heal and get out of bed.

The US economy is retarded by too-low (artificially low) minimum wages, where the wage is artificially depressed by illegal immigration but allowed by law which allows lower than optimal wages.

http://www.princeton.edu/~davidlee/wp/lee-saez11optminwage_jpubeR2.pdf

Really dude! Your link is to a 34 page research paper, so my guess is nobody will read it. That said, my basic premis is that in a competitive labor market, there is no need for a minimum wage. If people are immigrating here because they make more money and raise their standard of living, and thus are depressing entry level wages, then you can control immigration to protect entry level wage earners. But it will raise cost to consumers, it has to.

The reality is that a very small number of people earn minimum wage, and most are young and single. The wages being depressed by illegals are not the minimum wage, it is the painters, drywallers et al, semi skilled tradesmen, so to speak.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

There is only one way to correct wages.

Tell women to get back in the homes where they belong.

And that is no slight on women at all. they belong in the home because they are well suited to running a home and or raising children. Being at home certainly does not devalue their contributions to society, in fact it actually increases their value.

Just on the economic side of things, what is the first thing employees would have to do if half the existing labor force suddenly wasn't competing for jobs? Well, it's obvious. They would have to increase wages in order to attract employees.

Of course certain industries are better suited for women then men, teaching, porn, that sorta thing, but in general women have hurt both themselves and society by insisting that they can do anything men can do.

They can't, and men can't do anything a woman can do either.

That will simply reduce the wage rates, but since men refuse to stay with their wives and children, how are women supposed to provide for their families?

Say nothing of the immorality of deciding that women can't have the same quality of life as a man, finding work at their leisure to do so.

Although you happened upon (accidentally) this exact phenomenon which happened in Victorian England.

Women used to work, Men politically deprived women the right to work, and Victorian England was born.

The impetus was declining wages among politically powerful male electorate.

Oh, you misunderstand if you think I would FORCE anyone out of the workplace by rule of law. Publicly shaming them to do so would suffice.

And yes, I also support publicly shaming men who abandon their familiar responsibilities.

Public shaming is only effective for people with shame. Most men leaving their families have no shame.