Job growth faster in states that raised minimum wage [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Clocker

07-21-2014, 04:57 PM

They don't say how many states went to the $10.10 pr hr, or how they were doing. The $10.10 is what Obama and the Left wants.

I can't imagine that any state implemented their whole increase all at once. Those kind of changes are usually phased in over some years.

Six months of data is meaningless. There are a lot more and a lot bigger influences on jobs over a period that short. Data on those influences have to be gathered and filtered. And as stated, some of the initial increases were in the $0.10-$0.20 range. No employer is going to change any hiring plans over that amount. It will take years of data before the impact is measurable.

Robert Fischer

07-21-2014, 05:07 PM

It would probably be smart to look at where the minimum wage jobs are coming from.

Perhaps a relatively small amount of conglomerates actually employ the vast majority of minimum wage employees?

If that were true, then we would look at how much influence those conglomerates have over the entire 2 party system.

Clocker

07-21-2014, 05:21 PM

It would probably be smart to look at where the minimum wage jobs are coming from.

There is no evidence to show that the increase in jobs in those states represented an increase in minimum wage jobs. The number of minimum wage jobs could have gone up, gone down or stayed the same. Again, the data as discussed is meaningless.

RunForTheRoses

07-21-2014, 05:48 PM

There is no evidence to show that the increase in jobs in those states represented an increase in minimum wage jobs. The number of minimum wage jobs could have gone up, gone down or stayed the same. Again, the data as discussed is meaningless.

Yeah, this is not just apples to oranges it is bad social science, that is, I was taught, that if you have data you should give a reason for what happened, however tenuous such as the length of mini skirts and stock market performance. This seems to be a strange interpretation in that it is trying to prove a negative but giving absolutely no theory as to why we would expect a raise in the minimum wage to cause a rise in employment. Finally, I do not think a national news outlet like Time would be as likely to post information that goes against liberal assumptions.

Clocker

07-21-2014, 06:12 PM

I was taught, that if you have data you should give a reason for what happened, however tenuous

You mean like that tenuous old law of supply and demand? Apparently the good folks at Time have discovered a loophole in the law.

classhandicapper

07-21-2014, 06:40 PM

JustRalph

07-21-2014, 07:03 PM

There's only one metric or chart that counts after the way unemployment is counted now.

mostpost

07-21-2014, 07:05 PM

Can we please put this nonsense to rest?

Unless you control for ALL the changes in the economy, looking at job creation vs minimum wage is meaningless.

Anyone that claims otherwise should be disqualified from writing articles on economics, statistics, and from running for office.
We constantly hear from conservatives about how raising the minimum wage costs jobs. They never say anything about other factors. Now when we have a study that proves otherwise, they are all over themselves screaming about other factors!

Why is it so hard for you to understand? If you have more people making more money they will buy more things. If companies are selling more they will hire more. If you have less people making less money they will buy less. If companies are selling less they will hire less or lay off.

Here are some historical facts.
Since 1950 we have raised the minimum wage 19 times.
If we look at the unemployment rate in the month and year the minimum wage was raised and compare it to the rate one year later we find;
Nine times the unemployment rate went down. (From .3% to 2.8%)
Twice it stayed the same.
Eight times it went up. from .4% to 3.9%)

But if we eliminate the eight times a recession accompanied an increase in the minimum wage we get a very different result. Of the eleven times no recession accompanied a raise in the minimum wage:
Nine times resulted in a drop in unemployment one year later.
One time the rate stayed the same, and one time it went up. That increase was only .4% over a year.

Clocker

07-21-2014, 07:19 PM

Now when we have a study that proves otherwise

http://livingwithmcl.com/photos/2012/09/triple-facepalm.jpeg

mostpost

07-21-2014, 07:46 PM

There's only one metric or chart that counts after the way unemployment is counted now.
The old conservative standby (CIVPART). It means nothing if we don't know why those people chose to leave the work force. A lower CIVPART does not prove a faltering economy. Here is a link to your chart extended back to 1950.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART

Through the 50's and 60's the rate was under 60%-lower than it is today. Those were two of the most prosperous decades in out history.

