Optimum Minimum Wages can be calculated

[Supposn]

That's the biggest crock of poop yet, once again where I live in south Carolina no factory pays minimum wage, it's way above it... look on the job boards and research it..the factory in the USA that pay close to their states minimum wage are the ones who raised it above national..​

Bear513, the federal minimum wage rate supports all USA's wage scales, including wage scales of South Carolina's factories.​

[QUOTE="Supposn, post: 20071369, member: 20145" ... Due to the “wage differentiation” concept, USA wages scales are based upon the reasonably effectively enforced minimum wage rate. When we permit the purchasing power of the minimum rate to be reduced, it induces the purchasing powers of all other USA wage scales to be reduced. ... [/QUOTE]

 

[Andylusion]

As opposed to not having a job at all?

Further, that isn't even entirely true. The market adjusts to demand. During the 2008 crash, the price of automobiles drastically fell. In fact, prices across the entire country fell.

Regardless, if you have a job that is low-value, say that is only worth $5/hour.... You can claim that people with that job have a low purchasing power.... but the fact is, if the minimum wage is $6/hour, then that job doesn't exist. If the job doesn't exist, then the purchasing power of the people not employed is ZERO.

So which purchasing power is lower? Zero, or $5/hour?

AndyLusion, you don't appreciate our recent history. During the 1930's depression, a quarter of our nation was unemployed. Public assistance is not just for altruistic policy. There a public cost due to a nation's aggregate occurrences of private poverty and that cost severally increases if government fails to reduce the numbers and extents of such incidences.

Due to the “wage differentiation” concept, USA wages scales are based upon the reasonably effectively enforced minimum wage rate. When we permit the purchasing power of the minimum rate to be reduced, it induces the purchasing powers of all other USA wage scales to be reduced. If there's no reasonably enforced definite minimum wage rate, there's a market-determined, indefinite theoretical minimum rate. The indefinite minimum subject to market forces will continue to spiral down and force all other wage scales to follow it. Poverty will continually increase.

The short answer to your question, it is economically preferable to provide public assistance, rather than to permit the purchasing power of the minimum wage rate to be reduced. Eliminating the federal minimum wage rate will increase poverty in the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn

But see, you are not asking the question 'why'? Why were almost 1/4 the population unemployed?

Basic economic supply and demand theory, says that if you have a massive number of unemployed, that the price of labor will fall, resulting in it become economical to employ someone.

The reason most people don't pay a lawn company to mow their lawns, is because $75 a mow isn't worth the cost, when they can mow it themselves for a fraction of the cost. If the cost per mow was $10, do you think more people would hire someone to mow their lawn?

The answer is, of course. Same is true of everything. If the price of a BMW was $5,000, people would buy a heck of a lot more of them.

Similarly, if the price of labor falls in general, then employers hire more people. Why didn't more people get hired in the 1930s depression?

And the answer is.... government. Government under Hoover, and later under FDR, compelled business to maintain wages. Because wages didn't fall.... people didn't get hired.

Equally, government drastically increased taxes, in order to pay for all those government assistance programs. But every dollar taken out of the economy, is one dollar less used to create employment.

In essence, your entire argument boils down to..... we need government to provide us with help, from the problems that government itself caused. And in fact, that help itself, is the very cause of problems.

Which is, by the way, exactly what government wants you to think. Because the more they cause problems, and make you believe they are the solution.... the more you need them. And the more government is needed, the more control they have over your life. Why do you think so many people on government programs, are left-wing? Because they are following the script given to them by government. It's all exactly how government intended it to be. A public blindly following the politicians for their handouts and goodies.

 

[Supposn]

But see, you are not asking the question 'why'? Why were almost 1/4 the population unemployed?

Basic economic supply and demand theory, says that if you have a massive number of unemployed, that the price of labor will fall, resulting in it become economical to employ someone.

The reason most people don't pay a lawn company to mow their lawns, is because $75 a mow isn't worth the cost, when they can mow it themselves for a fraction of the cost. If the cost per mow was $10, do you think more people would hire someone to mow their lawn?

The answer is, of course. Same is true of everything. If the price of a BMW was $5,000, people would buy a heck of a lot more of them.

Similarly, if the price of labor falls in general, then employers hire more people. Why didn't more people get hired in the 1930s depression?

And the answer is.... government. Government under Hoover, and later under FDR, compelled business to maintain wages. Because wages didn't fall.... people didn't get hired.

Equally, government drastically increased taxes, in order to pay for all those government assistance programs. But every dollar taken out of the economy, is one dollar less used to create employment.

