why not make the minimum wage $30 an hour?

[SAYIT]

Yeah, because that's what drives American biz expansion and job creation ... the desire to control our minimum wage! I tell you, loony leftists are by far the dimmest people on the planet.

I win

you have never won, and never will. you are an idiot.

Indeed and there's just no fixing stupid.

 

[mudwhistle]

or $300 a hour? Since you are CLAIMING that the wages paid to employees have no effect on a company's ability to show a profit, why not just legislate poverty out of existence, hmm? "Domestic' companies dont have to compete in a global market (or so you CLAIM) so why not just do this? Then, when your food costs go up by a factor of 10, you can blame it on the "greedy" farmers, right?

I figger Democrats will propose that once they get $15.......but $30 only for illegals, blacks, or gheys......

 

[kiwiman127]

How about we just bring it to levels equivalent to what I used to make when I made $2 an hour in the 70s

That would be around $15 an hour today

Let's not and say we did. Do you like going to McDonalds?

I like having low wage workers be able to afford basic necessities like I could at just $2 an hour

I paid a years tuition at college working just summers.....why can't low wage workers today?

minimum wage workers are predominately teens working for pocket money, no one is trying to make a MW job a lifetime career. Raising the MW will put more teens on the streets with nothing to do, how is that good for the country?

We have 300 million Americans

Not all are suited to be Rock Stars, CEOs, doctors and lawyers
Some will end up doing the menial tasks that others look down on. That is the way all societies function
Wages used to be able to support a basic standard of living for those who perform menial tasks. Our taxpayers have to step in and make up the difference. The employers don't care, they get to keep the extra profit from substandard wages

why do you say not all Americans are not suited to be rock stars or famous?

Lowering the bar are we?

It seems to me anyone in America can do it, if they wanted to.

You are just making excuses for the ones that don't want to

Sunshine and unicorns

Everyone can be a Rock Star if they only try

Ben Carson and Herman Cain both came from poverty. No, not everyone will succeed, success is not granted, happiness is not granted. Both must be earned.

What they seek is equality of outcome. There is no such thing.

Yes, in their massive stupidity they advocate for a system where all of the money and all of the power is concentrated in a very small group of super elites and everyone else is EQUALLY miserable.

This are idiots of the highest degree, they shit in their soup and proclaim it wonderful.

This are idiots of the highest degree, they shit in their soup and proclaim it wonderful.-Redfish

Well here's a report from the "idiots of the highest agree".
How Increasing Income Inequality Is Dampening U.S. Economic Growth, And Possible Ways To Change The Tide
Standard Poor s Global Credit Portal
As a previous posted graph that I posted shows, that since the three decade flat wage phenomenon, recessions now take longer to recover than when the working middle class and working poor class saw real wage growth. Of course, those were the days where income inequality was considerably less.
So, fighting against livable wages and real wage growth, is fighting against your own country's economic stability. How patriotic.
But you folks just go ahead and keep on fighting for a feudal system. I can tell you really care about your children's and future generations economic future. I wonder what future generations will think about your efforts?

 

[kiwiman127]

How about we just bring it to levels equivalent to what I used to make when I made $2 an hour in the 70s

That would be around $15 an hour today

Let's not and say we did. Do you like going to McDonalds?

I like having low wage workers be able to afford basic necessities like I could at just $2 an hour

I paid a years tuition at college working just summers.....why can't low wage workers today?

minimum wage workers are predominately teens working for pocket money, no one is trying to make a MW job a lifetime career. Raising the MW will put more teens on the streets with nothing to do, how is that good for the country?

Actually, workers between the ages of 16-24 make up 48% of all workers making the minimum wage or less, which translates to 52% of those making the minimum wage or less are above the age of 25.
Women are the biggest demographic making up 62.8% of all minimum wage or less workers.
Who Are the Minimum-Wage Workers of America - NationalJournal.com

 

[prison/con.net]

anyolne who claims that raising it to $15 an hour. it's the same thing. IT WILL have an effect, a gross effect. which is why it won't be allowed to happen.

 

[prison/con.net]

40 years ago we did not have to compete globally. Now we DO have to so compete, MANY other wages are tied to the minimum wage, formally or informally. Raise the one, you have to raise the others (by a like amount) and then you can't compete globally.

 

[prison/con.net]

no, Minium wage is not even CLOSE to having kept up with inflation. Not after taxes are removed. I was clearing $1.25 per hour on min wage in 1970. We've doubled prices every 15 years, due to 5% average annual inflation. so the min wage should CLEAR $10 per hour, which would take making $13-$14 per hour. But it can't be done, folks. It would render the US noncompetitive. Regardless of what you THINK things SHOULD be, the facts are what i've stated.

 

[kiwiman127]

Interestingly, Other countries working middle class has been going up faster than the US middle class. Where as the US middle class was the most admired in the world, now it isn't the case. The US middle class was the wealthiest middle class in the world, now we rank 21st.
So, the huge demographic of the US, the middle class, now has to resign themselves to being being on par with Third World Countries?
Profits have never been higher as a percentage of the GDP and wages have never been lower as a percentage of the GDP*. Could it be that too much of the profits are going to the top? In today's world, compared with the days when profits were shared with works, too much going to the top is a truism.
In other words, a majority of Americans are victims of unabridged greed.
Can anyone tell me why this is good?
* http://www.businessinsider.com/profits-at-high-wages-at-low-2013-4

 

[The Rabbi]

View attachment 41746 ]41746[/ATTACH]

Why is 30 "way too much" but 15 is OK? Or is 15 way too much too?

Well first of all I decided look where this $30 minimum wage thing came from. To no surprise, it's a right wing talking point.
Raising th minimum wage to $30:
"Intuitively, most everyone understands that raising the minimum wage to $20 or $30 an hour would have devastating effects on the employment prospects of less skilled workers: unemployment rates would skyrocket within such groups, so we see no serious proposals for increases of such magnitudes. Raising the minimum wage to only $10.10 would have much milder effects that might be difficult to detect in the aggregate – though such effects would still be noticed by employees who received raises or lost their jobs."
Ask an Economist Department of Economics
The above explanation basically covers why nots.
Now, the right likes to scream that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would raise inflation and cause massive layoffs.
However, checking out historical facts one can see that facts don't back up that argument.
If one has the ambition, they can go to these sites which cover when historically the minimum wage was increased, the inflation rate (CPI) historically month-by-month and the historical unemployment rate month-by-month.
All a person has to do is match when the minimum wage went into effect and then match up the rise in the CPI and the unemployment rate. The conclusion is that there were no spikes in inflation or the unemployment rate.
Minimum Wage - Wage and Hour Division WHD - U.S. Department of Labor

Historical Consumer Price Index CPI

US Unemployment Rate by Month
The only time there was massive layoffs was during the Great Recession. Not one economist every blamed the increase in the minimum wage for the layoffs, plus inflation was completely flat and there was actually deflation.
Regarding your question about a $15 dollars minimum wage, if a city want to raise the minimum wage, it usually tied to the fact that the cost of living within a city is higher than it is in rural areas. That would be a judgement call for the city entity.
Also, I'd like to point out that increasing the minimum wage certainly does help the middle class per the Cato Institute.
Minimum Wage Hike Would Benefit 3X More Middle-Class Workers Than Poor
Minimum Wage Hike Would Benefit 3X More Middle-Class Workers Than Poor

Minimum wage laws cannot create jobs, they can ONLY outlaw them. Minimum wage laws demand that workers willing to accept wages less than the minimum wage are barred from such contracts. It is compulsory unemployment.

There is no escape from the objective fact of economic reality that minimum wage laws devalue wages. You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work.

Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Minimum wage laws always result in inflation. They necessarily must.

These realities are inescapable, and it is why minimum wage ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail.

If they were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Did you check out the links I posted where you can actually see if raising the minimum wage is as devastating as you claim.
Don't be lazy, look at the real world facts.

Yes, yes, yes,... you have links.

Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Seriously, what is your problem with paying folks exactly what their work is worth?

As the links prove, when the minimum wage is increased there has never been a spike in inflation or unemployment.
Secondly, "Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--ffolks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!" Did you ever think that inflation and unemployment increases happens without the increase in the minimum wage? And "folks like you", what's that supposed to mean? I have never worked while receiving the minimum wage, I have always been a salaried and paid quite a bit above the minimum wage.
However, I also know for a fact that wages for the working middle class and poor have been flat (in Real Dollars) for over three decades. Thus the income inequality and the demise of the middle class. With an economy driven by over 70& consumer spending, flat wages hurt the US consumer driven economy. The less expendable income, the less money to drive the consumer driven economy. This probably plays into the fact that our last three recessions have taken longer to recover than comparable and earlier recessions. The above graph makes my point.

Ok, in your mind, what does that graph represent?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

How about we just bring it to levels equivalent to what I used to make when I made $2 an hour in the 70s

That would be around $15 an hour today

Incorrect. Adjusted for inflation, the HIGHEST minimum wage in US history was 1968 when $1.25 an hour was worth $10.64 an hour in today's money.

Not $15.

 

[kiwiman127]

View attachment 41746 ]41746[/ATTACH]

Well first of all I decided look where this $30 minimum wage thing came from. To no surprise, it's a right wing talking point.
Raising th minimum wage to $30:
"Intuitively, most everyone understands that raising the minimum wage to $20 or $30 an hour would have devastating effects on the employment prospects of less skilled workers: unemployment rates would skyrocket within such groups, so we see no serious proposals for increases of such magnitudes. Raising the minimum wage to only $10.10 would have much milder effects that might be difficult to detect in the aggregate – though such effects would still be noticed by employees who received raises or lost their jobs."
Ask an Economist Department of Economics
The above explanation basically covers why nots.
Now, the right likes to scream that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would raise inflation and cause massive layoffs.
However, checking out historical facts one can see that facts don't back up that argument.
If one has the ambition, they can go to these sites which cover when historically the minimum wage was increased, the inflation rate (CPI) historically month-by-month and the historical unemployment rate month-by-month.
All a person has to do is match when the minimum wage went into effect and then match up the rise in the CPI and the unemployment rate. The conclusion is that there were no spikes in inflation or the unemployment rate.
Minimum Wage - Wage and Hour Division WHD - U.S. Department of Labor

Historical Consumer Price Index CPI

US Unemployment Rate by Month
The only time there was massive layoffs was during the Great Recession. Not one economist every blamed the increase in the minimum wage for the layoffs, plus inflation was completely flat and there was actually deflation.
Regarding your question about a $15 dollars minimum wage, if a city want to raise the minimum wage, it usually tied to the fact that the cost of living within a city is higher than it is in rural areas. That would be a judgement call for the city entity.
Also, I'd like to point out that increasing the minimum wage certainly does help the middle class per the Cato Institute.
Minimum Wage Hike Would Benefit 3X More Middle-Class Workers Than Poor
Minimum Wage Hike Would Benefit 3X More Middle-Class Workers Than Poor

Minimum wage laws cannot create jobs, they can ONLY outlaw them. Minimum wage laws demand that workers willing to accept wages less than the minimum wage are barred from such contracts. It is compulsory unemployment.

There is no escape from the objective fact of economic reality that minimum wage laws devalue wages. You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work.

Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Minimum wage laws always result in inflation. They necessarily must.

These realities are inescapable, and it is why minimum wage ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail.

If they were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Did you check out the links I posted where you can actually see if raising the minimum wage is as devastating as you claim.
Don't be lazy, look at the real world facts.

Yes, yes, yes,... you have links.

Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Seriously, what is your problem with paying folks exactly what their work is worth?

As the links prove, when the minimum wage is increased there has never been a spike in inflation or unemployment.
Secondly, "Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--ffolks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!" Did you ever think that inflation and unemployment increases happens without the increase in the minimum wage? And "folks like you", what's that supposed to mean? I have never worked while receiving the minimum wage, I have always been a salaried and paid quite a bit above the minimum wage.
However, I also know for a fact that wages for the working middle class and poor have been flat (in Real Dollars) for over three decades. Thus the income inequality and the demise of the middle class. With an economy driven by over 70& consumer spending, flat wages hurt the US consumer driven economy. The less expendable income, the less money to drive the consumer driven economy. This probably plays into the fact that our last three recessions have taken longer to recover than comparable and earlier recessions. The above graph makes my point.

Ok, in your mind, what does that graph represent?

As you are again the only one who can't understand the graph,,,
The graph show recessions from 1948 through 2007 and the length of the recovery based on unemployment numbers. And the different recessions are even in color, so it's not to tough to figure out for 99% of the posters. On the top panel, it shows the length of the recovery in months, the left side numbers represent percentage of jobs lost and the bottom represents the depth of the jobs lost.
Considering recessions recoveries mirror jobs lost and the time frame it took to recovery back to previous numbers it's a good representative of the length and depth of the recessions.

 

[LOki]

View attachment 41746 ]41746[/ATTACH]

Yes, yes, yes,... you have links.

Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Seriously, what is your problem with paying folks exactly what their work is worth?

As the links prove, when the minimum wage is increased there has never been a spike in inflation or unemployment.

So there was no "spike"? Why must there be a "spike" when minimum wages are applied gradually? Does your link demonstrate that there was no inflation while minimum wage rates were increasing?

Secondly, "Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--ffolks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!" Did you ever think that inflation and unemployment increases happens without the increase in the minimum wage?

Sure. Other price fixing and money printing ponzi schemes have the same effect... for the same reasons.

What could your point possibly be? That minimum wage is somehow magically exempt from the well established principles of economics?

And "folks like you", what's that supposed to mean?

Folks who advocate for a minimum wage. What else could it possibly mean?

I have never worked while receiving the minimum wage, I have always been a salaried and paid quite a bit above the minimum wage.

Thanks for sharing.

However, I also know for a fact that wages for the working middle class and poor have been flat (in Real Dollars) for over three decades.

And you're going to tell me that the OBVIOUS devaluing effect that minimum wage law must NECESSARILY have on wages has no role what-so-ever to play in that. Right?

Thus the income inequality and the demise of the middle class. With an economy driven by over 70& consumer spending, flat wages hurt the US consumer driven economy.

Well, maybe if work that was worth ony $1/hr (but still costs minimum wage) wasn't being subsidized by work worth more than minimum wage, perhaps wages would not be so persistently flat.

The less expendable income, the less money to drive the consumer driven economy. This probably plays into the fact that our last three recessions have taken longer to recover than comparable and earlier recessions.

Artificially devaluing the rewards for productive capacity (by artificially making $1.00/hr worth of work pay any amount more, say $15.00/hr, for instance) requires more money to be printed because buyers and sellers still know what shit is worth regardless of what the government says about the dollars. Printing more money, without also increasing productivity must lead inevitably to inflation. It does so because there is just more money around--printing new money is not the same thing as creating new wealth.

Introducing all that new money into the economy will not make every citizen more wealthy--they will just have more money. Having more money is of little consolation when it takes twice your daily wages to get a day's worth of food.

The above graph makes my point.

No. It really doesn't. It would make your point, if you were telling me we DON'T need to increase the minimum wage (yet again) because it has a history of being so effective.

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

I appreciate your response. It was well thought out.
However, your oratory was basically conjecture. You lacked lacked real-time evidence to back yourself up.
You didn't attempt to look into my links, you assumed and took it from there.
Regarding the graph, you basically discarded the evidence tying in flat wage growth and the remarkable coincidence that was clearly mirrored by the length of the recoveries when compared with similar downturns prior to the flat wage growth phenomenon.
Thanks again for your input.

I looked into your links. They really don't cover you as well as you hoped.

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

I thought the links regarding the minimum wage timeframes, the CPI timeframes and the unemployment rates by timeframe were as accurate as one can find. It isn't hard al all to figure out .
Regarding what workers are paid, based on the three decade run on flat wage growth and the millions of jobs that have been shipped off shore during times of excellent profits. All of this coupled with the demise of the middle class, why would anyone trust that the American worker will get a fair shake in regards to fair pay?

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

 

[LOki]

Interestingly, Other countries working middle class has been going up faster than the US middle class. Where as the US middle class was the most admired in the world, now it isn't the case. The US middle class was the wealthiest middle class in the world, now we rank 21st.
So, the huge demographic of the US, the middle class, now has to resign themselves to being being on par with Third World Countries?
Profits have never been higher as a percentage of the GDP and wages have never been lower as a percentage of the GDP*. Could it be that too much of the profits are going to the top? In today's world, compared with the days when profits were shared with works, too much going to the top is a truism.
In other words, a majority of Americans are victims of unabridged greed.
Can anyone tell me why this is good?
* Profits At High Wages At Low - Business Insider

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

 

[LOki]

View attachment 41746 ]41746[/ATTACH]

Minimum wage laws cannot create jobs, they can ONLY outlaw them. Minimum wage laws demand that workers willing to accept wages less than the minimum wage are barred from such contracts. It is compulsory unemployment.

There is no escape from the objective fact of economic reality that minimum wage laws devalue wages. You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work.

Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Minimum wage laws always result in inflation. They necessarily must.

These realities are inescapable, and it is why minimum wage ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail.

If they were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Did you check out the links I posted where you can actually see if raising the minimum wage is as devastating as you claim.
Don't be lazy, look at the real world facts.

Yes, yes, yes,... you have links.

Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Seriously, what is your problem with paying folks exactly what their work is worth?

As the links prove, when the minimum wage is increased there has never been a spike in inflation or unemployment.
Secondly, "Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--ffolks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!" Did you ever think that inflation and unemployment increases happens without the increase in the minimum wage? And "folks like you", what's that supposed to mean? I have never worked while receiving the minimum wage, I have always been a salaried and paid quite a bit above the minimum wage.
However, I also know for a fact that wages for the working middle class and poor have been flat (in Real Dollars) for over three decades. Thus the income inequality and the demise of the middle class. With an economy driven by over 70& consumer spending, flat wages hurt the US consumer driven economy. The less expendable income, the less money to drive the consumer driven economy. This probably plays into the fact that our last three recessions have taken longer to recover than comparable and earlier recessions. The above graph makes my point.

Ok, in your mind, what does that graph represent?

As you are again the only one who can't understand the graph,,,
The graph show recessions from 1948 through 2007 and the length of the recovery based on unemployment numbers. And the different recessions are even in color, so it's not to tough to figure out for 99% of the posters. On the top panel, it shows the length of the recovery in months, the left side numbers represent percentage of jobs lost and the bottom represents the depth of the jobs lost.
Considering recessions recoveries mirror jobs lost and the time frame it took to recovery back to previous numbers it's a good representative of the length and depth of the recessions.

It looks like recessions get longer as the statutory minimum wage increases.

Not at all surprising, for all the reasons a already submitted.

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

 

[The Rabbi]

Interestingly, Other countries working middle class has been going up faster than the US middle class. Where as the US middle class was the most admired in the world, now it isn't the case. The US middle class was the wealthiest middle class in the world, now we rank 21st.
So, the huge demographic of the US, the middle class, now has to resign themselves to being being on par with Third World Countries?
Profits have never been higher as a percentage of the GDP and wages have never been lower as a percentage of the GDP*. Could it be that too much of the profits are going to the top? In today's world, compared with the days when profits were shared with works, too much going to the top is a truism.
In other words, a majority of Americans are victims of unabridged greed.
Can anyone tell me why this is good?
* Profits At High Wages At Low - Business Insider

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

Because it's not fair! lol!

 

[The Rabbi]

View attachment 41746 ]41746[/ATTACH]

Minimum wage laws cannot create jobs, they can ONLY outlaw them. Minimum wage laws demand that workers willing to accept wages less than the minimum wage are barred from such contracts. It is compulsory unemployment.

There is no escape from the objective fact of economic reality that minimum wage laws devalue wages. You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work.

Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Minimum wage laws always result in inflation. They necessarily must.

These realities are inescapable, and it is why minimum wage ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail.

If they were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Did you check out the links I posted where you can actually see if raising the minimum wage is as devastating as you claim.
Don't be lazy, look at the real world facts.

Yes, yes, yes,... you have links.

Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Seriously, what is your problem with paying folks exactly what their work is worth?

As the links prove, when the minimum wage is increased there has never been a spike in inflation or unemployment.
Secondly, "Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--ffolks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!" Did you ever think that inflation and unemployment increases happens without the increase in the minimum wage? And "folks like you", what's that supposed to mean? I have never worked while receiving the minimum wage, I have always been a salaried and paid quite a bit above the minimum wage.
However, I also know for a fact that wages for the working middle class and poor have been flat (in Real Dollars) for over three decades. Thus the income inequality and the demise of the middle class. With an economy driven by over 70& consumer spending, flat wages hurt the US consumer driven economy. The less expendable income, the less money to drive the consumer driven economy. This probably plays into the fact that our last three recessions have taken longer to recover than comparable and earlier recessions. The above graph makes my point.

Ok, in your mind, what does that graph represent?

As you are again the only one who can't understand the graph,,,
The graph show recessions from 1948 through 2007 and the length of the recovery based on unemployment numbers. And the different recessions are even in color, so it's not to tough to figure out for 99% of the posters. On the top panel, it shows the length of the recovery in months, the left side numbers represent percentage of jobs lost and the bottom represents the depth of the jobs lost.
Considering recessions recoveries mirror jobs lost and the time frame it took to recovery back to previous numbers it's a good representative of the length and depth of the recessions.

Recessions do not mirror jobs lost, dunce. Employment is a lagging indicator.
Again, what point is this graph supposed to make?

 

[kiwiman127]

View attachment 41746 ]41746[/ATTACH]

Did you check out the links I posted where you can actually see if raising the minimum wage is as devastating as you claim.
Don't be lazy, look at the real world facts.

Yes, yes, yes,... you have links.

Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Seriously, what is your problem with paying folks exactly what their work is worth?

As the links prove, when the minimum wage is increased there has never been a spike in inflation or unemployment.
Secondly, "Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--ffolks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!" Did you ever think that inflation and unemployment increases happens without the increase in the minimum wage? And "folks like you", what's that supposed to mean? I have never worked while receiving the minimum wage, I have always been a salaried and paid quite a bit above the minimum wage.
However, I also know for a fact that wages for the working middle class and poor have been flat (in Real Dollars) for over three decades. Thus the income inequality and the demise of the middle class. With an economy driven by over 70& consumer spending, flat wages hurt the US consumer driven economy. The less expendable income, the less money to drive the consumer driven economy. This probably plays into the fact that our last three recessions have taken longer to recover than comparable and earlier recessions. The above graph makes my point.

Ok, in your mind, what does that graph represent?

As you are again the only one who can't understand the graph,,,
The graph show recessions from 1948 through 2007 and the length of the recovery based on unemployment numbers. And the different recessions are even in color, so it's not to tough to figure out for 99% of the posters. On the top panel, it shows the length of the recovery in months, the left side numbers represent percentage of jobs lost and the bottom represents the depth of the jobs lost.
Considering recessions recoveries mirror jobs lost and the time frame it took to recovery back to previous numbers it's a good representative of the length and depth of the recessions.

Recessions do not mirror jobs lost, dunce. Employment is a lagging indicator.
Again, what point is this graph supposed to make?

You would have better off not posting anything. You just showed your total ignorance of basic economics. Way to go Rabbi!
"Unemployment is particularly high during a recession. Many economists working within the neoclassical paradigm argue that there is a natural rate of unemployment which, when subtracted from the actual rate of unemployment, can be used to calculate the negative GDP gap during a recession. In other words, unemployment never reaches 0 percent, and thus is not a negative indicator of the health of an economy unless above the "natural rate," in which case it corresponds directly to a loss in gross domestic product, or GDP. High unemployment rates are often correlated with recessions.'
The Saylor Foundation. "Unemployment Rate."
http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/SAYLOR.ORG-ECON102-UNEMPLOYMENT-RATE.pdf
"One of the most widely recognized indicators of a recession is higher unemployment rates."
http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf[/QUOTE]

 

[kiwiman127]

View attachment 41746 ]41746[/ATTACH] As the links prove, when the minimum wage is increased there has never been a spike in inflation or unemployment.