Clocker

07-21-2014, 07:55 PM

Through the 50's and 60's the rate was under 60%-lower than it is today. Those were two of the most prosperous decades in out history.

You can't compare then and now. The structural social changes have been too great. Many more families did well on a single income, and fewer women were interested in careers.

mostpost

07-21-2014, 07:56 PM

There is no evidence to show that the increase in jobs in those states represented an increase in minimum wage jobs. The number of minimum wage jobs could have gone up, gone down or stayed the same. Again, the data as discussed is meaningless.
What does it matter? The number of jobs went up. The people who were working at minimum wage jobs are now getting paid more. Do you have any proof that there was a decrease in the number of minimum wage jobs? I didn't think so.

mostpost

07-21-2014, 07:59 PM

You can't compare then and now. The structural social changes have been too great. Many more families did well on a single income, and fewer women were interested in careers.
Exactly! Families did well on a single income. Why can't families do well on a single income now? Could it be because a few people are hogging all the money?

Clocker

07-21-2014, 08:13 PM

Why is it so hard for you to understand? If you have more people making more money they will buy more things. If companies are selling more they will hire more.

About 1% of wage earners in this country earn the minimum wage. The typical increases shown in the Time article was maybe 20 cents. So according to you, that small increase for that few people created new jobs in less than 6 months?

I repeat, there is zero theoretical argument by even the most liberal economists for a causal relation between an increase in the minimum wage and job creation. Unless you consider Nancy Pelosi to be a reputable economist. And there is zero factual evidence as to what was responsible for the job creation rate in the states cited. You are arguing from the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Clocker

07-21-2014, 08:42 PM

Could it be because a few people are hogging all the money?

Ah, yes, time to beat the old income inequality dead horse.

Income inequality has grown more under Obama than under any recent president. Why? Government policies are the biggest drivers. What has Obama done to address it, other than make speeches? Not a thing, after calling it the defining issue of our time.

Tom

07-21-2014, 09:40 PM

Also in the news today.....

NJ Stinks

07-21-2014, 10:01 PM

Ah, yes, time to beat the old income inequality dead horse.

Income inequality has grown more under Obama than under any recent president. Why? Government policies are the biggest drivers. What has Obama done to address it, other than make speeches? Not a thing, after calling it the defining issue of our time.

Not a thing?

Pay attention, Clocker, and I won't have to repost this later on. The top federal tax rate was 35% through December 31, 2013. It increased to 39.6% as of January 1, 2014. And there's more "not a thing"s:
______________________________

Higher Taxes for Higher-Income Taxpayers
New for the 2013 tax year is the 39.6 tax bracket for higher-income taxpayers, enacted by ATRA. For 2013, the bracket affects married joint filing taxpayers and surviving spouses with taxable income of $450,000 or more. The 2013 bracket begins at $425,000 for taxpayers filing as head of household. For single filers, the amount is $400,000, and for married couples filing separately, the amount is $225,000. For 2014, Wolters Kluwer, CCH projects that these amounts will rise to $457,600, $432,200, $406,750, and $228,800, respectively.

These inflation-adjusted amounts also trigger a 20 percent tax on that portion of taxable income attributable to net capital gains and qualified dividends that exceed these bracket amounts.

"Higher-income" taxpayers also must face two new "Medicare" taxes that started in 2013. They are the 3.8 percent surtax on net investment income and a 0.9 percent Medicare contributions tax on earned income. The net investment income tax is triggered when adjusted gross income exceeds: $250,000 (married joint filers and qualifying widowers), $200,000 (for heads of household and single filers), and $125,000 (for married single filers). The additional Medicare contributions tax is triggered when a taxpayer's wages, compensation, or self-employment income exceed these same threshold amounts. These amounts, however, are not adjusted for inflation and therefore remain the same for 2014.

Link: http://www.accountingweb.com/article/2014-income-tax-bracket-increase-estimates-revealed/222418

Tom

07-21-2014, 10:24 PM

So you are saying Obama DID do something about it......he STOLE more money from makers to give to takers.