In essence, your entire argument boils down to..... we need government to provide us with help, from the problems that government itself caused. And in fact, that help itself, is the very cause of problems.

Which is, by the way, exactly what government wants you to think. Because the more they cause problems, and make you believe they are the solution.... the more you need them. And the more government is needed, the more control they have over your life. Why do you think so many people on government programs, are left-wing? Because they are following the script given to them by government. It's all exactly how government intended it to be. A public blindly following the politicians for their handouts and goodies. ...
... Similarly, if the price of labor falls in general, didn't more people get hired in the 1930s depression?

Andylusion, I regret responding to you in this manner but there's really no more appropriate response to your comments other than they're B.S.

Granted that Hoover inherited the Coolidge economy that was based upon the libertarian/anarchy concept of absolute minimum or no government oversight or regulation. (You can ride your horse, shoot your gun, or do anything else that you please, anywhere that you please, the guy backed by the biggest and most guns is the winner, government's the problem rather than the solution).

The stock market crash occurred near the end of Hoover's first year in office. He continued to accept advice that proclaimed as you posted, supply and demand, unregulated completely free enterprise would fix the problem (which was created by the same policies). It didn't get better during Hoover's three remaining years in office.

Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt didn't have the power, and the congresses during their administrations didn't try to compel businesses to maintain the same wage scales from before the crash. Your stating otherwise is historically incorrect. Wage rates certainly were not retained.

Wages didn't just fall, they plunged deep down. Despite those extreme wage decreases, businesses continued to go bankrupt while the remaining enterprises cut their numbers of jobs in the hope that they might survive; most didn't survive.

The economy prior to the crash was based upon the same policies that you're proposing we should re-enact. The economy didn't start improving until Roosevelt's administration began enacting the social welfare regulations you're so contemptuous of.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Andylusion]

But see, you are not asking the question 'why'? Why were almost 1/4 the population unemployed?

Basic economic supply and demand theory, says that if you have a massive number of unemployed, that the price of labor will fall, resulting in it become economical to employ someone.

The reason most people don't pay a lawn company to mow their lawns, is because $75 a mow isn't worth the cost, when they can mow it themselves for a fraction of the cost. If the cost per mow was $10, do you think more people would hire someone to mow their lawn?

The answer is, of course. Same is true of everything. If the price of a BMW was $5,000, people would buy a heck of a lot more of them.

Similarly, if the price of labor falls in general, then employers hire more people. Why didn't more people get hired in the 1930s depression?

And the answer is.... government. Government under Hoover, and later under FDR, compelled business to maintain wages. Because wages didn't fall.... people didn't get hired.

Equally, government drastically increased taxes, in order to pay for all those government assistance programs. But every dollar taken out of the economy, is one dollar less used to create employment.

In essence, your entire argument boils down to..... we need government to provide us with help, from the problems that government itself caused. And in fact, that help itself, is the very cause of problems.

Which is, by the way, exactly what government wants you to think. Because the more they cause problems, and make you believe they are the solution.... the more you need them. And the more government is needed, the more control they have over your life. Why do you think so many people on government programs, are left-wing? Because they are following the script given to them by government. It's all exactly how government intended it to be. A public blindly following the politicians for their handouts and goodies. ...
... Similarly, if the price of labor falls in general, didn't more people get hired in the 1930s depression?

Andylusion, I regret responding to you in this manner but there's really no more appropriate response to your comments other than they're B.S.

Granted that Hoover inherited the Coolidge economy that was based upon the libertarian/anarchy concept of absolute minimum or no government oversight or regulation. (You can ride your horse, shoot your gun, or do anything else that you please, anywhere that you please, the guy backed by the biggest and most guns is the winner, government's the problem rather than the solution).

The stock market crash occurred near the end of Hoover's first year in office. He continued to accept advice that proclaimed as you posted, supply and demand, unregulated completely free enterprise would fix the problem (which was created by the same policies). It didn't get better during Hoover's three remaining years in office.

Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt didn't have the power, and the congresses during their administrations didn't try to compel businesses to maintain the same wage scales from before the crash. Your stating otherwise is historically incorrect. Wage rates certainly were not retained.

Wages didn't just fall, they plunged deep down. Despite those extreme wage decreases, businesses continued to go bankrupt while the remaining enterprises cut their numbers of jobs in the hope that they might survive; most didn't survive.

The economy prior to the crash was based upon the same policies that you're proposing we should re-enact. The economy didn't start improving until Roosevelt's administration began enacting the social welfare regulations you're so contemptuous of.

Respectfully, Supposn

"These findings suggest that the recession was three times worse — at a minimum — than it would otherwise have been, because of Hoover," said Lee E. Ohanian, a UCLA professor of economics.

The policies, which included both propping up wages and encouraging job-sharing, also accounted for more than two-thirds of the precipitous decline in hours worked in the manufacturing sector, which was much harder hit initially than the agricultural sector, according to Ohanian.
​

Hoover's pro-labor stance helped cause Great Depression, UCLA economist says

No, actually it is not BS... it is actually documented, researched, and established fact.

Yes, Hoover did inherit Coolidge's economy based on libertarian principals. That is entirely true.

However, Hoover changed that. Hoover pushed for more government intervention and control, and he got it.

What's funny, is that in 1902 I believe, they pushed the minimum wage, specifically to drive Chinese immigrants out of jobs. There was no ambiguity to the purpose and effects of the minimum wage. They understood people with lower skills who produce less value, could be employed at a lower wage, but a minimum wage would prevent that. Having a minimum wage, doesn't make the value of your labor higher, it just places you out of the market.

So they wanted a minimum wage, specifically to keep out lower-skilled immigrants. They were not under the illusion that it will magically increase their purchasing power, because they would be unemployed.

Similarly, by the way, I watched a news article by sky news, where they were interviewing labor union people in Norway. This guy was actually honest about his purpose, in supporting the minimum wage. The report goes "so you want to raise the wages of everyone?" The Union guy replied "No, the immigrants will be unemployed, so we can protect our jobs".

Again, no illusion that raising the minimum wage results in everyone just getting more money. He understood perfectly that people with low skills, that do not produce enough value to justify a higher wage, will simply be unemployed.

This is widely known, established economic fact. I don't know where you are getting your ideology from.

 

[Supposn]

... What's funny, is that in 1902 I believe, they pushed the minimum wage, specifically to drive Chinese immigrants out of jobs. There was no ambiguity to the purpose and effects of the minimum wage. They understood people with lower skills who produce less value, could be employed at a lower wage, but a minimum wage would prevent that. Having a minimum wage, doesn't make the value of your labor higher, it just places you out of the market ...

Andylusion, this thread's title and topic is in regard to the minimum wage's rate. Federal minimum wage laws themselves are economically, socially, and entirely justified. Much of the opposition to the concept is actually driven by opposers' social needs, rather than for economic reasons.
Refer to the thread, www.usmessageboard.com/threads/minimum-wage-is-a-character-issue.689714/ .

The federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate has never been among the major causes of the U.S. dollar’s inflation; on the contrary, it’s certainly among inflation's victims. No employees are poorer and no enterprises suffer any competitive disadvantage to any other USA enterprises due to the minimum rate.
(Regarding international trade, refer to Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article).

The minimum rate affects upon jobs' wage scales are inverse to the differences between the minimum and the job's wage. The working-poor proportional to incomes are the greatest beneficiaries of the minimum rate. But due to the concept of wage differentials, the minimum rate to some extent bolsters ALL USA wage scales.

I don't doubt if the federal minimum rate laws were repealed, we'd have somewhat less unemployment, but all USA wages would be driven down. We'd experience little increase of our domestic production and a very great increase of our working-poor that will all be in need of public assistance to augment their sub-minimum wage rates; wages will plunge down, racing to the bottom.

In regard to your comments regarding the purpose and motivation for the federal minimum wage laws', the first acts weren't passed until 1938.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[dblack]

Much of the opposition to the concept is actually driven by opposers' social needs, rather than for economic reasons.
Refer to the thread, www.usmessageboard.com/threads/minimum-wage-is-a-character-issue.689714/

Everyone I know who opposes minimum wage opposes it because the concept is irrational and gives government unwarranted power over our economic decisions.

 

[Andylusion]

... What's funny, is that in 1902 I believe, they pushed the minimum wage, specifically to drive Chinese immigrants out of jobs. There was no ambiguity to the purpose and effects of the minimum wage. They understood people with lower skills who produce less value, could be employed at a lower wage, but a minimum wage would prevent that. Having a minimum wage, doesn't make the value of your labor higher, it just places you out of the market ...

Andylusion, this thread's title and topic is in regard to the minimum wage's rate. Federal minimum wage laws themselves are economically, socially, and entirely justified. Much of the opposition to the concept is actually driven by opposers' social needs, rather than for economic reasons.
Refer to the thread, www.usmessageboard.com/threads/minimum-wage-is-a-character-issue.689714/ .

The federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate has never been among the major causes of the U.S. dollar’s inflation; on the contrary, it’s certainly among inflation's victims. No employees are poorer and no enterprises suffer any competitive disadvantage to any other USA enterprises due to the minimum rate.
(Regarding international trade, refer to Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article).

The minimum rate affects upon jobs' wage scales are inverse to the differences between the minimum and the job's wage. The working-poor proportional to incomes are the greatest beneficiaries of the minimum rate. But due to the concept of wage differentials, the minimum rate to some extent bolsters ALL USA wage scales.

I don't doubt if the federal minimum rate laws were repealed, we'd have somewhat less unemployment, but all USA wages would be driven down. We'd experience little increase of our domestic production and a very great increase of our working-poor that will all be in need of public assistance to augment their sub-minimum wage rates; wages will plunge down, racing to the bottom.

In regard to your comments regarding the purpose and motivation for the federal minimum wage laws', the first acts weren't passed until 1938.

Respectfully, Supposn

And again, if that were true, why does it never turn out that way in reality?

Greece tried that, and the result was high unemployment.

We tried propping up wages in the Great Depression, and the result was 1/4 of the country unemployed.

We tried that in 2007-2009. Those were bumper years in US economic history, yes?

And by the way, who was most affected by the recession in 2008 and on? Was it the high income earners? Because the sub-prime melt down primarily affected banks. If the bank that I have my mortgage with, goes bust, does that affect me? No.

So logically the affect of the sub-prime crash, should have been the high income earners at banks.

But which group was most affected by the recession? Low income people. The people who should have been getting the massive benefit from the higher minimum wage.

If that isn't enough, consider when employment started to fall. 2010.... the first year the minimum wage stopped going up.

Interesting. So every year the minimum wage went up, unemployment went up. The first year the minimum wage stopped increasing, unemployment started to fall.

Hey that sounds familiar. Yes, the first year unemployment started to fall in Greece, was the year after they..... cut the minimum wage.

If everything you said was true, and there was no negative effect on employment, then why stop at $15/hour. Why not $40/hour? Or $100/hour?

Even the most pro-minimum wage economist admits that the minimum wage has a negative effect. They only question is, how much. Some say the benefits out weight the costs. Others say it does not.

But everyone I've read, agrees there is a negative effect. Again, you should have enough common sense to know this without a research paper.

If the cost of an oil change, was mandated by the government to be $100 a change, because there was a minimum wage on oil-changing people.... a ton more people would be changing their own oil at home.

 

[Supposn]

And again, if that were true, why does it never turn out that way in reality?

Greece tried that, and the result was high unemployment.

We tried propping up wages in the Great Depression, and the result was 1/4 of the country unemployed.

We tried that in 2007-2009. Those were bumper years in US economic history, yes? ...

Andylusion, “And again, if that, [WHAT?] were true, why does it, [WHAT'S “IT”?], never turn out that way in reality?”.

“Greece tried that, [ TRIED WHAT? They increased a minimum wage rate and they have a minimum wage law that's drafted similar to that of the USA?], and the result was high unemployment”.
I'm not familiar with Greece's laws and regulations. If we're going to discuss the Greek economy in particular, you'll have the explain everything to me, and then I'd still need time to confirm the facts you provide and consider your conclusions that you base upon those facts. It can be done, but do you really want us to go that route?

What laws or regulations are you referring to when you state “We tried propping up wages in the Great Depression”? The federal minimum wage wasn't passed until 1938. You're not contending that our unemployment rate was then “1/4” and that was due to the $0.25 per hour minimum wage rate enacted in the last quarter of 1938?

What precisely were you contending when you wrote, “We tried that in 2007-2009"? I suppose you referring to increasing minimum wage rate? What's your point?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Andylusion]

And again, if that were true, why does it never turn out that way in reality?

Greece tried that, and the result was high unemployment.

We tried propping up wages in the Great Depression, and the result was 1/4 of the country unemployed.

We tried that in 2007-2009. Those were bumper years in US economic history, yes? ...

Andylusion, “And again, if that, [WHAT?] were true, why does it, [WHAT'S “IT”?], never turn out that way in reality?”.

“Greece tried that, [ TRIED WHAT? They increased a minimum wage rate and they have a minimum wage law that's drafted similar to that of the USA?], and the result was high unemployment”.
I'm not familiar with Greece's laws and regulations. If we're going to discuss the Greek economy in particular, you'll have the explain everything to me, and then I'd still need time to confirm the facts you provide and consider your conclusions that you base upon those facts. It can be done, but do you really want us to go that route?

What laws or regulations are you referring to when you state “We tried propping up wages in the Great Depression”? The federal minimum wage wasn't passed until 1938. You're not contending that our unemployment rate was then “1/4” and that was due to the $0.25 per hour minimum wage rate enacted in the last quarter of 1938?

What precisely were you contending when you wrote, “We tried that in 2007-2009"? I suppose you referring to increasing minimum wage rate? What's your point?

Respectfully, Supposn

Sorry, I thought from context that it was obvious. The [WHAT?] is keeping wages higher than the market using the power of government. That's either by pressuring business directly, like Hoover did, or through a minimum wage law like we did in 2007-2009, or though a minimum wage that is indexed to inflation like Greece had, that automatically increased every year.

Basically the ideology being pushed in this entire thread, is the [WHAT'S “IT”?] that I was referring to.

Hoover, and later FDR before 1938, did not pass a law on a minimum wage, that's true. But they directly pressured business to maintain wages levels. That had the exact same effect as a minimum wage, except on a broader scale, with wider negative effects.

Where a minimum wage pretty much only effects the lowest skilled workers at the absolute bottom of the income ladder, the Hoover push among all business, resulting wage levels being held up at all levels of the income ladder. Which.... naturally resulted in unemployment at all levels of the income ladder.

This is part of the reason why the unemployment during the great depression reached 25%, where the recession of 2009 reached only 11%.

 

[Supposn]

Two economic proposals that I favor are:
(1) On Labor Day, increase the federal minimum wage rate by15% UNTIL the rate achieves no less than 6/5 of its 1968 peak purchasing power; additionally EVERY New Year's Day, proportionally adjust the minimum rate to stay abreast with the proportional annual increase or decrease of the consumer price index number.
(2) USA should adopt the improved trade Import Certificate proposal described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

The Import Certificate proposal requires some start-up expenditures but otherwise, both proposals are self-funding and would not directly materially affect our annual federal budgets. Both proposals would contribute to USA experiencing MORE THAN OTHERWISE annual GDP per capita and our median wage.

A nation's economic environment, similar to all complex environments or creatures, is affected by many inter-related components and other factors. It would be foolish to contend that due to USA adopting these two proposals, our GDP and median wage would increase EVERY year and it could NEVER experience a year of reductions.

But due to USA adopting the proposals, our GDP and median wage would always be MORE THAN OTHERWISE; otherwise being if we did not adopt these or some other proposals superior to accomplish these proposal's purposes. Our current policies are inferior to these proposals.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Two economic proposals that I favor are:
(1) On Labor Day, increase the federal minimum wage rate by15% UNTIL the rate achieves no less than 6/5 of its 1968 peak purchasing power; additionally EVERY New Year's Day, proportionally adjust the minimum rate to stay abreast with the proportional annual increase or decrease of the consumer price index number.
(2) USA should adopt the improved trade Import Certificate proposal described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

The Import Certificate proposal requires some start-up expenditures but otherwise, both proposals are self-funding and would not directly materially affect our annual federal budgets. Both proposals would contribute to USA experiencing MORE THAN OTHERWISE annual GDP per capita and our median wage.

A nation's economic environment, similar to all complex environments or creatures, is affected by many inter-related components and other factors. It would be foolish to contend that due to USA adopting these two proposals, our GDP and median wage would increase EVERY year and it could NEVER experience a year of reductions.

But due to USA adopting the proposals, our GDP and median wage would always be MORE THAN OTHERWISE; otherwise being if we did not adopt these or some other proposals superior to accomplish these proposal's purposes. Our current policies are inferior to these proposals.

Respectfully, Supposn

On Labor Day, increase the federal minimum wage rate by15% UNTIL the rate achieves no less than 6/5 of its 1968 peak purchasing power;

And screw all the unskilled and low skilled workers who don't produce anything close to the value added necessary to support that wage.

And why 6/5?
What happened to "150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power"?

Both proposals would contribute to USA experiencing MORE THAN OTHERWISE annual GDP per capita and our median wage.​

While raising our prices and reducing our standard of living. No thanks.​

 

[Andylusion]

Two economic proposals that I favor are:
(1) On Labor Day, increase the federal minimum wage rate by15% UNTIL the rate achieves no less than 6/5 of its 1968 peak purchasing power; additionally EVERY New Year's Day, proportionally adjust the minimum rate to stay abreast with the proportional annual increase or decrease of the consumer price index number.
(2) USA should adopt the improved trade Import Certificate proposal described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

The Import Certificate proposal requires some start-up expenditures but otherwise, both proposals are self-funding and would not directly materially affect our annual federal budgets. Both proposals would contribute to USA experiencing MORE THAN OTHERWISE annual GDP per capita and our median wage.

A nation's economic environment, similar to all complex environments or creatures, is affected by many inter-related components and other factors. It would be foolish to contend that due to USA adopting these two proposals, our GDP and median wage would increase EVERY year and it could NEVER experience a year of reductions.

But due to USA adopting the proposals, our GDP and median wage would always be MORE THAN OTHERWISE; otherwise being if we did not adopt these or some other proposals superior to accomplish these proposal's purposes. Our current policies are inferior to these proposals.

Respectfully, Supposn

Again.... ...... if that worked..... then why is it every time we have tried to raise wages using the power of government, has it resulted in unemployment? There is no example of any country in the history of the world, that has drastically increased wages, that had a positive outcome. Not one.

Not ONE. And there are dozens of examples where they had negative outcomes.

As for imposing trade controls, there is not one single country in the history of the world, that engaged in protectionism, that had a positive outcome. Not one.

And there are dozens that had negative outcomes.

The minimum wage is always ZERO. When you have an individual whose ability to produce value, is lower than the government required payment of labor.... they don't just get more money while the employer goes bankrupt. They lose their jobs.

If I run a lawn care business, and my customers are only willing to pay me $15/hour.... I can't pay my employees $15/hour.... because the cost of gas, the lawn mowers, paying the office staff, will cause me to lose money on every single lawn I mow.

Well.... I wouldn't do that. I'm not going to bankrupt myself, just because YOU think I should pay my employees more than the customers are willing to pay me.

So.... those people end up unemployed.

And as far as trade, that's going to drive up costs on business.

If my company needs metal, and you restrict imported metal, or put tariffs on it...... that doesn't help my employees, it that harms them.

Because I'm going to end up having to pay higher prices for the metal I need. If my customers are not willing to pay that higher price, then they stop ordering, and my employees are laid off. Even if my customers are willing to pay the higher price, those customers have less money to buy other things, and the economy tanks..... By the way... this is exactly what happened in the 1930s.

Regardless, I don't have more money to pay my employees. And my employees are going to be paying higher prices for everything. So if anything, my employees will be worse off. Not better off.

Again........ VENEZUELA...... has done both of the policy suggestions you just pushed. BOTH...... what is the result? They are literally starving. That's the results of your ideology.

 

[Supposn]

... Hoover, and later FDR before 1938, did not pass a law on a minimum wage, that's true. But they directly pressured business to maintain wages levels. That had the exact same effect as a minimum wage, except on a broader scale, with wider negative effects ....

Andylusion, the federal minimum wage rate indirectly but effectively bolsters all USA wages by establishing a legally enforced floor beyond which wages cannot fall. It does not and cannot by itself “prop up” or restore wages. Neither Hoover or Roosevelt had the power you attribute to them.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Andylusion]

... Hoover, and later FDR before 1938, did not pass a law on a minimum wage, that's true. But they directly pressured business to maintain wages levels. That had the exact same effect as a minimum wage, except on a broader scale, with wider negative effects ....

Andylusion, the federal minimum wage rate indirectly but effectively bolsters all USA wages by establishing a legally enforced floor beyond which wages cannot fall. It does not and cannot by itself “prop up” or restore wages. Neither Hoover or Roosevelt had the power you attribute to them.

Respectfully, Supposn

At this point you are no longer arguing with me, but with reality. I can post this again..... as many times as you'd like to deny it....

"These findings suggest that the recession was three times worse — at a minimum — than it would otherwise have been, because of Hoover," said Lee E. Ohanian, a UCLA professor of economics.

The policies, which included both propping up wages and encouraging job-sharing, also accounted for more than two-thirds of the precipitous decline in hours worked in the manufacturing sector, which was much harder hit initially than the agricultural sector, according to Ohanian.​

Hoover's pro-labor stance helped cause Great Depression, UCLA economist says

This is not debatable. It's historical fact, that Hoover and FDR propped up wages.

This happened during the great depression. You can either deny the truth and be crushed by it, or you can learn something, and be less ignorant going forward.

"establishing a legally enforced floor beyond which wages cannot fall"

That's true. It does. The problem is, wages cannot fall below that floor, but the value of the labor can.

You can't control what me, as a customer, is willing to pay for anything. So if, for example, the value of GM and Chrysler vehicles falls below what the cost of the Union contracted labor rates are..... what happens? GM and Chrysler go bankrupt, and thousands of employees lose their jobs.

GM employment prior, was about 91,000 people. After, they had about 64,000 people.

Why? Because the value of the labor is not determined by government, or even by the employer. It's determined by the customers who were no longer willing to pay as much for GM vehicles.

By the way.... do you know why Ford avoided bankruptcy? Because they cut wages, and got concessions from the Unions back in 2006. Why didn't Honda and Toyota and Hyundai, did not declare bankruptcy? Because they were non-union, and had the ability to be flexible with labor.

Crain's Chicago Business

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... Hoover, and later FDR before 1938, did not pass a law on a minimum wage, that's true. But they directly pressured business to maintain wages levels. That had the exact same effect as a minimum wage, except on a broader scale, with wider negative effects ....

Andylusion, the federal minimum wage rate indirectly but effectively bolsters all USA wages by establishing a legally enforced floor beyond which wages cannot fall. It does not and cannot by itself “prop up” or restore wages. Neither Hoover or Roosevelt had the power you attribute to them.

Respectfully, Supposn

It does not and cannot by itself “prop up” or restore wages.

But you said....

The minimum wage rate more or less relates to other wage scales in an inverse manner. The minimum rate has a lesser effect upon higher, and a greater effect upon lower wage scales; but due to the concept of wage differentials, it more or less affects all labor compensation in the USA.

So it "affects all labor compensation" but doesn't "prop up" wages?

You're making less sense than usual...….

 

[Andylusion]

... Hoover, and later FDR before 1938, did not pass a law on a minimum wage, that's true. But they directly pressured business to maintain wages levels. That had the exact same effect as a minimum wage, except on a broader scale, with wider negative effects ....

Andylusion, the federal minimum wage rate indirectly but effectively bolsters all USA wages by establishing a legally enforced floor beyond which wages cannot fall. It does not and cannot by itself “prop up” or restore wages. Neither Hoover or Roosevelt had the power you attribute to them.

Respectfully, Supposn

It does not and cannot by itself “prop up” or restore wages.

But you said....

The minimum wage rate more or less relates to other wage scales in an inverse manner. The minimum rate has a lesser effect upon higher, and a greater effect upon lower wage scales; but due to the concept of wage differentials, it more or less affects all labor compensation in the USA.

So it "affects all labor compensation" but doesn't "prop up" wages?

You're making less sense than usual...….

He has contradicted himself numerous times. I keep giving him a pass on it....

 

[Supposn]

Sorry, I thought from context that it was obvious. The [WHAT?] is keeping wages higher than the market using the power of government. That's either by pressuring business directly, like Hoover did, or through a minimum wage law like we did in 2007-2009, or though a minimum wage that is indexed to inflation like Greece had, that automatically increased every year.

Basically the ideology being pushed in this entire thread, is the [WHAT'S “IT”?] that I was referring to.

Hoover, and later FDR before 1938, did not pass a law on a minimum wage, that's true. But they directly pressured business to maintain wages levels. That had the exact same effect as a minimum wage, except on a broader scale, with wider negative effects.

Where a minimum wage pretty much only effects the lowest skilled workers at the absolute bottom of the income ladder, the Hoover push among all business, resulting wage levels being held up at all levels of the income ladder. Which.... naturally resulted in unemployment at all levels of the income ladder.

This is part of the reason why the unemployment during the great depression reached 25%, where the recession of 2009 reached only 11%.

Andylusion, after the 1929 stock market crash, the federal government. As you posted, Hoover and FDR certainly weren't able to “prop up” or restore wages.

Hoover listened to advice proclaiming the free enterprise markets would soon readjust and fix themselves; that didn't happen. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court found the National Recovery Act to be illegal, and FDR wasn't permitted to “pack” the Supreme Court. But FDR's administration's social programs were “taking root”; they thrived and the nation's economy was improving. The economy was improved somewhat but Democrats should have kept pushing reforms rather than slowing down during FDR's 2nd term. Certainly, the minimum wage rate firmed up wages, and it has always benefitted our economy.

They passed the Social Security Act in 1935, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which includes the federal minimum wage rate, was passed in 1938. These are among, (if not the) nation's most popular federal programs. Each time those programs encounter political opposition, the programs' opponents eventually loose and the Democratic political party gain due to the encounters.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, I thought from context that it was obvious. The [WHAT?] is keeping wages higher than the market using the power of government. That's either by pressuring business directly, like Hoover did, or through a minimum wage law like we did in 2007-2009, or though a minimum wage that is indexed to inflation like Greece had, that automatically increased every year.

Basically the ideology being pushed in this entire thread, is the [WHAT'S “IT”?] that I was referring to.

Hoover, and later FDR before 1938, did not pass a law on a minimum wage, that's true. But they directly pressured business to maintain wages levels. That had the exact same effect as a minimum wage, except on a broader scale, with wider negative effects.

Where a minimum wage pretty much only effects the lowest skilled workers at the absolute bottom of the income ladder, the Hoover push among all business, resulting wage levels being held up at all levels of the income ladder. Which.... naturally resulted in unemployment at all levels of the income ladder.

This is part of the reason why the unemployment during the great depression reached 25%, where the recession of 2009 reached only 11%.

Andylusion, after the 1929 stock market crash, the federal government. As you posted, Hoover and FDR certainly weren't able to “prop up” or restore wages.

Hoover listened to advice proclaiming the free enterprise markets would soon readjust and fix themselves; that didn't happen. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court found the National Recovery Act to be illegal, and FDR wasn't permitted to “pack” the Supreme Court. But FDR's administration's social programs were “taking root”; they thrived and the nation's economy was improving. The economy was improved somewhat but Democrats should have kept pushing reforms rather than slowing down during FDR's 2nd term. Certainly, the minimum wage rate firmed up wages, and it has always benefitted our economy.

They passed the Social Security Act in 1935, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which includes the federal minimum wage rate, was passed in 1938. These are among, (if not the) nation's most popular federal programs. Each time those programs encounter political opposition, the programs' opponents eventually loose and the Democratic political party gain due to the encounters.

Respectfully, Supposn

Certainly, the minimum wage rate firmed up wages, and it has always benefitted our economy.

Prove it.

 

[Andylusion]

Sorry, I thought from context that it was obvious. The [WHAT?] is keeping wages higher than the market using the power of government. That's either by pressuring business directly, like Hoover did, or through a minimum wage law like we did in 2007-2009, or though a minimum wage that is indexed to inflation like Greece had, that automatically increased every year.

Basically the ideology being pushed in this entire thread, is the [WHAT'S “IT”?] that I was referring to.

Hoover, and later FDR before 1938, did not pass a law on a minimum wage, that's true. But they directly pressured business to maintain wages levels. That had the exact same effect as a minimum wage, except on a broader scale, with wider negative effects.

Where a minimum wage pretty much only effects the lowest skilled workers at the absolute bottom of the income ladder, the Hoover push among all business, resulting wage levels being held up at all levels of the income ladder. Which.... naturally resulted in unemployment at all levels of the income ladder.

This is part of the reason why the unemployment during the great depression reached 25%, where the recession of 2009 reached only 11%.

Andylusion, after the 1929 stock market crash, the federal government. As you posted, Hoover and FDR certainly weren't able to “prop up” or restore wages.

Hoover listened to advice proclaiming the free enterprise markets would soon readjust and fix themselves; that didn't happen. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court found the National Recovery Act to be illegal, and FDR wasn't permitted to “pack” the Supreme Court. But FDR's administration's social programs were “taking root”; they thrived and the nation's economy was improving. The economy was improved somewhat but Democrats should have kept pushing reforms rather than slowing down during FDR's 2nd term. Certainly, the minimum wage rate firmed up wages, and it has always benefitted our economy.

They passed the Social Security Act in 1935, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which includes the federal minimum wage rate, was passed in 1938. These are among, (if not the) nation's most popular federal programs. Each time those programs encounter political opposition, the programs' opponents eventually loose and the Democratic political party gain due to the encounters.

Respectfully, Supposn

But they did prop up wages. Hoover did not listen to advice from proclaimed free enterprise markets. Hoover specifically rejected all the advice from free-market advocates routinely.

On wages, Hoover revived the business-government conferences of his time at the Department of Commerce by summoning major business leaders to the White House several times that fall. He asked them to pledge not to reduce wages in the face of rising unemployment. Hoover believed, as did a number of intellectuals at the time, that high wages caused prosperity, even though the true causation is from capital accumulation to increased labor productivity to higher wages. He argued that if major firms cut wages, workers would not have the purchasing power they needed to buy the goods being produced.​

You sound exactly like Hoover. And if your plan is followed, would result in the same results Hoover got.

Hoover’s Economic Policies – Econlib

But FDR's administration's social programs were “taking root”; they thrived and the nation's economy was improving.

Once again you seem to be fighting against reality.

Do you know when all those social programs were enacted, like the work projects administration, and social security, and so on? They were all signed into law in 1935-36, and became effective between 1936-37.

Do you know what happened in 1937?

From 1936 to 1938 we had a RECESSION.... inside.... the DEPRESSION.

Did you miss that? The 1930s government social programs experiment proved conclusively that these social programs harmed the economy. Not helped.

The economy was recovering BEFORE the biggest of these programs were enforced, and started to crash after they came into effect.

No, sorry, reality proves you incorrect on this matter.