So there was no "spike"? Why must there be a "spike" when minimum wages are applied gradually? Does your link demonstrate that there was no inflation while minimum wage rates were increasing?

Secondly, "Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--ffolks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!" Did you ever think that inflation and unemployment increases happens without the increase in the minimum wage?

Sure. Other price fixing and money printing ponzi schemes have the same effect... for the same reasons.

What could your point possibly be? That minimum wage is somehow magically exempt from the well established principles of economics?

And "folks like you", what's that supposed to mean?

Folks who advocate for a minimum wage. What else could it possibly mean?

I have never worked while receiving the minimum wage, I have always been a salaried and paid quite a bit above the minimum wage.

Thanks for sharing.

However, I also know for a fact that wages for the working middle class and poor have been flat (in Real Dollars) for over three decades.

And you're going to tell me that the OBVIOUS devaluing effect that minimum wage law must NECESSARILY have on wages has no role what-so-ever to play in that. Right?

Thus the income inequality and the demise of the middle class. With an economy driven by over 70& consumer spending, flat wages hurt the US consumer driven economy.

Well, maybe if work that was worth ony $1/hr (but still costs minimum wage) wasn't being subsidized by work worth more than minimum wage, perhaps wages would not be so persistently flat.

The less expendable income, the less money to drive the consumer driven economy. This probably plays into the fact that our last three recessions have taken longer to recover than comparable and earlier recessions.

Artificially devaluing the rewards for productive capacity (by artificially making $1.00/hr worth of work pay any amount more, say $15.00/hr, for instance) requires more money to be printed because buyers and sellers still know what shit is worth regardless of what the government says about the dollars. Printing more money, without also increasing productivity must lead inevitably to inflation. It does so because there is just more money around--printing new money is not the same thing as creating new wealth.

Introducing all that new money into the economy will not make every citizen more wealthy--they will just have more money. Having more money is of little consolation when it takes twice your daily wages to get a day's worth of food.

The above graph makes my point.

No. It really doesn't. It would make your point, if you were telling me we DON'T need to increase the minimum wage (yet again) because it has a history of being so effective.

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

I appreciate your response. It was well thought out.
However, your oratory was basically conjecture. You lacked lacked real-time evidence to back yourself up.
You didn't attempt to look into my links, you assumed and took it from there.
Regarding the graph, you basically discarded the evidence tying in flat wage growth and the remarkable coincidence that was clearly mirrored by the length of the recoveries when compared with similar downturns prior to the flat wage growth phenomenon.
Thanks again for your input.

I looked into your links. They really don't cover you as well as you hoped.

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

I thought the links regarding the minimum wage timeframes, the CPI timeframes and the unemployment rates by timeframe were as accurate as one can find. It isn't hard al all to figure out .
Regarding what workers are paid, based on the three decade run on flat wage growth and the millions of jobs that have been shipped off shore during times of excellent profits. All of this coupled with the demise of the middle class, why would anyone trust that the American worker will get a fair shake in regards to fair pay?

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

You must of missed 2-3 posts of mine in this thread.
Go back a page or two. It's not rocket science.

 

[The Rabbi]

View attachment 41746 ]41746[/ATTACH]

Yes, yes, yes,... you have links.

Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Seriously, what is your problem with paying folks exactly what their work is worth?

As the links prove, when the minimum wage is increased there has never been a spike in inflation or unemployment.
Secondly, "Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--ffolks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!" Did you ever think that inflation and unemployment increases happens without the increase in the minimum wage? And "folks like you", what's that supposed to mean? I have never worked while receiving the minimum wage, I have always been a salaried and paid quite a bit above the minimum wage.
However, I also know for a fact that wages for the working middle class and poor have been flat (in Real Dollars) for over three decades. Thus the income inequality and the demise of the middle class. With an economy driven by over 70& consumer spending, flat wages hurt the US consumer driven economy. The less expendable income, the less money to drive the consumer driven economy. This probably plays into the fact that our last three recessions have taken longer to recover than comparable and earlier recessions. The above graph makes my point.

Ok, in your mind, what does that graph represent?