Nice.
Please differentiate between a liberal and a bank robber.
Never mind - it is obvious.
Bank robbers have class.

Steve 'StatMan'

07-21-2014, 10:44 PM

mostpost

07-21-2014, 10:48 PM

About 1% of wage earners in this country earn the minimum wage. The typical increases shown in the Time article was maybe 20 cents. So according to you, that small increase for that few people created new jobs in less than 6 months?

I repeat, there is zero theoretical argument by even the most liberal economists for a causal relation between an increase in the minimum wage and job creation. Unless you consider Nancy Pelosi to be a reputable economist. And there is zero factual evidence as to what was responsible for the job creation rate in the states cited. You are arguing from the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.
If only 1% of wage earners in this country earn minimum wage, why is raising the minimum wage such a disaster? 1% of wage earners is much less than 1% of the economy. The average wage in this country is three times the minimum wage. If the 99% earn on average three times what the 1% earns then how does a 13% increase for that one percent hurt the 99%?

In any case, our argument is not so much that a raise in the minimum wage is a great job creator as it is that it does not cost jobs.

mostpost

07-21-2014, 10:53 PM

Clocker

07-21-2014, 11:32 PM

If only 1% of wage earners in this country earn minimum wage, why is raising the minimum wage such a disaster? 1% of wage earners is much less than 1% of the economy. The average wage in this country is three times the minimum wage. If the 99% earn on average three times what the 1% earns then how does a 13% increase for that one percent hurt the 99%?

In any case, our argument is not so much that a raise in the minimum wage is a great job creator as it is that it does not cost jobs.

I don't know what it is, I just tossed out the 1% as troll bait. It is probably about 3%, but I don't feeling like looking it up.

It is a disaster because the government has no business telling employers what they have to pay. And anytime the government sticks its nose into the private sector, it screws things up and makes inefficient and ineffective decisions. That is reason enough. How can you possibly think that you or your Senator or the president know better than the employer what a person's labor is worth?

mostpost

07-21-2014, 11:47 PM

I don't know what it is, I just tossed out the 1% as troll bait. It is probably about 3%, but I don't feeling like looking it up.

It is a disaster because the government has no business telling employers what they have to pay. And anytime the government sticks its nose into the private sector, it screws things up and makes inefficient and ineffective decisions. That is reason enough. How can you possibly think that you or your Senator or the president know better than the employer what a person's labor is worth?

It is actually 4.3%. I did look it up but I figured why tell you since you are too lazy. My point still stands. The effect of a raise in the minimum wage is not nearly as great as you claim.

Clocker

07-21-2014, 11:54 PM

Pay attention, Clocker, and I won't have to repost this later on.

Do you write your own snappy patter, or do you recycle mostie's old material?

Unless Obama decreed those tax rates by royal edict, he himself did nothing about the problem he calls the defining issue of our times. Those tax rates, as you know, are nowhere near the effective rates, and any increases in the effective rates probably had little if any impact on the evil 1% that Obama demonizes in public while his policies continue to make them richer.

And according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-democrats-split-on-inequality-issues-obama-shifts-talk-away-from-income-gap/2014/07/04/102f1f32-02be-11e4-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html), he has dropped the issue completely. I can't wait to find out what the next defining issue of our time is.

After making fighting income inequality an early focus of his second term, President Obama has largely abandoned talk of the subject this election year in a move that highlights the emerging debate within the Democratic Party over economic populism and its limits.

During the first half of this year, Obama shifted from income inequality to the more politically palatable theme of lifting the middle class, focusing on issues such as the minimum wage and the gender pay gap that are thought to resonate with a broader group of voters.

The pivot is striking for a president who identified inequality as one of his top concerns after his reelection, calling it “a fundamental threat to the American Dream, our way of life and what we stand for around the globe.”

Clocker

07-22-2014, 12:00 AM

My point still stands. The effect of a raise in the minimum wage is not nearly as great as you claim.

Your point doesn't stand. The government has no business interfering in the decisions of the private sector. The size of the immediate impact of the interference does not make it right or wrong. A little control of private sector wages is like a little bit pregnant. They just need to leave it alone and let it die.

