Obama wants to raise the minimum wage when we're on the verge of a second recession?

[OohPooPahDoo]

The unintelligent who can't predict potential consequences past step 1 would think that. The rest of us are slightly more intelligent.

So intelligent that you don't even have to present any argument or justify your position in anyway except to call everyone else stupid?

Wow - that's REALLY intelligent.

It's not my job to do your thinking for you.

I didn't ask you to.

All of you idiots say the same thing. 'If I were a business owner, I'd make sure all my employees made at least enough to live on.'

But I didn't say that. Are you talking to me?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well, beyond the entire Keynesian premise? I suppose not. In any case, I don't think it's properly the job of government to sponsor consumer spending.

Who said anything about the role of government? I said more money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending. Are you saying more money in the hands of the working poor means less consumer spending?

No. I'm saying promoting consumer spending isn't justification for state policy. I want a government focused on protecting our freedom and security, not manipulating the economy.

So more money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending?

 

[dblack]

Who said anything about the role of government? I said more money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending. Are you saying more money in the hands of the working poor means less consumer spending?

No. I'm saying promoting consumer spending isn't justification for state policy. I want a government focused on protecting our freedom and security, not manipulating the economy.

So more money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending?

Yeah. I was never disputing that. I don't understand why you keep repeating yourself. Are you just deliberately being a jackass??

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No. I'm saying promoting consumer spending isn't justification for state policy. I want a government focused on protecting our freedom and security, not manipulating the economy.

So more money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending?

Yeah. I was never disputing that

So then what are we arguing about?

 

[dblack]

So more money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending?

Yeah. I was never disputing that

So then what are we arguing about?

Okay... on the outside chance you're not just "playing" dumb, I'll recap. You claimed that "more money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending". I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing whether that is a good thing or not - in particular whether that's justification for intrusive government policies like minimum wage laws.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yeah. I was never disputing that

So then what are we arguing about?

Okay... on the outside chance you're not just "playing" dumb, I'll recap. You claimed that "more money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending". I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing whether that is a good thing or not - in particular whether that's justification for intrusive government policies like minimum wage laws.

You're claiming that more consumer spending in a slow economy is not good?

 

[dblack]

So then what are we arguing about?

Okay... on the outside chance you're not just "playing" dumb, I'll recap. You claimed that "more money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending". I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing whether that is a good thing or not - in particular whether that's justification for intrusive government policies like minimum wage laws.

You're claiming that more consumer spending in a slow economy is not good?

Not necessarily, no. But that's not my point. My point is that it's very dangerous to have a government that tries to 'run' the economy. Government should be the referee - not the coach.

 

[Bern80]

all the studies show small raises in the minimum wage to not adversely effect unemployment

Taking all unemployment into account, probably not. But when you start looking at employment rates in jobs that pay minimum wage, because that's really what we're talking about, it's a different story. That unemployment most definately goes up. So while you're increasing the pay of some, you're also increasing unemployment in the group of people your claiming to want to help.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Okay... on the outside chance you're not just "playing" dumb, I'll recap. You claimed that "more money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending". I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing whether that is a good thing or not - in particular whether that's justification for intrusive government policies like minimum wage laws.

You're claiming that more consumer spending in a slow economy is not good?

Not necessarily, no.

So it can be bad for consumer spending to pick up in a slow economy? How?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

all the studies show small raises in the minimum wage to not adversely effect unemployment

Taking all unemployment into account, probably not. But when you start looking at employment rates in jobs that pay minimum wage, because that's really what we're talking about, it's a different story. That unemployment most definately goes up. So while you're increasing the pay of some, you're also increasing unemployment in the group of people your claiming to want to help.

If it exists its only a short term effect. Obviously. The minimum wage has been raised many times in history, by your logic there shouldn't be any minimum wage paying jobs left.

 

[Bern80]

So intelligent that you don't even have to present any argument or justify your position in anyway except to call everyone else stupid?

Wow - that's REALLY intelligent.

It's not my job to do your thinking for you.

I didn't ask you to.

All of you idiots say the same thing. 'If I were a business owner, I'd make sure all my employees made at least enough to live on.'

But I didn't say that. Are you talking to me?

Yes I'm talking to you. I asked you a question. The one part of the post you mysteriously cut out. Wonder why......