As you are again the only one who can't understand the graph,,,
The graph show recessions from 1948 through 2007 and the length of the recovery based on unemployment numbers. And the different recessions are even in color, so it's not to tough to figure out for 99% of the posters. On the top panel, it shows the length of the recovery in months, the left side numbers represent percentage of jobs lost and the bottom represents the depth of the jobs lost.
Considering recessions recoveries mirror jobs lost and the time frame it took to recovery back to previous numbers it's a good representative of the length and depth of the recessions.

Recessions do not mirror jobs lost, dunce. Employment is a lagging indicator.
Again, what point is this graph supposed to make?

You would have better off not posting anything. You just showed your total ignorance of basic economics. Way to go Rabbi!
"Unemployment is particularly high during a recession. Many economists working within the neoclassical paradigm argue that there is a natural rate of unemployment which, when subtracted from the actual rate of unemployment, can be used to calculate the negative GDP gap during a recession. In other words, unemployment never reaches 0 percent, and thus is not a negative indicator of the health of an economy unless above the "natural rate," in which case it corresponds directly to a loss in gross domestic product, or GDP. High unemployment rates are often correlated with recessions.'
The Saylor Foundation. "Unemployment Rate."
http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/SAYLOR.ORG-ECON102-UNEMPLOYMENT-RATE.pdf
"One of the most widely recognized indicators of a recession is higher unemployment rates."
http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf

[/QUOTE]
Do you actually understand any of what you wrote? Because it was totally non responsive to what I wrote. I'll bet you cannot summarize your quotation inyour own words and make any sense.
And you've dodged the question of what you think your graph proves.

 

[The Rabbi]

So there was no "spike"? Why must there be a "spike" when minimum wages are applied gradually? Does your link demonstrate that there was no inflation while minimum wage rates were increasing?

Sure. Other price fixing and money printing ponzi schemes have the same effect... for the same reasons.

What could your point possibly be? That minimum wage is somehow magically exempt from the well established principles of economics?

Folks who advocate for a minimum wage. What else could it possibly mean?

Thanks for sharing.

And you're going to tell me that the OBVIOUS devaluing effect that minimum wage law must NECESSARILY have on wages has no role what-so-ever to play in that. Right?

Well, maybe if work that was worth ony $1/hr (but still costs minimum wage) wasn't being subsidized by work worth more than minimum wage, perhaps wages would not be so persistently flat.

Artificially devaluing the rewards for productive capacity (by artificially making $1.00/hr worth of work pay any amount more, say $15.00/hr, for instance) requires more money to be printed because buyers and sellers still know what shit is worth regardless of what the government says about the dollars. Printing more money, without also increasing productivity must lead inevitably to inflation. It does so because there is just more money around--printing new money is not the same thing as creating new wealth.

Introducing all that new money into the economy will not make every citizen more wealthy--they will just have more money. Having more money is of little consolation when it takes twice your daily wages to get a day's worth of food.

No. It really doesn't. It would make your point, if you were telling me we DON'T need to increase the minimum wage (yet again) because it has a history of being so effective.

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

I appreciate your response. It was well thought out.
However, your oratory was basically conjecture. You lacked lacked real-time evidence to back yourself up.
You didn't attempt to look into my links, you assumed and took it from there.
Regarding the graph, you basically discarded the evidence tying in flat wage growth and the remarkable coincidence that was clearly mirrored by the length of the recoveries when compared with similar downturns prior to the flat wage growth phenomenon.
Thanks again for your input.

I looked into your links. They really don't cover you as well as you hoped.

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

I thought the links regarding the minimum wage timeframes, the CPI timeframes and the unemployment rates by timeframe were as accurate as one can find. It isn't hard al all to figure out .
Regarding what workers are paid, based on the three decade run on flat wage growth and the millions of jobs that have been shipped off shore during times of excellent profits. All of this coupled with the demise of the middle class, why would anyone trust that the American worker will get a fair shake in regards to fair pay?

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

You must of missed 2-3 posts of mine in this thread.
Go back a page or two. It's not rocket science.

You're dodging his question. Unless you believe that increases in min wage prevent recessions. Which I wouldnt put past you.