NJ Stinks

07-22-2014, 12:08 AM

Income inequality has grown more under Obama than under any recent president. Why? Government policies are the biggest drivers. What has Obama done to address it, other than make speeches? Not a thing, after calling it the defining issue of our time.

Do you write your own snappy patter, or do you recycle mostie's old material?

You are - what's the right word that won't offend your sensitive side - erroneous so often that the snappy patter just rolls off the keys. :jump:

mostpost

07-22-2014, 12:14 AM

It is a disaster because the government has no business telling employers what they have to pay. And anytime the government sticks its nose into the private sector, it screws things up and makes inefficient and ineffective decisions. That is reason enough. How can you possibly think that you or your Senator or the president know better than the employer what a person's labor is worth?
It is indeed the job of government to establish parameters. And to make sure they are observed by all businesses. It is to the detriment of society that a factory dump toxic materials into the river. Yet some factories will do that. Not only does that pollute the river, but it gives that factory a competitive advantage over a factory which installs recycling equipment. The result is the polluter sells more product and the honest man goes out of business. Eventually you have nothing but polluters in business.

As for wages, your typical employer pays his employee the smallest amount he can get away with. In the first place his opinion of the employee's worth is colored by his own desire to make money. Nothing wrong with making money, but it influences his opinions. If the employer thinks the employee is worth $20 an hour he will offer him $15. If the employee accepts the employer is home free. If the employee balks, the employer raises the offer a little at a time until finally he makes a "Final" offer at $18 an hour. The employee thinks he has made a great bargain.

The same applies to minimum wage. The employer can afford $7.25 an hour, but because there is no minimum wage he pays $4.00 an hour.

TJDave

07-22-2014, 12:20 AM

I'd be all for eliminating the minimum wage if companies brought back production from offshore. Fair competition would produce a fair wage.

Clocker

07-22-2014, 12:26 AM

You are - what's the right word that won't offend your sensitive side - erroneous so often that the snappy patter just rolls off the keys. :jump:

In the enjoyment of your own snappy patter, you forgot to point out what Obama has done about it since announcing that income inequality was the defining issue of our times. Even his tame local paper, the WashPo, says nothing.

TJDave

07-22-2014, 12:34 AM

your typical employer pays his employee the smallest amount he can get away with.

Not typical. Employers pay market rate for average workers. More for the best. Ironically, employers pay the most for minimum wage workers beause they typically get the least return.

The argument for/against minimum wage is more about funding welfare than employment.

Clocker

07-22-2014, 12:39 AM

It is to the detriment of society that a factory dump toxic materials into the river.

That is a legitimate role of government. Pollution infringes on the rights of others. The government's job is to protect the rights of individuals when they are unable to protect them themselves.

As for wages, your typical employer pays his employee the smallest amount he can get away with. In the first place his opinion of the employee's worth is colored by his own desire to make money. Nothing wrong with making money, but it influences his opinions. If the employer thinks the employee is worth $20 an hour he will offer him $15. If the employee accepts the employer is home free. If the employee balks, the employer raises the offer a little at a time until finally he makes a "Final" offer at $18 an hour. The employee thinks he has made a great bargain.

The same applies to minimum wage. The employer can afford $7.25 an hour, but because there is no minimum wage he pays $4.00 an hour.

Another liberal bedtime story, made up out of whole cloth. I must assume that you have never managed a private business, and have no experience in setting wages or hiring employees. It just doesn't work that way.

An employer knows the going market wages, and wants the best person he can hire. An excellent $20 an hour worker is cheaper than an average $15 an hour worker. The decision to hire an excellent $20 an hour worker "is colored by his own desire to make money."

mostpost

07-22-2014, 12:40 AM

Your point doesn't stand. The government has no business interfering in the decisions of the private sector. The size of the immediate impact of the interference does not make it right or wrong. A little control of private sector wages is like a little bit pregnant. They just need to leave it alone and let it die.
As simply as I can put it. The decisions of the "Private sector" do not just effect the private sector. They effect the people who work for the private sector. They effect the people who do business with the private sector. They effect the public sector (government). If BP spills crude oil into the river, that effects people who live along the river. It effects people who boat on the river. It effects people who fish in the river and people who eat those fish. It effects communities whose economies depend on people who come to the river to swim or boat or fish. Yet somehow you think that BP should have the right to make decisions that effect so many others by itself and without any consequence.
You are amazing.

mostpost

07-22-2014, 12:52 AM

That is a legitimate role of government. Pollution infringes on the rights of others. The government's job is to protect the rights of individuals when they are unable to protect them themselves.

Another liberal bedtime story, made up out of whole cloth. I must assume that you have never managed a private business, and have no experience in setting wages or hiring employees. It just doesn't work that way.

An employer knows the going market wages, and wants the best person he can hire. An excellent $20 an hour worker is cheaper than an average $15 an hour worker. The decision to hire an excellent $20 an hour worker "is colored by his own desire to make money."

Is the going market wage the best wage? Does an employer pay more than market wage if he doesn't have to? Or does the market conspire to keep wages low? You think of the market as employers chasing workers. As a large number of employers trying to hire a limited number of workers, which would cause the workers to be worth more.

That is not the case nowadays. There is a glut of unemployed workers chasing a limited number of jobs. Therefore the jobs are worth more to workers. They "pay" more for the jobs by accepting a lower salary.

NJ Stinks

07-22-2014, 12:59 AM

In the enjoyment of your own snappy patter, you forgot to point out what Obama has done about it since announcing that income inequality was the defining issue of our times. Even his tame local paper, the WashPo, says nothing.

OK, Clocker. Let's see if this gets through to you. You posted:

Unless Obama decreed those tax rates by royal edict, he himself did nothing about the problem he calls the defining issue of our times.

Have you ever heard of the Bush Tax Cuts? Do you have any idea why they were called the Bush Tax Cuts?

Here's a hint: google Bush Tax Cuts! :jump:

mostpost

07-22-2014, 01:01 AM

Not a thing?

Pay attention, Clocker, and I won't have to repost this later on. The top federal tax rate was 35% through December 31, 2013. It increased to 39.6% as of January 1, 2014. And there's more "not a thing"s:
______________________________

Higher Taxes for Higher-Income Taxpayers
New for the 2013 tax year is the 39.6 tax bracket for higher-income taxpayers, enacted by ATRA. For 2013, the bracket affects married joint filing taxpayers and surviving spouses with taxable income of $450,000 or more. The 2013 bracket begins at $425,000 for taxpayers filing as head of household. For single filers, the amount is $400,000, and for married couples filing separately, the amount is $225,000. For 2014, Wolters Kluwer, CCH projects that these amounts will rise to $457,600, $432,200, $406,750, and $228,800, respectively.

These inflation-adjusted amounts also trigger a 20 percent tax on that portion of taxable income attributable to net capital gains and qualified dividends that exceed these bracket amounts.

"Higher-income" taxpayers also must face two new "Medicare" taxes that started in 2013. They are the 3.8 percent surtax on net investment income and a 0.9 percent Medicare contributions tax on earned income. The net investment income tax is triggered when adjusted gross income exceeds: $250,000 (married joint filers and qualifying widowers), $200,000 (for heads of household and single filers), and $125,000 (for married single filers). The additional Medicare contributions tax is triggered when a taxpayer's wages, compensation, or self-employment income exceed these same threshold amounts. These amounts, however, are not adjusted for inflation and therefore remain the same for 2014.

Link: http://www.accountingweb.com/article/2014-income-tax-bracket-increase-estimates-revealed/222418
I understand what you are saying about addressing income inequality by raising taxes even if Clocker doesn't. But more needs to be done. Raising the minimum wage would be a step in the right direction. Affordable health care is a step in the right direction. Strengthening unions and increased union participation would help.

The unions were victims of their own success. Thanks to the unions the middle class achieved unprecedented success. Then shortsighted people forgot how they got that success. They thought they didn't need unions anymore. The anti union crowd fed on this. Keep your dues. Your leaders are all crooks. The free market will protect you. All lies.

I have friends-smart friends-who think we don't need unions because we have all these protections in law. Laws that can be repealed.

davew

07-22-2014, 01:30 AM

NJ Stinks

07-22-2014, 01:31 AM

I understand what you are saying about addressing income inequality by raising taxes even if Clocker doesn't. But more needs to be done. Raising the minimum wage would be a step in the right direction. Affordable health care is a step in the right direction. Strengthening unions and increased union participation would help.

The unions were victims of their own success. Thanks to the unions the middle class achieved unprecedented success. Then shortsighted people forgot how they got that success. They thought they didn't need unions anymore. The anti union crowd fed on this. Keep your dues. Your leaders are all crooks. The free market will protect you. All lies.

I have friends-smart friends-who think we don't need unions because we have all these protections in law. Laws that can be repealed.

I agree with you, Mostpost. One thing is for sure. Republicans are not going to anything on their own to move us in the right direction. In fact, it will be the same old story if they control Washington again - cut taxes, cut food stamps, cut Pell Grants, cut unemployment benefits, let the poor rot with a joke of a minimum wage, etc. Democrats at least offer some hope to close the gap between the haves and the have nots.

davew

07-22-2014, 01:42 AM

they could raise minimum wage for the government workers to $20, and everyone could work for the government (in some capacity)

that would solve everything

NJ Stinks

07-22-2014, 02:41 AM

they could raise minimum wage for the government workers to $20, and everyone could work for the government (in some capacity)

that would solve everything

One thing that is not going to solve everything is to have economic policies that fosters two groups - the super rich and the dirt poor.

It leads to revolutions.

Clocker

07-22-2014, 02:46 AM

One thing that is not going to solve everything is to have economic policies that fosters two groups - the super rich and the dirt poor.

Hint: this summarizes the current economic policy of this administration.

Clocker

07-22-2014, 03:06 AM

Have you ever heard of the Bush Tax Cuts? Do you have any idea why they were called the Bush Tax Cuts?

They were called the Bush tax cuts because they were enacted by Congress during the Bush administration. And the fact that Bush asked for them showed that Bush was almost as ignorant about economic policy as Obama. And that the Congress that enacted them was probably as ignorant about economic policy as the current Congress.

Tom

07-22-2014, 07:26 AM

Democrats at least offer some hope to close the gap between the haves and the have nots.

Yes and Santa Claus can keep score.
How about the gap between will do's and the won't do's?
The ships and the anchors?

tucker6

07-22-2014, 07:33 AM

Yes and Santa Claus can keep score.
How about the gap between will do's and the won't do's?
The ships and the anchors?
You can't have an anchor without a ship, but you can have a ship without an anchor.

Clocker

07-22-2014, 08:50 AM

I understand what you are saying about addressing income inequality by raising taxes even if Clocker doesn't.

What I understand is that after Obama waved his magic wand and made the oceans recede and the tax rates rise, income inequality continues to grow under his administration. So I repeat, he has done nothing about the problem.

dartman51

07-22-2014, 09:27 AM

I agree minimum wage should go up about 0.15%. the same as the increased job growth.

mosty, where is minimum wage $4? it hasn't been that in my state since 1975

why would anyone want to bump it up 30 - 50% at once?

Mosty likes to throw those low numbers out there, because it makes his argument look better. :faint: The bottom line is, if the economy were booming, there wouldn't be a discussion about minimum wage. It's all about supply and demand. If jobs were plentiful, there wouldn't be as many people trying for the same job, therefore the business would have to pay more to get quality help. With the economy in the tank, and you have 50 to 100 people trying to get the same job, the business doesn't have to pay as much to get that same quality help. This business about income inequality is all about helping the unskilled, uneducated, high school dropout, get the same pay as someone who cared enough about their future to stay in school, and graduate. This is the result of many years of the "DUMBING DOWN" of America. BOTH parties are responsible for that. :(

classhandicapper

07-22-2014, 10:10 AM

We constantly hear from conservatives about how raising the minimum wage costs jobs. They never say anything about other factors. Now when we have a study that proves otherwise, they are all over themselves screaming about other factors!

Why is it so hard for you to understand? If you have more people making more money they will buy more things. If companies are selling more they will hire more. If you have less people making less money they will buy less. If companies are selling less they will hire less or lay off.

You have an idealistic view of economics.

Raising wages will only work if those wages are justified by the skill set and productivity of the workers vs. the demand for them. Otherwise, you wind up lowering profits even if the money is spent right back. Once you lower profits, companies start looking to cut costs.

If your theory was correct why not just pay all minimum wage workers $100 or even $200 an hour so they can eventually become part of the 1%? It won't work because every company would go bust even if people spent that money back.

If you want to raise the wages of people at the bottom I'd advise a few things.

1. Better education and training. I'd start by crushing unions that are more interested in protecting teachers than teaching children. More productive workers will be worth more money to businesses.

2. Close the damn borders and stop letting all the illegals in. Reducing the supply of low skilled workers will put upward pressure on wages.

3. Stop adding unnecessary rules, regulations, or costs to businesses. Anything that lowers profits reduces the incentive to invest and create new jobs at the margin.

Tom

07-22-2014, 10:57 AM

Those workers are at the bottom for a reason.

tucker6

07-22-2014, 11:21 AM

Those workers are at the bottom for a reason.
Every one is a case of bad luck Tom. It was unlucky that the person got addicted to drugs/alcohol. It was unlucky that the person's alarm didn't go off and they missed so much school. It was unlucky that he got her pregnant by not using a condom. It was unlucky that they weren't born with the silver spoons we had.

Bottom line is that I bet over 90% of all kids can escape all these things if they wanted to, but many do not because it is easier to escape reality than to face it.

TJDave

07-22-2014, 11:40 AM

Bottom line is that I bet over 90% of all kids can escape all these things if they wanted to, but many do not because it is easier to escape reality than to face it.

That would be problematic as there's no place for them to go. Hiring on at minimum wage is now a career.

JustRalph

07-22-2014, 01:28 PM

That would be problematic as there's no place for them to go. Hiring on at minimum wage is now a career.

I had this discussion with a few guys who work for my wife. Mid 20's. We discussed how to get out of the poverty cycle. Escape shitty jobs. They proclaimed that there is no way out. They were both high school drop outs. I explained that my wife and I did it.

When I told them that we both worked two jobs for almost two years, they interrupted me to remind me that there is no way they could do that. Not enough hours in the day. When I explained that we worked 12-16 hours a day plus commute most days and usually only got one day off a week. If we were lucky we were off together for a day twice a month, one of them actually spontaneously exclaimed "no way I'm going to do that!"

I explained that he had drawn a line in his exclamation, between himself and success. He shook his head and walked away. Got into the car with his buddy who was picking him up and drove away while handing out the beers to the others in the car.

Tom

07-22-2014, 01:57 PM

I mentioned in another thread that I watched the moon landing at my job at the American Legion. I also worked at a local florist and a dairy/restaurant at the same time - 4 jobs - to put myself through college.

The secret to having a shit job is to have several of them. Add the paychecks up and you have a real job.

TJDave

07-22-2014, 02:44 PM

I had this discussion with a few guys who work for my wife. Mid 20's. We discussed how to get out of the poverty cycle. Escape shitty jobs. They proclaimed that there is no way out. They were both high school drop outs. I explained that my wife and I did it.

When I told them that we both worked two jobs for almost two years, they interrupted me to remind me that there is no way they could do that. Not enough hours in the day. When I explained that we worked 12-16 hours a day plus commute most days and usually only got one day off a week. If we were lucky we were off together for a day twice a month, one of them actually spontaneously exclaimed "no way I'm going to do that!"

I explained that he had drawn a line in his exclamation, between himself and success. He shook his head and walked away. Got into the car with his buddy who was picking him up and drove away while handing out the beers to the others in the car.

My response was more general in that there are few decent jobs available. Used to be a HS grad could get a job that would support a family, maybe buy a house, save some money.

For the most part, those jobs are gone.

mostpost

07-22-2014, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by davew
I agree minimum wage should go up about 0.15%. the same as the increased job growth.

mosty, where is minimum wage $4? it hasn't been that in my state since 1975

why would anyone want to bump it up 30 - 50% at once?

Mosty likes to throw those low numbers out there, because it makes his argument look better. The bottom line is, if the economy were booming, there wouldn't be a discussion about minimum wage. It's all about supply and demand. If jobs were plentiful, there wouldn't be as many people trying for the same job, therefore the business would have to pay more to get quality help. With the economy in the tank, and you have 50 to 100 people trying to get the same job, the business doesn't have to pay as much to get that same quality help. This business about income inequality is all about helping the unskilled, uneducated, high school dropout, get the same pay as someone who cared enough about their future to stay in school, and graduate. This is the result of many years of the "DUMBING DOWN" of America. BOTH parties are responsible for that.

Can none of you read? Must I explain everything with pictures, graphs and little arrows? What I said was if there were no minimum wage of $7.25 an hour many employers would be $4.00 or whatever the traffic would bear. It never entered my mind that someone would interpret that the way DaveW. That's almost as sillly as thinking the ACA intended subsidies only for state run exchanges.

Tom

07-22-2014, 03:45 PM

many employers would be $4.00 or whatever the traffic would bear.

We call that the real world.
Are you deaf and blind?

What part of minimum wage people ARE NOT WORTH any more do you not get. Most are worth much LESS than they get paid. Those are jobs that add little value.

Clocker

07-22-2014, 03:55 PM

Can none of you read? Must I explain everything with pictures, graphs and little arrows? What I said was if there were no minimum wage of $7.25 an hour many employers would be $4.00 or whatever the traffic would bear.

A sweeping generalization with no empirical observations to back it up. The wage for a job would be whatever it takes to get someone to voluntarily and capably do the job.

If I offer a job at a given wage, and a consenting adult accepts that job at that wage, why is that any of your business? Who are you to assume that you know more about the situation than the employer and the employee? What is the basis for your presumed superior knowledge that the employee is too stupid to make his own decisions? What is your presumed superior moral authority to dictate to others what is the "right" thing to do?

johnhannibalsmith

07-22-2014, 04:34 PM

...

why would anyone want to bump it up 30 - 50% at once?

votes

davew

07-22-2014, 04:36 PM

Can none of you read? Must I explain everything with pictures, graphs and little arrows? What I said was if there were no minimum wage of $7.25 an hour many employers would be $4.00 or whatever the traffic would bear. It never entered my mind that someone would interpret that the way DaveW. That's almost as sillly as thinking the ACA intended subsidies only for state run exchanges.

So you are suggesting to get away from any minimum wage at all?

Why wouldn't ACA subsidies/rebates only apply to state ran exchanges? that is what is in the law - maybe Nancy Pelosi should have read it before pushing it and signing it into law. Maybe they should have written it themselves rather than have insurance company lobbyists write it.

classhandicapper

07-22-2014, 04:40 PM

Can none of you read? Must I explain everything with pictures, graphs and little arrows? What I said was if there were no minimum wage of $7.25 an hour many employers would be $4.00 or whatever the traffic would bear.

You are probably correct. The salary at some minimum wage jobs would decline (but not all minimum wage jobs would decline). On the flip side, there would be MORE jobs because some things that don't make sense for an employer at 7.25 do make sense at a cost of $6.00 or $5.50 etc...

HUSKER55

07-22-2014, 04:44 PM

who do you know that works for minimum wage?

Any business owner will tell you that if you are not paying your help at least half again, you are in trouble. That means, you the business owner, has his ass in the wind.

If your workers only exist then so do you. They need to be able to buy goods and services so everyone wins. Your employees are customers to someone else. That includes you. That means other business employees are your customers.

That was business 101 when I went to school. Think of it this way. If minimum wage is $8 and you can barely pay $12 then you have a huge problem. At $16 you should be very stable. At $20 you and your employees are doing something right.