 

[Bern80]

all the studies show small raises in the minimum wage to not adversely effect unemployment

Taking all unemployment into account, probably not. But when you start looking at employment rates in jobs that pay minimum wage, because that's really what we're talking about, it's a different story. That unemployment most definately goes up. So while you're increasing the pay of some, you're also increasing unemployment in the group of people your claiming to want to help.

If it exists its only a short term effect. Obviously. The minimum wage has been raised many times in history, by your logic there shouldn't be any minimum wage paying jobs left.

There's is nothing about my logic that says that.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Taking all unemployment into account, probably not. But when you start looking at employment rates in jobs that pay minimum wage, because that's really what we're talking about, it's a different story. That unemployment most definately goes up. So while you're increasing the pay of some, you're also increasing unemployment in the group of people your claiming to want to help.

If it exists its only a short term effect. Obviously. The minimum wage has been raised many times in history, by your logic there shouldn't be any minimum wage paying jobs left.

There's is nothing about my logic that says that.

There would eventually be zero minimum wage jobs if minimum wage increases caused less minimum wage jobs to be available.

 

[dblack]

You're claiming that more consumer spending in a slow economy is not good?

Not necessarily, no.

So it can be bad for consumer spending to pick up in a slow economy? How?

It doesn't matter. As I said. Anyway, it's becoming clear you're just being a goofball and not interested in genuine discussion.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Not necessarily, no.

So it can be bad for consumer spending to pick up in a slow economy? How?

It doesn't matter. As I said. Anyway, it's becoming clear you're just being a goofball and not interested in genuine discussion.

It doesn't matter whether or not the economy picks up?

 

[Dubya]

I look at life like this. If I go somewhere and do anything necessary for my existence, I should pay the people involved enough money for their existence. Think of all the things a person spends their money on and all the jobs necessary for that product to exist and someone to sell it to you. To me, all those people are necessary and if I have to pay more for that product, instead of lord over another human being, I choose to pay more. I want the person who rings a product up on a cash register to earn a living wage and not be eligible for social programs to subsidize a business paying someone substandard wages. A business that isn't paying it's employees enough to live isn't doing it's job and is being subsidized by the government. Our society also has it's working poor and they shouldn't have to get two or three jobs and work 3,500 hours per year to make a living without government assistance. If we need them to do a job, we should properly pay them and treat them with respect.

Then you're looking at it wrong. Simple as that. No entrepreneur went in to business for themselves with their only goal being to earn enough to get by. Successful entrepreneurs aren't know for their inefficiency and going into business just to get by is pretty damn inefficient. You have clearly never operated a business of your own. Do you even realize how unfair it would be to your own workers to compensate them the way you are proposing?

I'm not a fool who doesn't know the difference between micro and macro economics. It's really this simple, if you are capable of thinking. Our market is only whatever size it is at a given time in history. When the populace loses purchasing power over time, it shrinks the market that entrepreneurs depend on. It should be obvious that many people work hard for a living and still don't get enough money to have decent lives. That means they can't do things like go to the ball park, go to the movies or simply live in ways that would bring down the prices of such activities. Why wouldn't it be nice if someone could paint and have a market for their paintings? How is keeping people poor benefiting me? Am I suppose to lord over my fellow citizens because I was lucky enough to earn money when the minimum wage was the highest and say **** you, I've got mine?

Take any business that hires minimum wage people! How much extra is it really going to cost a person to pay those people enough to live when they buy the products or services? Isn't someone paying for it, if they are allowed to collect substandard wages for their work and need social programs to make up the difference? Is it going to break anyone's bank if a buck double becomes a buck and a half double? It can't, because giving more money to the workers, who are now historically low in their purchasing power will create more business. If doing so causes manageable inflation, so what? A business has inventory that is valued at the price of cheaper labor, before the increase. If the price of labor increases, the amount of profit the business makes off of their inventory from the past increases with it. Increases in minimum wage can be and usually are scaled up over a period of time to not shock the economic system. Minimum wage should be scaled up to the point where 2000 hours per year is at the poverty level and should be adjusted so the cost of living keeps it constant. That should be the minimum standard for wages and it may be smarter to be above that standard, but it's stupid to be below that standard.

 

[Bern80]

If it exists its only a short term effect. Obviously. The minimum wage has been raised many times in history, by your logic there shouldn't be any minimum wage paying jobs left.

There's is nothing about my logic that says that.

There would eventually be zero minimum wage jobs if minimum wage increases caused less minimum wage jobs to be available.

And you think it already should have happened? What evidence do you have for that? There's also the minor detail there's always going to the smallest figure that an employer can be paid regardless of whether it goes up thus there's no way to ever be rid of it.

 

[Bern80]

I'm not a fool who doesn't know the difference between micro and macro economics. It's really this simple, if you are capable of thinking. Our market is only whatever size it is at a given time in history. When the populace loses purchasing power over time, it shrinks the market that entrepreneurs depend on. It should be obvious that many people work hard for a living and still don't get enough money to have decent lives. That means they can't do things like go to the ball park, go to the movies or simply live in ways that would bring down the prices of such activities. Why wouldn't it be nice if someone could paint and have a market for their paintings? How is keeping people poor benefiting me? Am I suppose to lord over my fellow citizens because I was lucky enough to earn money when the minimum wage was the highest and say **** you, I've got mine?

No one arguing that that wouldn't be nice or that our economy requires a population of people with certain level of purchasing power. What is being argued is who is supposed to be responsible for assuring they have that purchasing power. You contend someone else is supposed to ensure that for you. I contend that is your responsibility. Just because you choose to do something like under water basket weaving, doesn't mean there's going to be demand for it and it doesn't mean your entitled to money even if no body wants your crap. The growing entitlement mentality in this country has to stop. On some level you seem to claim that you want our society to be better. Simply giving people more money isn't going to make it better. It will make it worse because your subconciously teaching people providing for their own needs is not their responsibility. It's someone elses. Teaching people that they are entitled to at least enough to live on regardless of any effort on their own part doesn't make society better.

Take any business that hires minimum wage people! How much extra is it really going to cost a person to pay those people enough to live when they buy the products or services? Isn't someone paying for it, if they are allowed to collect substandard wages for their work and need social programs to make up the difference? Is it going to break anyone's bank if a buck double becomes a buck and a half double? It can't, because giving more money to the workers, who are now historically low in their purchasing power will create more business. If doing so causes manageable inflation, so what? A business has inventory that is valued at the price of cheaper labor, before the increase. If the price of labor increases, the amount of profit the business makes off of their inventory from the past increases with it. Increases in minimum wage can be and usually are scaled up over a period of time to not shock the economic system. Minimum wage should be scaled up to the point where 2000 hours per year is at the poverty level and should be adjusted so the cost of living keeps it constant. That should be the minimum standard for wages and it may be smarter to be above that standard, but it's stupid to be below that standard.

That simply isn't true. Wage increases don't occur in a vacuum. I gave the example of the North Dakota oil boom earlier. The state has almost no unemployment. You can get a job at McDonald starting at $11-$12/hr. well above what that pays anywhere else. But you know what? A Big Mac costs more there too.

This is why 'everyone should get to make at least enough to live on' doesn't work. When wages go up, cost of living goes up. You along with the rest of the libs to get that an economy can't function that way. It can not be the responsibility of an employer to ensure that you have enough to live on. Labor is a commodity. Like gas, like food, like cars, etc. The market establishes labors value through supply and demand for skills just like all other commodities. If you change that paradigm to the value of labor being derived from what a person needs to live on you set up a system where people don't need to be accountable to themselves for their outcomes. That doesn't do a society any favors when you teach people that. It also sets up unfairness in the work place. It would require that two employees possibly get paid entirely differently even though they do the same job. Not everyone's dollar figure for what is enough to live is going to be the same you know. It would take away merit incentives for doing your job well and going above and beyond as well. If my pay is based on what I need to live on and not the value of my skill or how well a perform that skill what's the point of working hard. Again your simply sending society the signal that someone else is responsible for their outcomes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

More money in the hands of the working poor means more consumer spending.

Well hell, let's get them printing presses rolling. Paper is a renewable resource, after all!

Is anything I said false?

Better question, is anything you said defensible based on economics?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

all the studies show small raises in the minimum wage to not adversely effect unemployment

No they do not.

Raising the Minimum Wage Leads to Higher Unemployment: Amity Shlaes | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance