Hillary: You didn't build that

[Clocker]

While Hillary claims to be undecided about running in 2016, she appears to be at least setting the stage for a primary battle against uber-moonbat Elizabeth Warren. Warren is the one that started the "you didn't build that" meme even before Obama trotted it out.

Going one better than "if you have a business, you didn't build that", Hillary says that the business that you didn't build doesn't create jobs.

Clinton defended raising the minimum wage saying “Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs, they always say that.”

She went on to state that businesses and corporations are not the job creators of America. “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” the former Secretary of State said.

Story (http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clinton-corporations-and-businesses-dont-create-jobs/)

[classhandicapper]

That comment alone, unless taken out of context, should disqualify her from any office that wants to remain a free country.

[Clocker]

That comment alone, unless taken out of context, should disqualify her from any office that wants to remain a free country.
I did a brief search, but could not find the whole speech. There was no indication that she followed up on the comment to explain what does in fact create jobs.

The video looks like she was just rabble-rousing at a campaign event. The rally was for Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Warren also spoke.

[mostpost]

I did a brief search, but could not find the whole speech. There was no indication that she followed up on the comment to explain what does in fact create jobs.

The video looks like she was just rabble-rousing at a campaign event. The rally was for Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Warren also spoke.
Conservatives never get this. No matter how many businesses you start; no matter how many factories you build; no matter how many assembly lines you set up, you do not create a single sustained job until someone buys your product. The people who buy most of the products are the middle class.

Yes, it is true, that corporations and businesses provide the products that the middle class consumes, but it is also true that it is the middle class that makes those products.

Consumers create jobs by buying products or services. If there are no consumers, building products or offering services means nothing except having a surfeit of products to warehouse.

[Tom]

Without businesses, people hunt and fish and grow crops.
And you get no welfare checks. You work or starve.

Consumers do not and never have created jobs.
They take advantage of the extraordinary efforts put forth by the top few per centers. Businesses find needs and offer solutions to those needs.

Unlike democrats and other assorted government fools who think they have e role in the process.

mosite, businesses can sell their products anywhere in the world.
You gonna buy your milk from France?

What Hillary the murderer doesn't get is that those jobs were not created by raising the minimum wage but by destroying the economy. Just a timing coincidence.

[Clocker]

Consumers create jobs by buying products or services.

This shows such a profound lack of understanding about how jobs are created that I believe it qualifies you to run for president on the Democratic ticket.

And where does the money come from to make those purchases? All other things being equal, buying a new product means not buying something you used to buy. To support economic growth, and to create new jobs, the wealth of the country (measured in real terms, not in Federal Reserve funny money) has to grow. The government is incapable of creating wealth. Only the private sector can do that, largely through investment.

The economy today is nearly stagnant and job growth is not enough to keep up with population growth, and it is because companies are not expanding and new companies are not being created at a rate than can sustain growth.

[classhandicapper]

Conservatives never get this. No matter how many businesses you start; no matter how many factories you build; no matter how many assembly lines you set up, you do not create a single sustained job until someone buys your product. The people who buy most of the products are the middle class.


I'm not sure what books and articles you are reading about economics, but I advise you to burn them all.

Exactly how do you think all these products and service come into being?

Do you think companies wave a magic wand?

Businesses employ people to do all sorts of jobs. That employment leads to the incomes people use to purchase goods and services for themselves.

The owners also get a return on the capital they have invested in these business. They then use it either expand their businesses (or other businesses) which hire more people and generate more income.

What's good for business is generally good for people.

The only issue at any given time is the supply and demand for labor. At any given point in time the workers might have the upper hand and at other times it's the other way around.

Right now companies have the upper hand because all the free trade agreements have made it easier to move jobs to other countries and because we have tons of immigration (including illegal). That increases the SUPPLY of labor which drives down salaries.

Many companies are also hesitant to invest because this administration is hostile to business. They don't know if they will get a good return on investment so they sit on the cash or look elsewhere.

The next time you argue for more immigration, for amnesty, or more illegals to come here because they are future democrats, just keep in mind you are doing the work of big business that loves the greater supply of workers that help keep wages down at home.

The next time to argue for some knucklehead wealth redistribution scheme that is hostile to business, keep in mind you are destroying some jobs.

[Clocker]

The owners get a return on the capital they invest in these business and generate an income for themselves that they then use to either expand their businesses and hire more people, or provide money for other businesses to do so, or to consume for themselves.

This is the key that libs don't understand. The economy can't grow and net new jobs can't be created unless more wealth is created to fund the growth. Otherwise you are just redistributing the existing wealth. New private sector jobs are self funding. New government jobs have to be funded over and over with taxed or borrowed money.

Investment by definition is spending wealth to create more wealth. The government does not do that, only the private sector does.

[JustRalph]

in an attempt to defend Hillary, Mostie digs deep into his cranium for a serious sack of crap.

Jobs are created by those taking risks, building businesses etc. In the hopes that someone buys their products. Not the other way around :bang:

Btw, there are lots of quasi-businesses out there that create jobs without creating a product or selling anything. They're called Government agencies. And they all lose money, except those that steal it from the populace. You know, like the IRS and the EPA. those that can issue fines.

[AndyC]

Conservatives never get this. No matter how many businesses you start; no matter how many factories you build; no matter how many assembly lines you set up, you do not create a single sustained job until someone buys your product. The people who buy most of the products are the middle class.

Yes, it is true, that corporations and businesses provide the products that the middle class consumes, but it is also true that it is the middle class that makes those products.

Consumers create jobs by buying products or services. If there are no consumers, building products or offering services means nothing except having a surfeit of products to warehouse.


Presumably if someone is buying a product the job was already created to build the product.

Did Steve Jobs create employment at Apple?

“It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them.”
— Steve Jobs

[Greyfox]

you do not create a single sustained job until someone buys your product..

Wow.
Even the five year old kid down the block selling lemonade gets that.:rolleyes:

[Clocker]

I'm surprised the libs didn't jump on Hillary's statement about minimum wages and praise it to the skies.

“Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs, they always say that.”

From a recent WSJ article:

The McDonald’s earnings report on Tuesday gave a hint at how the fast-food chain really plans to respond to its wage and profit pressure—automate. As many contributors to these pages have warned, forcing businesses to pay people out of proportion to the profits they generate will provide those businesses with a greater incentive to replace employees with machines.

By the third quarter of next year, McDonald’s plans to introduce new technology in some markets “to make it easier for customers to order and pay for food digitally and to give people the ability to customize their orders,” reports the Journal. Mr. Thompson, the CEO, said Tuesday that customers “want to personalize their meals” and “to enjoy eating in a contemporary, inviting atmosphere. And they want choices in how they order, choices in what they order and how they’re served.”

That is no doubt true, but it’s also a convenient way for Mr. Thompson to justify a reduction in the chain’s global workforce. It’s also a way to send a message to franchisees about the best way to reduce their costs amid slow sales growth. In any event, consumers better get used to the idea of ordering their Big Macs on a touchscreen.
No direct link to the WSJ article possible. Google "Minimum Wage Backfire" to find it.

[Clocker]

Strange days. Hillary is moving left and Obama is moving right. Or Obama is sucking up to the private sector in preparation to try to fund the Obama Presidential Library and Memorial Country Club.

From a commencement speech at the Northwestern business school.

There is a reason why I came to a business school instead of a school of government. I actually believe that capitalism is the greatest force for prosperity and opportunity the world has ever known. And I believe in private enterprise -- not government, but innovators and risk-takers and makers and doers -- driving job creation.

OMG!!! Obama actually praised "MAKERS". How are the Ayn Rand haters going to talk their way out of that one? :eek:

[mostpost]

Wow.
Even the five year old kid down the block selling lemonade gets that.:rolleyes:Maybe the five year old kid gets it, but the conservatives here don't. They think that just the act of making the product creates more jobs. Obviously you have the jobs that were used to make the product. But you have no new jobs until the consumer buys that product and wants to buy more.

If you make ten thousand toasters and sell five thousand, making ten thousand more will not create a single new job. Making twenty thousand more will not create a single job. What creates jobs is the demand for more toasters than you are currently making. You can't have that demand if the consumer doesn't have money to spend.

No matter how much you invest in your toaster business, the one essential ingredient is labor. Someone has to assemble all those parts into a toaster. Otherwise you just have a bunch of parts in a parts bin.

[Greyfox]

Maybe the five year old kid gets it, but the conservatives here don't.

That deserves a Ripley's Bellieve It or Not listing.

Sure the kid gets it, but so does anyone with two ounces worth of grey matter.
You're really over the moon believing that.

[mostpost]

I'm surprised the libs didn't jump on Hillary's statement about minimum wages and praise it to the skies.



From a recent WSJ article:


No direct link to the WSJ article possible. Google "Minimum Wage Backfire" to find it.
I have several times posted a comparison of a raise in the minimum wage with the concurrent unemployment rate. I don't recall the exact numbers and I don't plan to look them up, but the fact is an increase in the minimum wage is almost always accompanied by a drop in the unemployment rate. The only time this does not hold true is when we are in the midst of a recession.

[Tom]

mostie, you are seriously making a fool of yourself here.
Please keep it up - it is entertaining as hell to read such nonsensical drivel! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Clocker]

mostie, you are seriously making a fool of yourself here.
Please keep it up - it is entertaining as hell to read such nonsensical drivel! :lol: :lol: :lol:
How can you not love the rebirth of lemonade stand economics, which were roundly condemned by his soul brother, the late, great Capper. :p

[Clocker]

the fact is an increase in the minimum wage is almost always accompanied by a drop in the unemployment rate. The only time this does not hold true is when we are in the midst of a recession.
Do we need a review session on the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc"?

You appear to be somehow saying, without even at attempt to explain the linkage, that an increase in minimum wage causes a decrease in unemployment. How does that work? A business owner sees that the minimum wage went up and thinks, wow, those people must be worth a lot more than I thought, I better run right out and hire a couple?

Or could it be perhaps that the increase in minimum wage happens at a time when UE is already trending down? Except, as you say, when there is a recession? Because otherwise, an increase in the minimum wage could reverse the recession by stimulating employment.

[TBD]

Of course there is no way in hell that raising the minimum wage will generate more jobs. One possible effect of raising the minimum wage is that individuals that have left the job search market would return. Filling already open positions at a wage that is acceptable to them. It will not generate jobs. Simply put, if it did, we found the way to fix every recession. Nobel Prize time.

[HUSKER55]

the kid finds a need and fills it. Market 101

I have a news flash for you guys and gals. No body needs a toaster unless you are looking for a cheap wedding gift. That is why they are made as after thoughts. That is the kind of market driven products that will not support any factory nor any worker hence the 24 hour work week.

The jobs that will support families are going overseas because investors expect a decent return on their money. No money invested here means no jobs here.

[hcap]

http://ourfuture.org/20140310/all-of-the-arguments-against-raising-the-minimum-wage-have-fallen-apart?gclid=CLvZ-b6HysECFVFgMgodH1IA_g

We also have real-world experience with higher minimums. In 1998, the citizens of Washington State voted to raise theirs and then link future increases to the rate of inflation. Today, at $9.32, the Evergreen State has the highest minimum wage in the country – not far from the $10.10 per hour proposed by Barack Obama. At the time it was passed, opponents promised it would kill jobs and ultimately hurt the workers it was designed to help.

But it didn’t turn out that way. This week, Bloomberg’s Victoria Stilwell, Peter Robison and William Selway reported: “In the 15 years that followed… job growth continued at an average 0.8 percent annual pace, 0.3 percentage point above the national rate. Payrolls at Washington’s restaurants and bars, portrayed as particularly vulnerable to higher wage costs, expanded by 21 percent. Poverty has trailed the U.S. level for at least seven years.”
.................................................. ...
So here is an exception to the righties rule of absolutes who always know the answers and usually back up their arguments with parroted theories ONLY

Mostpost is correct. Businesses depend on consumers. I would think by now the absolutists here would realize this.

[hcap]

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/minimum-wage/small-business-support-increasing-minimum-wage.php?gclid=CKmRmOWJysECFc1_MgodeQkAIw

Small business owners are still recovering from the Great Recession and doing everything they can to fortify their businesses, and with them, the economy. In communities across the country, it is the jobs small businesses provide and the consumers they serve that keep our recovery moving. In order to grow and thrive, entrepreneurs need smart policies that help bolster their bottom lines and fuel the consumer demand that underpins economic success. They believe increasing the federal minimum wage will help do this. Scientific opinion polling shows entrepreneurs support increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour because it will enhance consumer spending, which can increase the demand for small firms’ good and services and boost their businesses’ bottom lines while strengthening the economy.

Main Findings

The majority of small business owners support increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and adjusting it yearly to reflect the cost of living:
57% of small business owners support increasing the federal minimum wage of $7.25 in three stages over two and a half years to $10.10, and believe that it should be adjusted annually to keep pace with the cost of living.

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/minimum-wage/images/figure-1-natl.jpg

So all youse guys' theories re just that. Curiously the majority of small business owners have another theory very much at odds wit all youse guys.
Why is that?


Full Pol:l

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/downloads/030614-National-Minimum-Wage-Poll.pdf

[hcap]

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment

The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago's (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_br0IEq5a9E77NMV) Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.

[hcap]

http://hbr.org/2012/01/why-good-jobs-are-good-for-retailers/ar/1

From the Harvard Business School

Why "Good Jobs" Are Good for Retailers

......Highly successful retail chains—such as Quik*Trip convenience stores, Mercadona and Trader Joe’s supermarkets, and Costco wholesale clubs—not only invest heavily in store employees but also have the lowest prices in their industries, solid financial performance, and better customer service than their competitors. They have demonstrated that, even in the lowest-price segment of retail, bad jobs are not a cost-driven necessity but a choice. And they have proven that the key to breaking the trade-off is a combination of investment in the workforce and operational practices that benefit employees, customers, and the company. This article explains those practices.

Read the rest at the link
.................................................

Also

TheEconomist (http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21567072-evidence-mounting-moderate-minimum-wages-can-do-more-good-harm) November 2012: “Evidence is mounting that moderate minimum wages can do more good than harm. […] Bastions of orthodoxy, such as the OECD, a rich-country think-tank, and the International Monetary Fund, now assert that a moderate minimum wage probably does not do much harm and may do some good. Their definition of moderate is 30-40% of the median wage. Britain’s experience suggests it might even be a bit higher.

[Robert Goren]

The more I read posts here by the conservatives, the surer I am that most of them have ran a small business or were ever in management for a large one. If they had, they would realize how much time and effort goes into getting and keeping customers. They seem to take them for granted. If a business does that, they are not around very long. The taking of customers(bettors) for grant is why the racing industry is in so much trouble. I can't see anyone arguing that point.

Buggy whip factories are not around any longer because there is no demand for buggy whips, not because the government taxed them at too a rate. You could the tax rate to zero and there still would be no buggy whip factories. You could do away with the minimum wage and there still would be no buggy whip factories. There is nothing that either the conservatives or liberals can do that will bring back buggy whip manufacturing because nobody wants to buy a buggy whip anymore at any price.

[fast4522]

Robert,

What you will never consider is your opinion is jaded because your all done climbing in the working world, the fork has had you for a long time. All the climbing is done by the young and intelligent. In a nutshell the socialist communist movement removes steps from the staircase to feed its lust for control of others and their monies. Your correct demand has a big part, find what people want and sell it to them. And in your case where there never really was ever any demand for you or your services, your climb was always very steep. It is very natural to feel as you do having never left small town Lincoln Nebraska to find opportunity. Today instead of sucking it up you prefer the thought of sucking from others to provide sustenance. The real problem to your thinking is that it does nothing for the guy who has something to offer in the corporate world who is a good provider to not only himself but his family.

[ArlJim78]

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/minimum-wage/small-business-support-increasing-minimum-wage.php?gclid=CKmRmOWJysECFc1_MgodeQkAIw

Small business owners are still recovering from the Great Recession and doing everything they can to fortify their businesses, and with them, the economy. In communities across the country, it is the jobs small businesses provide and the consumers they serve that keep our recovery moving. In order to grow and thrive, entrepreneurs need smart policies that help bolster their bottom lines and fuel the consumer demand that underpins economic success. They believe increasing the federal minimum wage will help do this. Scientific opinion polling shows entrepreneurs support increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour because it will enhance consumer spending, which can increase the demand for small firms’ good and services and boost their businesses’ bottom lines while strengthening the economy.

Main Findings

The majority of small business owners support increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and adjusting it yearly to reflect the cost of living:
57% of small business owners support increasing the federal minimum wage of $7.25 in three stages over two and a half years to $10.10, and believe that it should be adjusted annually to keep pace with the cost of living.

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/minimum-wage/images/figure-1-natl.jpg

So all youse guys' theories re just that. Curiously the majority of small business owners have another theory very much at odds wit all youse guys.
Why is that?


Full Pol:l

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/downloads/030614-National-Minimum-Wage-Poll.pdf
checked into this smallbusinessmajority, they're total flacks for Obama.
Their prescription for small business is higher taxes, immigration reform, higher minimum wage, and Obamacare especially because of how it helps small businesses to hire more workers. :lol:
they have a policy agenda which mirrors Obama's, therefore take anything you read from them with a grain of salt.
for once look past the colorful pie charts and use critical thinking to think about what you are posting. In fact read their justification for raising the minimum wage, it makes no sense whatsoever in terms of something that would actually benefit small business.

[Tom]

Buggy whip factories are not around any longer because there is no demand for buggy whips,

And do you know why that is?
Because people went out and advanced technology that destroyed the need for buggies. You think it was popular demand that wanted a new technology?
They had no idea it was out there until the business pioneers told them about it.

No one was out there demanding cars.
Many people were OPPOSED to cars at first.

Watch the series the Men Who Build America - THOSE are the guys who shaped this country.

[Greyfox]

In communities across the country, it is the jobs small businesses provide and the consumers they serve that keep our recovery moving.

hcap - Thank you for posting that.
That comment is exactly the opposite of what Hillary is telling the public.

[Tom]

Many of hose small business owners at 2%'ers.
And the target of the democrats.

Now they want to use them to support their evil goals. :bang:

[OntheRail]

Buggy whip factories are not around any longer because there is no demand for buggy whips, not because the government taxed them at too a rate. You could the tax rate to zero and there still would be no buggy whip factories. You could do away with the minimum wage and there still would be no buggy whip factories. There is nothing that either the conservatives or liberals can do that will bring back buggy whip manufacturing because nobody wants to buy a buggy whip anymore at any price.


I guess you never seen any Amish. :lol: . But what drove the horse and buggy into a niche market? Advances in technology... just like building most everything. How many people where replaced with Vertical Milling Machines or Bot Welds based on labor cost and competitive pricing. Racking Systems have replaced warehouse worker and lift operators. If the cost of your biggest fixed expense goes up... that few hundred gran to multi million dollar bot that will work 24-7-365 starts to look cheap. In ten fifteen years some one of your ilk will be pining away at the last McDonald window worker.

As for the toaster company that built 20,000 and sold 10,000 ... they hire more sales people to market them... maybe you open a checking account and get a free one as they sold them in bulk to your bank.

[johnhannibalsmith]

If only they had made buggy whips in Detroit they might've held on.

[OntheRail]

Strange days. Hillary is moving left and Obama is moving right. Or Obama is sucking up to the private sector in preparation to try to fund the Obama Presidential Library and Memorial Country Club.

From a commencement speech at the Northwestern business school.

There is a reason why I came to a business school instead of a school of government. I actually believe that capitalism is the greatest force for prosperity and opportunity the world has ever known. And I believe in private enterprise -- not government, but innovators and risk-takers and makers and doers -- driving job creation.


OMG!!! Obama actually praised "MAKERS". How are the Ayn Rand haters going to talk their way out of that one? :eek:

He must be sporting fire proof britches these days.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Clocker]

checked into this smallbusinessmajority, they're total flacks for Obama.

It would be interesting to know how many of them would be affected by an increase in the minimum wage. The biggest hit would be on the hospitality industry (hotels, fast food, etc.). Somehow I doubt there are many of those companies in that group.

And none of the bleeding hearts here consider the impact of an increase in the minimum wage on the workers. That money has to come from some place.

The city of SeaTac, a Seattle suburb that encompasses the airport, passed a minimum wage law that applied to select businesses, mostly those that served airport travelers. Here is what a woman who works in hotel housekeeping had to say:

“Are you happy with the $15 wage?” I asked the full-time cleaning lady.

“It sounds good, but it’s not good,” the woman said.

“Why?” I asked.

“I lost my 401k, health insurance, paid holiday, and vacation,” she responded. “No more free food,” she added.

The hotel used to feed her. Now, she has to bring her own food. Also, no overtime, she said. She used to work extra hours and received overtime pay.

What else? I asked.

“I have to pay for parking,” she said.

Seattle passed a $15 minimum wage that will be phased in and will affect all businesses. Many companies are already making plans to relocate.

Article (http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/17751-warning-to-seattle-seatac-businesses-slashing-benefits-overtime-in-wake-of-wage-hike)

[Clocker]

Scientific opinion polling shows entrepreneurs support increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour because it will enhance consumer spending, which can increase the demand for small firms’ good and services and boost their businesses’ bottom lines while strengthening the economy.

"Scientific opinion polling" (which has not been demonstrated here) shows that this is the opinion of these people. It does not show that the opinion is correct.

If you increase wages for people in existing jobs, without expanding real output, that money has to come from someplace. If businesses are paying more for the same labor, they have to cover those costs. Businesses that rely on low cost labor typically operate on small margins and cannot absorb costs like that. For a typical low margin operation, like fast food, the kinds of hikes being talked about would result in negative margins unless they raised prices. If you are selling hamburgers below cost because of minimum wage increases, no amount of increased demand will offset it. I'm sure the people that voted in that poll are not in the kind of business that would be adversely affect like this, and don't understand the consequences.

The money has to come from someplace. You can't sell at a loss and make it up by increasing volume.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Conservatives never get this. No matter how many businesses you start; no matter how many factories you build; no matter how many assembly lines you set up, you do not create a single sustained job until someone buys your product. The people who buy most of the products are the middle class.

Yes, it is true, that corporations and businesses provide the products that the middle class consumes, but it is also true that it is the middle class that makes those products.

Consumers create jobs by buying products or services. If there are no consumers, building products or offering services means nothing except having a surfeit of products to warehouse.

I don't usually throw around comments like this, but Karl Marx would be very proud of you. You've never run a business. Hell you spent the vast majority of your adult life working for a quasi-governmental institution. You speak from a position of ignorance. Start a business, work 365 days/week for a few years and report back to us.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The more I read posts here by the conservatives, the surer I am that most of them have ran a small business or were ever in management for a large one. If they had, they would realize how much time and effort goes into getting and keeping customers. They seem to take them for granted. If a business does that, they are not around very long. The taking of customers(bettors) for grant is why the racing industry is in so much trouble. I can't see anyone arguing that point.

Buggy whip factories are not around any longer because there is no demand for buggy whips, not because the government taxed them at too a rate. You could the tax rate to zero and there still would be no buggy whip factories. You could do away with the minimum wage and there still would be no buggy whip factories. There is nothing that either the conservatives or liberals can do that will bring back buggy whip manufacturing because nobody wants to buy a buggy whip anymore at any price.

Topic: don't let anyone tell you corporations or businesses create jobs

RG's response: a complete and total non-sequitur

Seriously, what in the world are you talking about? Anyone who runs a business that ignores the customer won't be in business for long. That has nothing to do with who is or isn't the job creator.

[classhandicapper]

http://ourfuture.org/20140310/all-of-the-arguments-against-raising-the-minimum-wage-have-fallen-apart?gclid=CLvZ-b6HysECFVFgMgodH1IA_g

We also have real-world experience with higher minimums. In 1998, the citizens of Washington State voted to raise theirs and then link future increases to the rate of inflation. Today, at $9.32, the Evergreen State has the highest minimum wage in the country – not far from the $10.10 per hour proposed by Barack Obama. At the time it was passed, opponents promised it would kill jobs and ultimately hurt the workers it was designed to help.

But it didn’t turn out that way. This week, Bloomberg’s Victoria Stilwell, Peter Robison and William Selway reported: “In the 15 years that followed… job growth continued at an average 0.8 percent annual pace, 0.3 percentage point above the national rate. Payrolls at Washington’s restaurants and bars, portrayed as particularly vulnerable to higher wage costs, expanded by 21 percent. Poverty has trailed the U.S. level for at least seven years.”
.................................................. ...
So here is an exception to the righties rule of absolutes who always know the answers and usually back up their arguments with parroted theories ONLY

Mostpost is correct. Businesses depend on consumers. I would think by now the absolutists here would realize this.


Unless a statistical study controls for every possible factor that impacts employment, you cannot isolate the impact of minimum wage increases. So most reports like this are useless to either side.

The most basic bottom line is that employee salaries are a function of the intrinsic value of those employees to their employer. The more value you generate as a worker, the more you will get paid. If government mandates salaries that are GREATER than the value of those employees, profits will fall below the level that companies need to justify their existence. If that happens, they will look for ways to reduce costs or fold up. The first place they will look to cut costs is among overpaid employees. They do that now at every level of every corporation, not just among minimum wage employees.

Once you understand how an economic and business system actually functions, it easy to see how to increase jobs and salaries.

1. Increase the productivity and skills of the workforce. If they are worth more and add more value, they will be paid more as companies compete for their services so they can make even more money.

2. Make the business environment as friendly to investment as possible. The higher the return on capital is, the more people will want to invest in the US and start more businesses and create more jobs here.

There are also cyclical things at work like short term recessions and booms, free trade deals, and immigration, that impact the supply and demand for workers...which in turn impacts wages in the short term.

What's happening in the US now is negative both long and short term.

1. We have a lot of uneducated and unskilled workers.

2. The Obama administration is hostile to business which is causing them to sit on their capital or invest it elsewhere.

3. Free trade and immigration have increased the supply of global labor and put downward pressure on US wages (especially crushing overpaid unions).

4. We are still recovering from the Fed induced debt bubbles and overcapacity from years past.

Do yourself a favor and read that over and over until it sinks in.

You cannot force unjustified salaries on businesses and expect there to not be a downside. You have to work from the opposite direction and create a workforce and environment that leads to wages being justifiably higher.

[Greyfox]

If government mandates salaries that are GREATER than the value of those employees, profits will fall below the level that companies need to justify their existence. If that happens, they will look for ways to reduce costs or fold up. The first place they will look to cut costs is among overpaid employees. They do that now at every level of every corporation, not just among minimum wage employees.

.

:ThmbUp: That is absolutely true and also the reason that any out-of-scope employee over the age of 40 in big corporations has to have a realistic distrust of the company.

[Clocker]

If government mandates salaries that are GREATER than the value of those employees, profits will fall below the level that companies need to justify their existence. If that happens, they will look for ways to reduce costs or fold up.

Or raise prices. But the progressive mantra is that big greedy businesses can absorb those higher costs without price increases. According to them, the companies will still make money by accepting a little lower profit margin on a huge magical increase in sales volume. And anyway, those greedy bastages are making too much money anyway, and can afford to accept a little less profit.

[classhandicapper]

Or raise prices. But the progressive mantra is that big greedy businesses can absorb those higher costs without price increases. According to them, the companies will still make money by accepting a little lower profit margin on a huge magical increase in sales volume. And anyway, those greedy bastages are making too much money anyway, and can afford to accept a little less profit.

:-)

I don't see this as a very complicated issue.

We all want higher wages. If we are motivated, we go to school, work harder, ask for more responsibility etc...

If we want higher wages for the country, improve the quality of the workforce and make the environment friendly for investment.

[hcap]

Scientific opinion polling" (which has not been demonstrated here) shows that this is the opinion of these people. It does not show that the opinion is correct.
So what? I posted a bunch of other studies based on historical events that in fact do. Maybe as according to classhandicapper, every conceivable variable should be accounted for, and would then be a more meaningful examination of the studie's validity, why haven't any conservatives posted anything showing the opposite.

Versus all the posts I and Mostpost have already linked to, and.....

.....even more :lol:

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

Department of Labor.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.
.................................................. ....................................

Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.

Not true: A June 2014 survey found that more than 3 out of 5 small business owners support increasing the minimum wage to $10.10. Small business owners believe that a higher minimum wage would benefit business in important ways: 58% say raising the minimum wage would increase consumer purchasing power. 56% say raising the minimum wage would help the economy. In addition, 53% agree that with a higher minimum wage, businesses would benefit from lower employee turnover, increased productivity and customer satisfaction.
.................................................. ............................................

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants.

Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour - before tips. Even with a recent increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace the U.S. average in 2014.
.................................................. .............................

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses.

Not true: Employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $10.74 per hour – before tips. Yet, the San Francisco restaurant industry has experienced positive job growth over the past few years according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
.................................................. .........................................

Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum.

Not true: Only 23 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, meaning a majority of states have an hourly minimum rate at or below the federal minimum. Increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for some 28 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally.
.................................................. ......................................

Myth: Younger workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage.

Not true: While there are some exceptions, employers are generally required to pay at least the federal minimum wage. Exceptions allowed include a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers under the age of 20, but only during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, and as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive the current federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher. There are programs requiring federal certification that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage, but those programs are not limited to the employment of young workers.
.................................................. ............................

Myth: Restaurant servers don't need to be paid the minimum wage since they receive tips.

Not true: An employer can pay a tipped employee as little as $2.13 per hour in direct wages, but only if that amount plus tips equal at least the federal minimum wage and the worker retains all tips and customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. Often, an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage. When that occurs, the employer must make up the difference. Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the federal and state wage laws, he or she is entitled to the provisions of each law which provides the greater benefits.
.................................................. .............................

Myth: Only part-time workers are paid the minimum wage.

Not true: About 53 percent of all minimum wage earners are full-time workers, and minimum wage workers contributed almost half (46 percent) of their household's wage and salary income in 2011. Moreover, more than 88 percent of those who would benefit from raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 are working adults, and 55 percent are working women.
.................................................. ...........................

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses.

Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

[hcap]

Ok, some theory....

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/236981-economic-research-supports-raising-the-minimum-wage

Economic research supports raising the minimum wage

Saltsman’s economics are no better than his legislative research. The old Economics 101 textbook theory he recites – that a higher minimum wage will necessarily reduce employment – was not supported by empirical research. As a 1995 paper in the Journal of Economics Literature put it, “There is a long history of empirical studies attempting to pin down the effects of minimum wages, with limited success.” No one found significant employment losses when President Truman raised the minimum wage by 87% in 1950. When Congress raised the minimum wage by 28% in two steps in 1967, businesses predicted large employment losses and price increases. As the Wall Street Journal reported six months later, “Employment and prices show little effect from $1.40-an-hour guarantee.” Empirical studies even before Card and Krueger’s landmark New Jersey study found no increase in the unemployment rate for teens and young adults from a 10% rise in the minimum wage, while it was clear that higher wages were bringing housewives into the workforce.

Saltsman wants readers to believe that economists have discredited Card and Krueger’s finding that a 19% increase in New Jersey’s minimum wage did not cause job loss. He’s just wrong. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman says the study “has stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in.” And even the most ardent conservative critics could not claim that the New Jersey increase caused statistically significant job loss. Furthermore, a groundbreaking peer-reviewed 2008 paper (that Saltsman chooses to ignore),“Minimum wage effects across state borders: Estimates using contiguous counties,” generalizes the landmark Card and Krueger study to all contiguous county-pairs in the US that straddle a border, finding no adverse employment effects of increases in the minimum wage.

University of California, Berkeley (and former Economic Policy Institute) economist Sylvia Allegretto wants policy advocates to know about recent economics research about the minimum wage because it is so clear and convincing. Allegretto and colleagues Michael Reich and Arindrajit Dube carefully studied data on teen employment from 1990 to 2009 and found “that minimum wage increases—in the range that have been implemented in the United States—do not reduce employment among teens.” Previous studies to the contrary used flawed statistical controls and “do not provide a credible guide for public policy.”

The fact that more than 550 economists signed a statement calling for an increase in the minimum wage in 2007 cannot be dismissed because they were not all “labor economists.” No one claimed they were, and it’s irrelevant: agricultural economists and macroeconomists understand, just as labor economists do, that when reality doesn’t fit a model, it’s the model that has to change.

[Clocker]

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

Dept. of Labor propaganda containing too many regurgitated talking points to bother with. Most of it showing "A" and "B" happening at the same time and claiming "A" caused "B".

A couple of standouts.

more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.

The logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Wow, 600!!! How many of them worked for the government or were professors at Ivy League Lib Hatcheries? And we have all seen the credibility of the Nobel winners.

53% agree that with a higher minimum wage, businesses would benefit from lower employee turnover, increased productivity and customer satisfaction.

No one that ever ran a business could say this with a straight face. Without a minimum wage, you benefit from lower employee turnover, increased productivity and customer satisfaction by giving raises to the employees you want to keep.

[Saratoga_Mike]

In 1950 (prior to the increase), the minimum wage was less than 50% of its historical avg (adjusting each yr for inflation--looking at 1938 to 2013). Therefore, the increase would have much less of an expected impact on employment (i.e., minimum wage would have been more reflective of market forces). That, along with something called the post-WWII baby boom, which drove the economy for a number of yrs.

[hcap]

Dept. of Labor propaganda
More conspiracy theories. Don't you ever surface for air?

All arguments from the right here shun studies in favor of theory supported by rampant paranoia. I post studies, you do not

/nr6VBg1SiYI

Slowly I turned step by step..... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Saratoga_Mike]

Anyone who disagrees with you is paranoid? I don't agree with probably 90% of your positions, but I don't think you're paranoid. You just have a completely different worldview than myself.

[Tom]

Back off boys, the debate is over on this one.
hcap said so.














:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Clocker]

More conspiracy theories.


It's a conspiracy theory to point out that the Dept. of Labor puff piece consists of talking points? And to specifically point out the lack of content or failure to prove their claims?

I made no claim of a conspiracy there, only of an agenda masquerading as information. It's is not a conspiracy when it is the blatant public policy of a failed administration.

As for your alleged studies, an opinion survey is not an economic study.

[mostpost]

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/minimum-wage/small-business-support-increasing-minimum-wage.php?gclid=CKmRmOWJysECFc1_MgodeQkAIw

Small business owners are still recovering from the Great Recession and doing everything they can to fortify their businesses, and with them, the economy. In communities across the country, it is the jobs small businesses provide and the consumers they serve that keep our recovery moving. In order to grow and thrive, entrepreneurs need smart policies that help bolster their bottom lines and fuel the consumer demand that underpins economic success. They believe increasing the federal minimum wage will help do this. Scientific opinion polling shows entrepreneurs support increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour because it will enhance consumer spending, which can increase the demand for small firms’ good and services and boost their businesses’ bottom lines while strengthening the economy.

Main Findings

The majority of small business owners support increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and adjusting it yearly to reflect the cost of living:
57% of small business owners support increasing the federal minimum wage of $7.25 in three stages over two and a half years to $10.10, and believe that it should be adjusted annually to keep pace with the cost of living.

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/minimum-wage/images/figure-1-natl.jpg

So all youse guys' theories re just that. Curiously the majority of small business owners have another theory very much at odds wit all youse guys.
Why is that?


Full Pol:l

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/downloads/030614-National-Minimum-Wage-Poll.pdf
A few things which you did not mention which I think are important.
82% of respondents pay their employees more than the minimum wage. Only 18% pay minimum wage or less. 52% believe that increasing the minimum wage will increase demand for small business. 54% believe raising the minimum wage will reduce the amount the government spends on social benefits. Knowing this, it makes perfect sense that they would support an increase.

[Greyfox]

54% believe that increasing the minimum wage will increase demand for small business.

What is the rationale for that belief, assuming your stat is correct?

[Clocker]

82% of respondents pay their employees more than the minimum wage. Only 18% pay minimum wage or less. 52% believe that increasing the minimum wage will increase demand for small business. 54% believe raising the minimum wage will reduce the amount the government spends on social benefits. Knowing this, it makes perfect sense that they would support an increase.

It does make perfect sense that they would support an increase. Those in favor would not be adversely affected, and they believe, on blind faith, that they would benefit by an increase in demand.

Given an increase in wages with no change in productivity, there would be winners and losers. These guys think that they would be the winners. They are assuming, apparently without evidence, that the increase in demand would come to them, and that they would not be adversely affected by any price increases as a result of the wage increases. In short, they assume that they will be on the receiving end of a redistribution of wealth.

[mostpost]

Do we need a review session on the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc"?

You appear to be somehow saying, without even at attempt to explain the linkage, that an increase in minimum wage causes a decrease in unemployment. How does that work? A business owner sees that the minimum wage went up and thinks, wow, those people must be worth a lot more than I thought, I better run right out and hire a couple?

Or could it be perhaps that the increase in minimum wage happens at a time when UE is already trending down? Except, as you say, when there is a recession? Because otherwise, an increase in the minimum wage could reverse the recession by stimulating employment.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc; after this therefore because of this. What that means is just because something happens after a certain event, does not necessarily mean it happened because of that event. The way you interpret it is there can be no connection.

I did not say that an increase in the minimum wage causes a drop in the unemployment rate. I said an increase in the minimum wage does not cause a rise in the unemployment rate. We have had an increase in the minimum wage eleven times when the country was not in the middle of a recession. Ten of those times the unemployment rate stayed the same or dropped. only once did it rise.

[Clocker]

I did not say that an increase in the minimum wage causes a drop in the unemployment rate. I said an increase in the minimum wage does not cause a rise in the unemployment rate.

I did not say that an increase in minimum wage in and of itself causes an immediate increase in the unemployment rate. It is not a short term job killer. People don't get fired because the minimum wage just went up.

It is a long term job killer in that it inhibits growth, the creation of new jobs and the filling of vacancies created by turnover. It slows down economic growth. It gives businesses incentives to substitute capital for labor. If it is localized, it gives businesses incentives to relocate.

[mostpost]

Dept. of Labor propaganda containing too many regurgitated talking points to bother with. Most of it showing "A" and "B" happening at the same time and claiming "A" caused "B".
More of your post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense. Time and again we show that raising the minimum wage does not result in job loss; not from month to month; not from state to state. We have shown that states with higher minimum wages show higher levels of job growth. When we ask you to list those other factors and show us how they influence job growth, we are met with deafening silence.

A couple of standouts.



The logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Wow, 600!!! How many of them worked for the government or were professors at Ivy League Lib Hatcheries? And we have all seen the credibility of the Nobel winners.
Seriously, this is your argument? As if the conservatives here don't rely exclusively on questionable sources.




No one that ever ran a business could say this with a straight face. Without a minimum wage, you benefit from lower employee turnover, increased productivity and customer satisfaction by giving raises to the employees you want to keep.
In other words you are saying you don't want to pay minimum wage so that you can use that money to pay higher wages. Strange.

[fast4522]

Some might find this interesting.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/files/hillaryclintonthesis.pdf

[mostpost]

checked into this smallbusinessmajority, they're total flacks for Obama.
Their prescription for small business is higher taxes, immigration reform, higher minimum wage, and Obamacare especially because of how it helps small businesses to hire more workers. :lol:
they have a policy agenda which mirrors Obama's, therefore take anything you read from them with a grain of salt.
for once look past the colorful pie charts and use critical thinking to think about what you are posting. In fact read their justification for raising the minimum wage, it makes no sense whatsoever in terms of something that would actually benefit small business.If you can't refute the message, attack the messenger. Where have I heard that before?

[HUSKER55]

it is the democratic mantra!

"What does it matter now"

[Tom]

Raising the min wage will cause business to raise their prices, so the domino effect is they will have to pay more from their suppliers, who also raised their prices. So the fact is people might spend more bu they will get less. What most big government nanny types fail to comprehend is that you cannot make one law apply to all business. These people think business are only tow things - evil and potential sources of more income to redistribute. The ignorance of the left if limitless.

http://www.sba.gov/community/discussion-boards/discuss-popular-topics/other-business-issues/minimum-wage-increase

[ArlJim78]

If you can't refute the message, attack the messenger. Where have I heard that before?
I did refute message, I said it doesn't make any sense.
this group is one of the many Washington based astroturf organizations which surprise!, always seem to discover that people can't get enough of more government solutions.
If you really think small businesses are clamoring for ACA, immigration reform and minimum wage increases so be it. my experience is that small business wants less of Washington, not more.

[hcap]

More studies. Yet still nothing from the right. Why is that guys??

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023116005_wageimpactsxml.html

Studies look at what happened when cities raised minimum wage

Raising the minimum wage doesn’t have a drastic, negative impact on employment, according to university researchers who have studied pay hikes in other cities.

For instance.


http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2014/03/13/2023116010.gif

[hcap]

Anyone who disagrees with you is paranoid? I don't agree with probably 90% of your positions, but I don't think you're paranoid. You just have a completely different worldview than myself.I am becoming convinced.

Much of the rightie rebuttal here assumes all studies by those posting on the left are deliberate lies and designed to bamboozle their innocent sensibilities. Aided and perhaps initiated by the government of course. Not to mention the 600 economists (http://equitablegrowth.org/research/designing-research-agenda-move-minimum-wage-forward/) (including seven Nobel laureates)..... Along with all of the media and all of Hollywood. (and on global warming the entire scientific community) :D :D :D :D


Always monsters lurking under your beds. :eek: :eek:

Why not post some of your studies. So I can also cey wolf :sleeping: :sleeping:

[hcap]

The actual letter by those 600 economists

http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/


And from the site-I posted (http://equitablegrowth.org/research/designing-research-agenda-move-minimum-wage-forward/) which gives pro and cons for both points of view.....

What are the macroeconomic effects of the minimum wage?

By lifting workers out of poverty, the minimum wage may reduce fiscal spending on income support and welfare programs. Two economists at the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Rachel West and Michael Reich, find that the minimum reduces the use of food stamps as well as state-level expenditures on that program. Additional empirical work could examine other needs-based programs and quantify state-level budget impacts.

[Tom]

I ate your strawberries.

[hcap]

I ate your strawberries.You obviously got distracted by playing with, and rolling your steel balls

Are you referring to your own dingleberries..... Hump?

[classhandicapper]

So what? Maybe as according to classhandicapper, every conceivable variable should be accounted for, and would then be a more meaningful examination of the studie's validity, why haven't any conservatives posted anything showing the opposite.



There are many studies that indicate increasing the minimum wage will cost jobs, buy why post meaningless drivel when typically they don't or can't control for all the factors that impact employment either?

You don't win an argument by posting more flawed graphs and studies than the other guy.

You win an argument like this by laying out basic business tenets that most people comprehend, have experienced in real life, and agree on.

The most basic of all tenets is that in aggregate people get paid what they are worth to a company. Businesses try to get quality employees as cheaply as possible and employees try to get as much compensation as they can. There are loads of factors that impact that back and forth in the short term, but over the long term there is reasonable balance.

Again, if you raise salaries for some workers above their value, then fewer of them will be employed than if you they are fairly priced because of that basic tenet.

If you want to argue that the minimum wage is lower than its fair value right now, you can put together a reasonable case. But I would argue that part of the reason for that is the flood of legal and illegal under-educated and low skill workers into the country creating a greater supply.

That's one reason why I am against all this illegal immigration and amnesty foolishness. It's creating a glut of unskilled workers that put downward pressure on wages for people already here and leaves the rest of us to pay higher taxes to deal with it because they can't make a living on their own.

[Robert Goren]

Topic: don't let anyone tell you corporations or businesses create jobs

RG's response: a complete and total non-sequitur

Seriously, what in the world are you talking about? Anyone who runs a business that ignores the customer won't be in business for long. That has nothing to do with who is or isn't the job creator.Of course they create jobs, but only when they have to. If their products aren't selling they lay workers off, if they are selling and they think they can sell more if they increase production, then they hire more workers. Companies don't hire people just to be hiring people. Most companies have very few make-work jobs. This is Econ 101. Everything in the business world is predicated on sales or expected sales. And it has been my experience, that upper management needs a really strong case that sales will be effected if they were to hire a new employee.

[classhandicapper]

The actual letter by those 600 economists

http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/


And from the site-I posted (http://equitablegrowth.org/research/designing-research-agenda-move-minimum-wage-forward/) which gives pro and cons for both points of view.....

What are the macroeconomic effects of the minimum wage?

By lifting workers out of poverty, the minimum wage may reduce fiscal spending on income support and welfare programs. Two economists at the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Rachel West and Michael Reich, find that the minimum reduces the use of food stamps as well as state-level expenditures on that program. Additional empirical work could examine other needs-based programs and quantify state-level budget impacts.


Of course raising the minimum wage will help those that get higher wages and remain employed. The problem is the x% that will have no job at all after that. The net will be negative once that salary goes above the fair value of those workers.

[RaceBookJoe]

Of course raising the minimum wage will help those that get higher wages and remain employed. The problem is the x% that will have no job at all after that. The net will be negative once that salary goes above the fair value of those workers.


September hourly wages show a continued disturbing trend.

The BLS released its September hourly wages data and it shows more trouble for the US worker.
$10.32/hour versus 10.34/hour, -0.2%. This may not seem to be much, but since 3/2014 only 1 month has shown wage gains. The other 5 were wage losses. The US worker, despite burgeoning gains in corporate profits, continues to suffer wage declines.

How can the US be in recovery if wages continue to decline?

Social Security Administration releases its tally of US citizen earnings.
The SSA reports that 2013 saw 50% of US workers earning less than $28K per year. 50%! 39% earned less than $20K. 63% less than $40K. 72% less than 50K.
We are told by several think tanks, and the US government, that it takes $50K per year to for a family of four to maintain a middle class life. 72%, however, make less than that threshold level.

Meaning: The middle class is effectively gone as the vast majority of Americans make less than is required to maintain what is considered a middle class lifestyle.

And on top of this, Hillary Clinton says "Don't let anybody tell you it's corporations and businesses [that] create jobs. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it."

It does not get any clearer than that. The democratic frontrunner believes government is best at allocating the resources of the American business person, the American entrepreneur? Seriously? Only in a country where the populace is wholly ignorant as to why this nation is a separate country, why this nation of the people, for the people, and by the people was created, can allow this kind of tripe to be uttered without running her out of town asap. We get what we deserve.

[Tom]

Many jobs just are not worth $10. Fact of life.
The charade the left is putting on here is that they are trying to compare lost full time jobs with after-school jobs.

[hcap]

There are many studies that indicate increasing the minimum wage will cost jobs, buy why post meaningless drivel when typically they don't or can't control for all the factors that impact employment either?

You don't win an argument by posting more flawed graphs and studies than the other guy.

You win an argument like this by laying out basic business tenets that most people comprehend, have experienced in real life, and agree on.

The most basic of all tenets is that in aggregate people get paid what they are worth to a company. Businesses try to get quality employees as cheaply as possible and employees try to get as much compensation as they can. There are loads of factors that impact that back and forth in the short term, but over the long term there is reasonable balance.

Again, if you raise salaries for some workers above their value, then fewer of them will be employed than if you they are fairly priced because of that basic tenet.

If you want to argue that the minimum wage is lower than its fair value right now, you can put together a reasonable case. But I would argue that part of the reason for that is the flood of legal and illegal under-educated and low skill workers into the country creating a greater supply.

That's one reason why I am against all this illegal immigration and amnesty foolishness. It's creating a glut of unskilled workers that put downward pressure on wages for people already here and leaves the rest of us to pay higher taxes to deal with it because they can't make a living on their own.Your so-called theoretical reasoning claiming to prove your version of economics also needs actual supporting evidence. I do not buy into the conservative spin on the economy OR your theoretical conjecture that all the variables must be covered to be a meaningful examination of historical examples and accurate examination of reality and therefore needed to determine what will be the effect of raising the minimum wage. That is not realistic, and not needed

Some data is absolutely required but NO, many are not and not justified in for instance handicapping. Not every tidbit of data like whether or not your selection took a dump recently or the color of the jockey's cap is worthwhile. And can lead to more losers.
The practical implementation of multivariate statistics to a particular problem may involve several types of univariate and multivariate analyses in order to understand the relationships between variables and their relevance to the actual problem being studiedDon't you agree that the top predictive factors should be used to focus on what matters?

If anything climate science, a more complex than either handicapping or minimum wage requires a more thorough study of variables and climate deniers do not focus on ALL the complex data which tries to do just that and instead offer information having to do with unproven solar radiation or cast an extremely paranoid eye on grand international conspiracies One of your favorites:: The "Al Gore is still fat",/ Obama/Democratic/Liberal leftist garbage lunacy

In this thread the Labor department and all the scholars and studies performed by professionals are all scheming against you. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Clocker]

More studies. Yet still nothing from the right. Why is that guys??

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023116005_wageimpactsxml.html

Studies look at what happened when cities raised minimum wage

Raising the minimum wage doesn’t have a drastic, negative impact on employment, according to university researchers who have studied pay hikes in other cities.

For instance.



A very sloppy study, to the point of being meaningless. The article admits that there were price increases and firms going out of business, but dismisses them as minimal without providing data.

But the big buzz killer is the actual data shown in the graph. The implication is that the sample population (42,916 at the start and 49,544 at the end) are all minimum wage workers. But it states that it is "Restaurant Employment". For a proper study of the impact, the employment numbers should have been broken out to show minimum wage workers versus non-minimum age workers in the industry. The graph says only that it shows restaurant employment. By definition, that would include management, skilled workers like chefs, etc. It doesn't even give an estimate of the percentage of minimum wage workers in that population. All of the discussion in the article is about employment, not about employment of minimum wage workers.

And the study makes no attempt to project what the employment would have been without the mandated increases, or project what the growth in new restaurants would have been. The employment numbers in isolation mean nothing. They are the product of many factors, including economic and population growth. No one denies that employment continues to increase in a period of economic growth in spite of minimum wage increases. The issue is whether or not employment of minimum wage workers increases. And whether or not total employment and minimum wage worker employment grows slower that it otherwise would have. Proper studies can and do project estimates for this.

[davew]

these guys say increasing minimum wage will result in lost jobs
not sure how they figured that out and probably not very accurate

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

[HUSKER55]

are you seriously going to discuss the national economy from a restaurant study in san fransisco?

Obviously you are an idiot!

I know the numbers behind restaurants and minimum wage will never be an impact in that field.

[reckless]

Serial failure Hillary is only going this route because --once again-- she feels she should be handed the Democrat Party presidential nomination in 2016. But, just as phony Harvard intellectual Barry Soetoro beat her in 2008, Hillary faces a serious challenge from phony Indian intellectual Elizabeth Warren, who, as a reminder, used the 'you didn't build that' line when she ran for the Massachusetts senate seat in 2012.

Hillary is old news, which deeply does worry her, and what might seem like something new at first blush, is really the same old, same old, from a tired has-been.

[Tom]

The debate is over on this - Hillary has always been and will always be a pathological liar.

Lead this nation, Hell - she is not fit to live in it.

[Clocker]

Serial failure Hillary is only going this route because --once again-- she feels she should be handed the Democrat Party presidential nomination in 2016. But, just as phony Harvard intellectual Barry Soetoro beat her in 2008, Hillary faces a serious challenge from phony Indian intellectual Elizabeth Warren, who, as a reminder, used the 'you didn't build that' line when she ran for the Massachusetts senate seat in 2012.



Even the left is starting to admit that Hillary is a bad campaigner. She has no charisma, she screeches, she whines, and, as you say, she comes across as feeling entitled.

She ran against Obama in 2008 as the voice of experience, the one you wanted answering the hot line at 3am. This was based on no evidence and no actual experience in any position of authority. She now has a real record to run on, her great achievements heading the State Department. So now she appears as even a less qualified candidate than in 2008.

[hcap]

are you seriously going to discuss the national economy from a restaurant study in san fransisco?

Obviously you are an idiot!

I know the numbers behind restaurants and minimum wage will never be an impact in that field.
YOU ARE REALLY OUT OF IT !!!

I am not the one who brought up the fast food industry and how their owners and managers will suffer unspeakable Dicksonian poverty and the ones cried no end of how management will be tossed into medieval rat infested debtor prisons. I just deflated that "poor rich guy" delusional concern for management's and the righties here phony crocodile tears :lol: :lol:

[Greyfox]

She ran against Obama in 2008 as the voice of experience, the one you wanted answering the hot line at 3am.

When the rubber met the road in Benghazi, she didn't even answer the phone at 3 pm far less 3 am.

Come to think of it, neither did Obama.
But "What difference does it make now?"

[Tom]

Even the left is starting to admit that Hillary is a bad campaigner. She has no charisma, she screeches, she whines, and, as you say, she comes across as feeling entitled.

You left out butt ugly.
Too ugly to ignore.
Too ugly to acknowledge.

[classhandicapper]

Your so-called theoretical reasoning claiming to prove your version of economics also needs actual supporting evidence. I do not buy into the conservative spin on the economy OR your theoretical conjecture that all the variables must be covered to be a meaningful examination of historical examples and accurate examination of reality and therefore needed to determine what will be the effect of raising the minimum wage. That is not realistic, and not needed

Some data is absolutely required but NO, many are not and not justified in for instance handicapping. Not every tidbit of data like whether or not your selection took a dump recently or the color of the jockey's cap is worthwhile. And can lead to more losers.
Don't you agree that the top predictive factors should be used to focus on what matters?

If anything climate science, a more complex than either handicapping or minimum wage requires a more thorough study of variables and climate deniers do not focus on ALL the complex data which tries to do just that and instead offer information having to do with unproven solar radiation or cast an extremely paranoid eye on grand international conspiracies One of your favorites:: The "Al Gore is still fat",/ Obama/Democratic/Liberal leftist garbage lunacy

In this thread the Labor department and all the scholars and studies performed by professionals are all scheming against you. :eek: :eek: :eek:


Before anyone even attempts to waste time searching for meaningless studies like yours I have to ask you a couple of questions.

Have you ever held a job in a non union shop during both good and bad times for the company and observed the hiring and layoff patterns that accompany each?

Have you ever seen a private company hire a bunch of people with no skills, experience, or education for high level high paying jobs that required those qualities?

Have you ever seen someone that everyone agreed was a very valuable employee get a job offer at another company and the current company respond with a counter offer (promotion, higher pay, greater responsibility etc..) to keep him/her?

Have you ever seen someone that everyone agreed was a NOT very valuable employee get a job offer at another company and the current company respond with a counter offer (promotion, higher pay, greater responsibility etc.. to keep him/her?

If raising wages does not impact employment why don't we just raise it by $25 an hour and give every else a $25 raise while we are at it? Then we'll all be richer and the economy will boom. :lol:

If you've observed some dynamics above (and almost everyone has) you already understand more than some politically motivated study that couldn't possibly control for all the factors impacting employment in the short term.

[Robert Goren]

You left out butt ugly.
Too ugly to ignore.
Too ugly to acknowledge.This and everything else, So what? She can beat anybody the GOP can put up. That is what fuels so much hatred toward her. They know they can not beat her. I'd love see to Palin run against her. :D

[Greyfox]

This and everything else, So what? She can beat anybody the GOP can put up.

Fact:
It's not Hillary's traits that people will vote for.
It's very difficult to establish Conservative leadership in a Liberal culture.

[Tom]

47% of the population will vote for accountability.
Supporters of Hillary see a woman. Nothing about issues, reality - just a woman.

Similar to Blacks and Obama.

Most voters are lazy idiots.

[Clocker]

Before anyone even attempts to waste time searching for meaningless studies like yours I have to ask you a couple of questions.

The studies I have seen are meaningless for one major reason. They attempt to measure the impact of an increase in the minimum wage on total employment. The last I saw, minimum wage workers made up about 2% of those working. Any change to that 2% is highly unlikely to have any statistical impact on employment as a whole.

The relevant issue, for which no study has been presented, is the impact of an increase in the minimum wage on minimum wage employment. And also ignored is that this issue is a long term effect. No one gets fired the day that the minimum wage goes up. What happens is that new jobs are not created and vacancies are not filled. Companies find ways to outsource or to replace labor with capital. There may even be an increase in minimum wage jobs over the long run. But they are not likely to grow at the same rate as the rest of the economy, or at the same rate as if there had not been a wage increase.

[Clocker]

I'd love see to Palin run against her. :D

Beating a dead horse. How many people on the right, excluding very low information voters, do you think would consider Palin to be a viable candidate?

[Tom]

How many consider Hillary a viable president?

[Greyfox]

I'm not an economist, but I would guess most small businessmen think as I do.
In my limited experience running small businesses -
costs typically include,
rent, heat, electricity, supplies, delivery and labor.
Increases in any of those are passed on to the customer.
Raise the minimal wage = higher price for consumer.

[Greyfox]

How many consider Hillary a viable president?

As you said in your previous post, most voters don't "consider" issues.
So probably lots will vote for Hillary.

[Clocker]

Increases in any of those are passed on to the customer.
Raise the minimal wage = higher price for consumer.

In the short run, a business may be able to absorb cost increases. In the long run, everything has to be passed on in prices. That means cutting costs and/or increasing prices.

People that have never run a business don't understand that a small business provides the owner a salary while he or she tries to build it into some real equity. If your margins shrink due to cost increases, you are taking a cut in salary. If it is a big cut, you are better off working for someone else. If it is a really big cut, you have to work for someone else.

[Clocker]

How many consider Hillary a viable president?

Low information voters on the left. Sometimes called Yellow Dog Democrats because they would vote for an old yellow dog if it was on the Democratic ballot.

[classhandicapper]

HCAP,

See how easy it is to find high level sources that support a point of view.

Now after you look at these articles, throw them right in the garbage where they belong because no controlled long term study that isolates the impact of the minimum the wage has been done. It may not even be possible. That's why there are still different views and why hired gun political economists can pretty much spin whatever tale they want.

Instead use your brain and ask yourself if you were barely making enough profit to justify your business and your wages just went up 25%, what would you do next?


CBO says $10.10 minimum wage would cost 500K jobs and $9.00 option 100K jobs. (page 2)

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf



"Fed's Yellen on minimum wage hike: CBO got it right, it would cost jobs"

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2014/0227/Fed-s-Yellen-on-minimum-wage-hike-CBO-got-it-right-it-would-cost-jobs



View of George Reisman, Ph.D.

http://mises.org/daily/6714/How-Minimum-Wage-Laws-Increase-Poverty


By continuing to exempt people with disabilities from the minimum wage, Congress reveals its implicit awareness of the minimum wage’s negative effects on the least productive people.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/06/even-congress-admits-that-the-minimum-wage-causes-unemployment/

[classhandicapper]

The studies I have seen are meaningless for one major reason. They attempt to measure the impact of an increase in the minimum wage on total employment. The last I saw, minimum wage workers made up about 2% of those working. Any change to that 2% is highly unlikely to have any statistical impact on employment as a whole.

The relevant issue, for which no study has been presented, is the impact of an increase in the minimum wage on minimum wage employment. And also ignored is that this issue is a long term effect. No one gets fired the day that the minimum wage goes up. What happens is that new jobs are not created and vacancies are not filled. Companies find ways to outsource or to replace labor with capital. There may even be an increase in minimum wage jobs over the long run. But they are not likely to grow at the same rate as the rest of the economy, or at the same rate as if there had not been a wage increase.


Exactly.

You can't control for everything because there are too many moving parts, the impacts take a long time to occur, and the major impact is on a very small percentage of the total population.

[Clocker]

the major impact is on a very small percentage of the total population.

There is another impact on a larger percentage of the total population that is off limits for discussion by the libs.

Many union contracts, especially public sector unions, have their COLA (cost of living adjustment) indexed on minimum wages. If the minimum wage goes up, the union members get a raise, even though they are generally making much more than minimum.

That's why you see organizations like SEIU showing up at minimum wage demonstrations, or even hiring random people off the street (at less than minimum wage) to picket.

[Robert Goren]

Beating a dead horse. How many people on the right, excluding very low information voters, do you think would consider Palin to be a viable candidate?35%

[Clocker]

35%

You forgot the decimal point.

3.5%

[mostpost]

these guys say increasing minimum wage will result in lost jobs
not sure how they figured that out and probably not very accurate

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995
It's important to read the whole report. The CBO report did say that raising the minimum wage in three steps to $10.10 an hour could cost us 500,000 jobs. It also said raising the minimum wage could lift 900,000 people from below the poverty level to above the poverty level.

It also said that 16,500,000 people that would earn less than $10.10 under current law would earn a higher amount if the minimum wage were increased.
The CBO report also stated if the minimum wage were increased to $10.10 the average income of people currently under the poverty threshold would increase by 2.8%.

The CBO report also mentioned a number of times that an increase in the minimum wage would result in an increase in the demand for goods and services. Exactly what I have been saying!!

[Clocker]

The CBO report did say that raising the minimum wage in three steps to $10.10 an hour could cost us 500,000 jobs.



The CBO report also mentioned a number of times that an increase in the minimum wage would result in an increase in the demand for goods and services. Exactly what I have been saying!!

They also said:

Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices.

In other words, it is a redistribution of wealth, with the government determining winners and losers.

[ArlJim78]

There is another impact on a larger percentage of the total population that is off limits for discussion by the libs.

Many union contracts, especially public sector unions, have their COLA (cost of living adjustment) indexed on minimum wages. If the minimum wage goes up, the union members get a raise, even though they are generally making much more than minimum.

That's why you see organizations like SEIU showing up at minimum wage demonstrations, or even hiring random people off the street (at less than minimum wage) to picket.
I think all unions, even the ones that don't specifically have wages contractually tied to the minimum wage are in favor of increasing the minimum wage. they feel that a rising tide will lift all boats and that there is an assumption that next contract negotiation will involve addressing the issue.

[classhandicapper]

The CBO report also mentioned a number of times that an increase in the minimum wage would result in an increase in the demand for goods and services. Exactly what I have been saying!!

It's understood that the people that get an increase and retain their jobs will make more and consume more. The issue is the people that will lose their jobs or that won't get hired going forward that otherwise would have.

Bureaucrats in Washington do not know the appropriate wage level. You want the market to do that. You want Washington to ensure the environment is friendly to business and that the labor force is educated and trained so Americans can compete with labor overseas and justifiably get higher wages.

What's better, telling a company it has to pay $5 more an hour to people that aren't worth it or producing a superior employee that is worth $5 more an hour?

The environment is terrible for under educated and under skilled workers right now and everything Obama has been doing is making it worse.

[Clocker]

Hillary recalibrates. She now explains that when she said that businesses don't create jobs, she didn't mean that businesses don't create jobs. She says that she "shorthanded it", and what she really meant to say was that the economy grows when businesses create jobs, but not when businesses take "tax breaks" and outsource jobs overseas.

Yeah, those are pretty much about the same thing. :rolleyes:

Story (http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/10/27/hillary-clinton-businesses-job-creation/)

[Greyfox]

Hillary recalibrates. She now explains that when she said that businesses don't create jobs, she didn't mean that businesses don't create jobs.



Yup. That's a back track and Mostie kept supporting her through all of this. :lol:

[mostpost]

Yup. That's a back track and Mostie kept supporting her through all of this. :lol:
Hillary is saying what she always said if you are smart enough to understand her. Businesses hire people to do jobs that were created because demand for goods or services increased. Not because the government gave businesses money in the form of tax cuts or tax breaks.

Demand for goods and services increases when disposable income increases. Disposable income increases when the minimum wage increases. Simple. Stop making it complicated.

[ArlJim78]

Hillary is saying what she always said if you are smart enough to understand her. Businesses hire people to do jobs that were created because demand for goods or services increased. Not because the government gave businesses money in the form of tax cuts or tax breaks.

Demand for goods and services increases when disposable income increases. Disposable income increases when the minimum wage increases. Simple. Stop making it complicated.
serious question, why stop at $10 if this is such a great idea?
Why not $20, think of what all that disposable income could do?

[Greyfox]

Hillary is saying what she always said if you are smart enough to understand her. .

Simply stated, Hillary said:

"businesses and corporations are not the job creators of America."

With over three quarters of the jobs in America in the Private Sector, that is a ludicrous statement to make.
Of course businesses and corporations create jobs.
Of course they want to make profits.
To say that they don't create jobs was idiotic, and you took the bait, hook, line and sinker - deflecting the argument onto consumers and minimum wage.
Face it, that was a stupid statement for her to say, and you had nothing to say about it.
What you wrote is there for all of us to see and you can't edit it out.
You took the bait.

[mostpost]

serious question, why stop at $10 if this is such a great idea?
Why not $20, think of what all that disposable income could do?
Many people think it should be $15 and perhaps it should. The serious answer to your question is $20 is an idea whose time has not yet come.
Theodore Roosevelt, who was a Republican, defined a minimum or living wage as well as anyone.
“We stand for a living wage.

Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations.

The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include:

enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living–

a standard high enough to make morality possible,

to provide for education and recreation,

to care for immature members of the family,

to maintain the family during periods of sickness,

and to permit of reasonable saving for old age.”


Tell me that $7.25 an hour-or even $10.10 is enough to accomplish that for a family of four. $10.10 is barely enough to provide substandard housing and a minimalist diet. Any thoughts of vacations or evenings out or college or saving for old age are out of the question.

[Clocker]

Hillary is saying what she always said if you are smart enough to understand her.

Well thank God we have someone here smart enough to explain it to the rest of us dummies.

Maybe you could explain it to Hillary too, because your explanation is not what she said she meant, either the first time or in her recalibration.

Hint: She didn't say anything about minimum wages creating demand or about demand creating jobs.

[mostpost]

You forgot the decimal point.

3.5%
No, he got it right. At least 35% of Republicans are low information voters. The rest are no information voters.

[mostpost]

It's understood that the people that get an increase and retain their jobs will make more and consume more. The issue is the people that will lose their jobs or that won't get hired going forward that otherwise would have.
It is so nice that you are concerned about the poor in this country. Which is why you want to destroy unions. Which is why you want to destroy the public school system. Which is why you want to destroy medicaid. Which is why you want to end the minimum wage. Which is why I don't believe your crocodile tears.

[Clocker]

Tell me that $7.25 an hour-or even $10.10 is enough to accomplish that for a family of four.

Tell me that you think that someone incapable of making more than $10.10 is acting responsibly by getting married and having two kids. Tell me why supporting that guy's family is the responsibility of his employer.

Tell me how you can say that someone that thinks that a qualified ObamaCare policy is more than he needs doesn't know what is good for him, but you don't make the same judgment about the guy with a family of four making $10.10.

[Clocker]

Theodore Roosevelt, who was a Republican,

You don't have to pass an IQ test to join either party, the evil party or the stupid party.

[ArlJim78]

Many people think it should be $15 and perhaps it should. The serious answer to your question is $20 is an idea whose time has not yet come.
Theodore Roosevelt, who was a Republican, defined a minimum or living wage as well as anyone.
“We stand for a living wage.

Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations.

The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include:

enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living–

a standard high enough to make morality possible,

to provide for education and recreation,

to care for immature members of the family,

to maintain the family during periods of sickness,

and to permit of reasonable saving for old age.”


Tell me that $7.25 an hour-or even $10.10 is enough to accomplish that for a family of four. $10.10 is barely enough to provide substandard housing and a minimalist diet. Any thoughts of vacations or evenings out or college or saving for old age are out of the question.
please, these are entry level jobs, not ones that you'll retire from and raise kids and put them thru college.
I don't get it, why not 20 or higher? you say the time hasn't come, but if there is no downside why not? how do you know that the time hasn't come?
shouldn't we be taking care of everyone to the fullest and not lowballing things?

and who are the "many" people who think it should be 15? Hillary, Durbin, Obama? Whoever they are why are they in a better position to understand what a particular business should pay than the actual owners and managers of said business, the very people who have put their own skin in the game?

[Clocker]

Whoever they are why are they in a better position to understand what a particular business should pay than the actual owners and managers of said business, the very people who have put their own skin in the game?

One of the core beliefs of progressives is that most people don't know what is good for them, and that it is best for society if elite leaders make the big decisions about public policy.

After Bill Clinton took office, Hillary became the health care czar in the administration. She was trying to work with Congress to develop a comprehensive health care reform policy, then called HillaryCare.

The GOP controlled the House, and Dennis Hastert (R-IL) was Chairman of the House task force on health care. One of the options Hastert wanted to consider was medical savings accounts. Hillary was dead set against them. This is Hastert's retelling of a conversation between the two of them

"I mentioned...to the first lady about medical savings accounts and just right away she said, 'We can't do that.' And I said, 'Well, why?' And she said, 'Well there's two reasons.' And I said, 'Well, what are they?' [And she said,] 'The first reason is with the medical savings account, people have to act on their own and make their own decisions about health care. And they have to make sure that they get the inoculations and the preventative care that they need, and we just think that people will skip too much because in a medical savings account if you don't spend it, you get to keep it or you can...accumulate it in a health care account. We just think people will be too focused on saving money and they won't get the care for their children and themselves that they need. We think the government, by saying 'You have to make this schedule. You have to have your kids in for inoculations here, you have to do a prescreening here, you have to do this'--the government will make better decisions than the people will make, and people will be healthier because of it.'

"I said, 'Well, part of that's an education process. People have to understand that [if] they behave a certain way, they're going to save money, [with the] preventive medicine issue--you get the prescreenings, if you can inoculate your kids you save money on it. I mean, they're not sick. You save money.' She said, 'No. We just can't trust the American people to make those type of choices...Government has to make those choices for people.'

"I said, 'Okay, we just disagree there. But what's the second reason?' And she said, 'Well, the second reason is, with a medical savings account, savings are [like] an IRA. They go in as actually money saved and all that money will go into IRAs which goes to the private sector.' And she said, 'We can't afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it.' And so [I thought] holy mackeral. I can't argue these issues. These are philosophical issues."




Source (http://books.google.com/books?id=mhOoB-ejGIMC&pg=PA333&lpg=PA333&dq=hillary+medical+savings+account&source=bl&ots=oNTe-NK1nn&sig=nMCjV0o9qTgD_OjHJHiY62JL8nI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9_9OVOO-MYn4yASv0IDQBA&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=hillary%20medical%20savings%20account&f=false)

[Clocker]

Theodore Roosevelt, who was a Republican, defined a minimum or living wage as well as anyone.
“We stand for a living wage.”


The "we" that "stand for a living wage" can take it upon themselves to provide it. It is the height of hypocrisy to claim to stand for a principle, and then to forcefully impose the responsibility on a third party, the employer. Those concerned about giving someone a standard of living that they are not capable of earning on their own have plenty of traditional options: family, friends, churches, charities, etc.

[hcap]

HCAP,

See how easy it is to find high level sources that support a point of view.

Now after you look at these articles, throw them right in the garbage where they belong because no controlled long term study that isolates the impact of the minimum the wage has been done. It may not even be possible. That's why there are still different views and why hired gun political economists can pretty much spin whatever tale they want.

Instead use your brain and ask yourself if you were barely making enough profit to justify your business and your wages just went up 25%, what would you do next?


CBO says $10.10 minimum wage would cost 500K jobs and $9.00 option 100K jobs. (page 2)Well, I congratulate you for finding some studies that support your contentions. But the fact that they exist and both the pros and cons of an issue are in debate is no reason to throw out doing careful analysis, claiming it is not possible to project forward learning from past events.

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'.....George Santayana

I think that theory is just that, and without evidence one cannot assume as the righties here do on a constant basis, it is a priori truth. As Mostpost said the CBO report also noted could reduce total employment by 500,000 workers by the second half of 2016. But it would also lift 900,000 families out of poverty and increase the incomes of 16.5 million low-wage workers in an average week.

The NY Times remarked..."That is the mixed conclusion of an assessment on how raising the minimum wage would affect incomes, employment and the federal budget."

See here for a further analysis

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2014/03/04/85192/understanding-cbos-minimum-wage-report/

And a rigorous set of studies here.....

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

The situation now is the number of studies supporting our side and number of economists coming forward on this, is at least as much, and I could argue much more than those supporting your position.

No matter your nonchalant assertion that history can't be gauged accurately,
reasonable people disagree on productiveness of lessons leaned and therefore possible present outcomes.

All historical judgements should be weighed even if you think it is a waste of time. A most unusual assertion.

[sammy the sage]

I think that theory is just that, and without evidence one cannot assume as the righties here do on a constant basis, it is a priori truth. As Mostpost said But it would also lift 900,000 families out of poverty and increase the incomes of 16.5 million low-wage workers in an average week.



What is NOT addressed in these so called studies is THE fact double...maybe triple... this many people...retirees...would go directly INTO poverty...as the corresponding inflation needed to SUPPORT wage increase takes hold...

oh and that's 16.5 million # + 900k number...whilst it wouldn't bother at 1st those on FAT government pensions...hint, hint, ;) ;) there would be tremendous suffering for the common older folk...

[Tom]

Living wage doesn't apply to high school kids after school, or Wal Mart greeters, or pizza delivery, of many other jobs that are meant for extra income, or any number of reasons ( extra cash for the holidays).

You have to pull your head out of your butt so you can see the big picture.
A family of four depending on minimum wage is probably a family that never should have been. You guys piss and on about us paying for your birth control, letting you murder your babies, then you don't do either.

Are you libs totally incapable of doing ANYthing?

[Poindexter]

Lets assume I have a small retail business that after markdowns, pilferage and credit card discounts works on about 40% of sales profit margin. Let's say may payroll is about 15% and my rent is 15%. Factor in all other expenses and I am making a small profit at best. Now the government now comes in and say that instead of paying empoloyees $9.00 an hour, I will in a few years have to pay them $13.50 and hour. Well now that will cost me 7.5% on my sales. So what can I do? I can raise prices 8%. But what will that do to my sales. My customers are already paying me a higer price than the big box stores, will they continue to support me at 8% higher, some will some will not. So maybe I have to increase my prices 10% or 12% just to get back to where I was from a profit perspective, but I have probably diminished by customer base pretty significantly(how long until that has some serious negative consequences on my business). In fact the markets are so competitive now, that maybe there is absolutely nothing I can do to stay profitable, other than start cutting hours, benefits, working significantly more hours myself, and then suddenly, I realize, wft am I doing. I can do better working for someone else and then I close down, all of my employees are now without a job. All the businesses I support with my purchases, and supplies and advertising and Insurance now lose business. All the sales taxes and business taxes I pay, will be no longer. All the local businesses that my employees and I support(local resturants etc now lose business). But wait a minute, what are all the other businesses going to do(the more successful ones that will not be forced to close there doors. . Let's see, as mentioned above add automation, eliminate benefits, cut staff and raise prices.....Also as small businesses start going out of business, what is going to happen to the landlords who suddenly have nobody to occupy their space. Guess there income will fall quite a bit.

Those who think that there is a greater good in raising minimum wage are completely delusional. Yes some employess will jump significantly in wages but others will lose a job and some may never find a job again. You see when you can make pay someone $7.50 or $8.00 an hour as a business owner, if you see someone doing there best(even though there best isn't very good) you sometime accept it, because they are a good person that just isn't very talented. You bring that wage up to $13.50 an hour and you have no choice but to show them the door, because you need an efficiency amongst your staff that is extraordinary and this person cannot deliver. These people will be forever unemployable and will just be supported by the government(or work for the government). Also, while those making minimum wager will have more buying power, those who do not see an increase in salary will have less buying power(due to increased prices everywhere).

There is also a huge problem on the horizon with raising minimum wage and that is as an employer how do you justify giving mediocre employee 1 $13.50 an hour and superstar employee 2 $13.50 an hour. Either you have to lay off anyone who is not a superstar or you are forced to give the superstar even more money. Also what happens when an employee is with you for 2 or 3 years are they not entitled to a raise? How do you justify the new hire getting the same wage they do? So you are now forced to give them a raise. So even though your minimum wager is $13.50 an hour, you are forces to give some employess $14.50 or $15 or even more. How can you afford this. Raise prices again?

I could care less what any study says. There is the reality. You raise minimum wage dramatically(mayor of Los Angeles wants to increase our minimum wager from $9.00 to $13.50 an hour over 3 years) and small businesses will go out of business in large numbers. Unemployment will go up significantly. Prices will go up significantly. Local tax revenues will fall and the economy will get worse. Any economist that says otherwise is disingenuous or should find a new career(just like all the small business owners he is going to help drive out of business will have to do).

[Tom]

When you lift them above the poverty level, the level will only rise.
Give them jobs - REAL jobs, not McBama Jobs.

[tucker6]

And a rigorous set of studies here.....

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Your supposed 'rigorous' study was done at the behest of the socialist organization, National Employment Law Project.

http://www.nelp.org/index.php/content/content_about_us/background/

You bellyache constantly that the right joins the fray with tainted/biased studies, yet you seem to have no problem in doing the same. Why don't we leave behind attacks on each others sources and just admit that we are attaching biased information that supports our positions?

[classhandicapper]

It is so nice that you are concerned about the poor in this country. Which is why you want to destroy unions. Which is why you want to destroy the public school system. Which is why you want to destroy medicaid. Which is why you want to end the minimum wage. Which is why I don't believe your crocodile tears.

While not perfect, I believe free markets allocate capital more efficiently than government. I think most efforts (especially the Fed) to manipulate markets and transfer wealth in the sort term do a ton of long term damage to the economy and society.

1. I don't want to destroy unions. I knew they would destroy themselves.

2. I don't want to destroy the public school system. I think it needs some market mechanism to weed out the good from the bad (schools and teachers) and reward best practices. I don't think we need a system that protects the union at the expense of the children. Of course if I had children I would never send them to public school, but that's because I don't want them mis-educated and indoctrinated into left wing ideology I find repulsive.

3. I don't want to destroy medicaid. I want to destroy Obamacare. We need some sort of welfare based safety net system for healthcare and other essentials. The system just needs incentives and rules to get people off these things and into productive lives and not on them.

4. I don't care much about the minimum wage. But I do think there are downsides to raising it that liberals are either too delusional or too dishonest to acknowledge.

[classhandicapper]

HCAP,

I'd love to know what part of CAN'T CONTROL for all the factors that impact employment you can't comprehend (as in it's virtually impossible).

Do you think the Fed, CBO, and multiple PHd economists came up with their projections without looking at past data and experience?

Do you think they pulled this stuff out of their asses?

If there is no negative impact to forcefully raising wages, then why doesn't government just decree that everyone should get a $25 an hour raise to stimulate demand?

It doesn't because many of the people (including the economists) that want to raise the minimum wage know privately there's a huge tradeoff. They just can't admit to it because then it would be harder to accomplish. So they spin tales using flawed data and studies to advance their political agenda.

Keep believing whatever you want.

I'll continue ignoring the 5000 charts you post each day that are full of political spin and agenda and you can keep ignoring my warnings of inevitable monetary, fiscal, and social crisis. Then we'll take notes in 20 years and we'll see how each of us made out.

[Clocker]

Lets assume I have a small retail business that after markdowns, pilferage and credit card discounts works on about 40% of sales profit margin. Let's say may payroll is about 15% and my rent is 15%. Factor in all other expenses and I am making a small profit at best.

Labor at 15% is probably low for those that would be most affected by higher minimum wages. The fast food industry relies heavily on low wage labor. I have seen a number of articles that put labor at 30% of total costs, and net profits at 6-8% for the best franchises.

If wages increase from $7.50 to $10.10, that is an increase of 35% in 30% of your costs, an increase of over 10% of total costs. So your costs went up 10% and you were only making 7%. But the financial geniuses on the left say that you don't have to increase prices, because with all that extra money in the economy, your sales will increase greatly.

Final exam: If you are losing 3% on sales, how many more hamburgers do you have to sell to become profitable?

[Clocker]

And a rigorous set of studies here.....

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Oh good. Yet more studies showing that an increase in the wages of 2% of workers does not result in a decrease in the number of workers in the other 98% during a period of economic growth.

Some issues that do not appear to be addressed in those rigorous studies:

1. I see absolutely no mention of the impact of increases in the minimum wages on prices of those affected, especially fast food.

2. I see no indication that any of those "rigorous" studies looked at the impact of an increase in minimum wages on the growth rate of minimum wage jobs. No one claims that an increase in the minimum wage has an immediate or even short run impact on total employment. Minimum wage workers do not get fired if that wage goes up. They are part of the production process that must go on until the process can be changed. The expected reactions to a significant increase in minimum wages would include increased prices and a significant decline in the growth rate of minimum wage jobs. Employers would not create new minimum wage jobs and would not fill vacancies of current jobs. The impact would be longer term, and does not appear to be addressed.

[Tom]

What happens when the minimum wage people are now equal to the next higher level of people's earnings?

Do we increase the number of min wager earners, or do they get a raise as well?

[Greyfox]

I could care less what any study says. There is the reality. You raise minimum wage dramatically(mayor of Los Angeles wants to increase our minimum wager from $9.00 to $13.50 an hour over 3 years) and small businesses will go out of business in large numbers. Unemployment will go up significantly. Prices will go up significantly. Local tax revenues will fall and the economy will get worse.

That advice should be heeded and bears repeating. :ThmbUp:
If you don't like what you are earning, get another job.
That of course might require that you upgrade your education / training.

[classhandicapper]

One of the major things these studies cannot control for is the timing of the increase of the minimum wage.

Assuming a relatively healthy economy, the total number of people employed should grow over time.

One would think that even a democrat governor would not be stupid enough to raise the minimum wage when job creation was very weak or unemployment was rising due to cyclical reasons. He'd wait until there was a cyclical recovery and/or job growth was strong for other reasons. That way he'd minimize the impact of higher wages. The stats would show a rise in employment despite the increase in the minimum wage, but that would reflect the environment and the general long term pattern of job growth and not the lack of impact of the salary increase. There's no way to prove what the job growth would have been without the increase.

[Grits]

By continuing to exempt people with disabilities from the minimum wage, Congress reveals its implicit awareness of the minimum wage’s negative effects on the least productive people.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/06/even-congress-admits-that-the-minimum-wage-causes-unemployment/

Today, its easy to understand that one wants to protect oneself, though, its hard to see anyone--with or without children--this resentful of people who are disabled. I'm reminded that my son's your burden.

I would question...if you have any real knowledge of differences between benefit programs for the disabled, the monthly benefit amount, the eligibilty requirements, the record keeping of a representative payee, etc, etc.

SMH

[Tom]

That advice should be heeded and bears repeating. :ThmbUp:
If you don't like what you are earning, get another job.
That of course might require that you upgrade your education / training.

...or attitude.;)

[Tom]

I would question...if you have any real knowledge of differences between benefit programs for the disabled, the monthly benefit amount, the eligibilty requirements, the record keeping of a representative payee, etc, etc.

Not enough.
People who have a genuine need have to do with less so that those who choose not pull their own weight can have a free ride.

That dingbat nurse who was whining about being put in that horrible, inhumane quarantine tent......apparently she missed the news story here last week about military vets - homeless - being forced out a local parking garage where they slept at night. I bet they would have lined up to sleep in that baby.

Every dollar spent on an Obama phone is a dollar's worth of food some hungry American will not eat.

[classhandicapper]

Today, its easy to understand that one wants to protect oneself, though, its hard to see anyone--with or without children--this resentful of people who are disabled. I'm reminded that my son's your burden.


You are not understanding the point of that quote at all.

That quote is simply suggesting that despite the rhetoric, even the democrats in congress understand that employees will only get hired if they are productive enough to justify their salary. So in order to ensure that disabled people could get hired also, they made an exception to minimum wage rules and gave companies an incentive to fill jobs with people that were disabled and not as productive.

I have no problem with any of that. It simply suggests that the democrats are not as dumb as their rhetoric or the studies they point to that suggest that wages don't matter when it comes to employment.

(For the record, I have a special needs brother that is not employable. He gets government benefits. I have no problem paying for him and others like him via my taxes. He also has a trust that I set up privately to help him later in life if/when his benefits get gutted because of all the people getting benefits that shouldn't be and bankrupt the country )

[mostpost]

Labor at 15% is probably low for those that would be most affected by higher minimum wages. The fast food industry relies heavily on low wage labor. I have seen a number of articles that put labor at 30% of total costs, and net profits at 6-8% for the best franchises.

If wages increase from $7.50 to $10.10, that is an increase of 35% in 30% of your costs, an increase of over 10% of total costs. So your costs went up 10% and you were only making 7%. But the financial geniuses on the left say that you don't have to increase prices, because with all that extra money in the economy, your sales will increase greatly.

Final exam: If you are losing 3% on sales, how many more hamburgers do you have to sell to become profitable?
Without going into it too deeply, I think you would need to sell 11% more hamburgers to maintain your 7% profit margin. Just to become profitable you would have to sell just over 3% more. Or you could charge 11% more for each hamburger or a combination of the two.

But charging 11% more for the burgers does not mean consumers as a whole are spending 11% more. That would only be the case if every consumer bought a hamburger.

[mostpost]

A list of the last nine times the minimum wage was raised-absent a recession and the number of jobs created in the twelve months following.
March 1, 1956 930,000 jobs.

Sept. 3, 1963 1,709,000

Feb. 1, 1967 1,377,000

Feb. 1, 1968 2,633,000

Jan. 1, 1976 2,430.000

Jan. 1, 1978 4,090,000

Jan, 1, 1979 1,997,000

Oct. 1, 1996 3,177,000

Oct. 1, 1997 3,171,000

So much for the theory raising the minimum wage kills jobs.

[Greyfox]

Without going into it too deeply, I think you would need to sell 11% more hamburgers to maintain your 7% profit margin. Just to become profitable you would have to sell just over 3% more. Or you could charge 11% more for each hamburger or a combination of the two.

But charging 11% more for the burgers does not mean consumers as a whole are spending 11% more. That would only be the case if every consumer bought a hamburger.

I'm glad that you didn't go into it too deeply.
As you sell hamburgers at 11 % more, you may lose customers.
Let me give you a case in point.

In our city, we used to have several wonderful stores ran by family operations that sold new books.
Indigo-Chapters came to town.
Within 4 years, every family run book store threw in the towel.
They couldn't compete with the lower prices offered by Indigo.
Even customers who were supposedly loyal to the family run book stores went where they could get the best prices.
Moral:
With consumers, price is king.

You can talk about small businesses raising their prices 11% all you want, but until you get out there and put your own skin in the game Mostie, you are basically blowing smoke.
Reality trumps theories. It's just that simple.

[thaskalos]

What happens when the minimum wage people are now equal to the next higher level of people's earnings?

Do we increase the number of min wager earners, or do they get a raise as well?
This is an excellent question that is not usually addressed. :ThmbUp:

A minimum wage increase affects more than just those at the bottom step of the pay ladder.

[Clocker]

Without going into it too deeply, I think you would need to sell 11% more hamburgers to maintain your 7% profit margin. Just to become profitable you would have to sell just over 3% more. Or you could charge 11% more for each hamburger or a combination of the two.

No and yes. If you are losing money on every sale, you can't make it up by increasing volume. The more you sell, the more you lose.

The only way to make it up is to increase prices and/or cut costs. That's the point. The liberal argument here has been that the increase in wages leads to an increase in demand which offsets the decline in profits even with no increase in prices. That is impossible, even in theory, if the increased costs cut profits to zero, or negative.

This simple example shows the basic mechanism, which is totally within the realm of possibility. Firms like this operate on very thin margins, often less than the 7% example. And this example is based on an increase from $7.50 to $10.10. Figure it out at the $15.00 many are clamoring for.

[iceknight]

in an attempt to defend Hillary, Mostie digs deep into his cranium for a serious sack of crap.

Jobs are created by those taking risks, building businesses etc. In the hopes that someone buys their products. Not the other way around :bang:

Btw, there are lots of quasi-businesses out there that create jobs without creating a product or selling anything. They're called Government agencies. And they all lose money, except those that steal it from the populace. You know, like the IRS and the EPA. those that can issue fines. No one builds a business on "hope". Unless you have a way of estimating (consumer) demand and taking the risk, there is absolutely no way a business would be profitable. You can play the chicken and egg game as much as you want, but unless demand exists or a viable way of drumming up demand exists, business will remain a pipe dream.
While I think Hillary is not capable at all of being president, this phrase which she used is actually *gasp* true.
Of course, business and risk takers are needed to add value their, recognize the demand and create sustainable markets and jobs, but to act as if businesses ALONE do it, is a huge stretch of a modicum of truth. Oh and govt agencies dont steal from populace, govt agencies in cahoots with contractors (private businesses) steal from the populace. Dont conveniently ignore the elephant.

Before you being categorizing me with one of your labels, Let me add that I am a small business owner myself (and self employed) but the biggest problem in America is that nothing can be discussed at middle ground, but instead everything has to painted black or white or Conservative v. Liberal.
Land of choices? Yeah, only for cereal or milk varieties in the grocery aisle. When it comes to real topics, it is always myway or highway here.

[Clocker]

A list of the last nine times the minimum wage was raised-absent a recession and the number of jobs created in the twelve months following.
March 1, 1956 930,000 jobs.

Sept. 3, 1963 1,709,000

Feb. 1, 1967 1,377,000

Feb. 1, 1968 2,633,000

Jan. 1, 1976 2,430.000

Jan. 1, 1978 4,090,000

Jan, 1, 1979 1,997,000

Oct. 1, 1996 3,177,000

Oct. 1, 1997 3,171,000

So much for the theory raising the minimum wage kills jobs.

How many of those new jobs were minimum wage jobs? How many new jobs would have been created if the minimum wage had not been increased?

There is no theory that raising the minimum wage kills non-minimum wage jobs, as I have said about forty-eleven times here. It may or may not kill minimum wage jobs in the short run. It will certainly do serious damage to the creation of minimum wage jobs in the future, and may slow the grow of non-minimum wage job creation.

[ArlJim78]

No one builds a business on "hope". Unless you have a way of estimating (consumer) demand and taking the risk, there is absolutely no way a business would be profitable. You can play the chicken and egg game as much as you want, but unless demand exists or a viable way of drumming up demand exists, business will remain a pipe dream.
While I think Hillary is not capable at all of being president, this phrase which she used is actually *gasp* true.
Of course, business and risk takers are needed to add value their, recognize the demand and create sustainable markets and jobs, but to act as if businesses ALONE do it, is a huge stretch of a modicum of truth. Oh and govt agencies dont steal from populace, govt agencies in cahoots with contractors (private businesses) steal from the populace. Dont conveniently ignore the elephant.

Before you being categorizing me with one of your labels, Let me add that I am a small business owner myself (and self employed) but the biggest problem in America is that nothing can be discussed at middle ground, but instead everything has to painted black or white or Conservative v. Liberal.
Land of choices? Yeah, only for cereal or milk varieties in the grocery aisle. When it comes to real topics, it is always myway or highway here.
I'm curious, other than yourself who was responsible for creating the jobs at your small business?

Do you really believe that the biggest problem in America is that nothing can be discussed at "middle ground", whatever that means? That is a bigger problem than our devalued currency, massive debt that can never be paid off, crumbling infrastructure, shrinking work force, failing schools, corruption and lack of accountability at the highest level, end of the rule of law, etc, etc?

[thaskalos]

I'm curious, other than yourself who was responsible for creating the jobs at your small business?

Do you really believe that the biggest problem in America is that nothing can be discussed at "middle ground", whatever that means? That is a bigger problem than our devalued currency, massive debt that can never be paid off, crumbling infrastructure, shrinking work force, failing schools, corruption and lack of accountability at the highest level, end of the rule of law, etc, etc?

THIS is the biggest problem...and it barely gets mentioned here. I wish we could put aside our liberal/conservative bickering long enough to at least notice what the FED is doing to the purchasing power of our already dwindling savings.

[mostpost]

What is NOT addressed in these so called studies is THE fact double...maybe triple... this many people...retirees...would go directly INTO poverty...as the corresponding inflation needed to SUPPORT wage increase takes hold...

oh and that's 16.5 million # + 900k number...whilst it wouldn't bother at 1st those on FAT government pensions...hint, hint, ;) ;) there would be tremendous suffering for the common older folk...
The CBO report says there will be 900,000 fewer people living below the poverty level if we pass the $10.10 minimum wage. It doesn't say 900 000 will escape poverty and 2,000,000 will fall into poverty. There is nothing in the study that says two to three times as many retirees will go directly into poverty. That is your belief and it has no basis in fact.

[classhandicapper]

A list of the last nine times the minimum wage was raised-absent a recession and the number of jobs created in the twelve months following.
March 1, 1956 930,000 jobs.

Sept. 3, 1963 1,709,000

Feb. 1, 1967 1,377,000

Feb. 1, 1968 2,633,000

Jan. 1, 1976 2,430.000

Jan. 1, 1978 4,090,000

Jan, 1, 1979 1,997,000

Oct. 1, 1996 3,177,000

Oct. 1, 1997 3,171,000

So much for the theory raising the minimum wage kills jobs.

You really need to pick a different subject to discuss.

1. The long term economic trend in the US has been positive GDP growth and job creation. If you raise the minimum wage you will STILL GET JOB GROWTH because GDP growth is vastly more important to job creation than the negative impact of the wage increase. That means you cannot say " we created 2 million jobs after the increase in the minimum wage" and have it mean anything. It might have been 2.1 million without the increase. This one of a thousand things we can't control for.

2. It would be way more meaningful if we just looked at the creation of minimum wage jobs after an increase in the minimum wage because the minimum wage has no impact on all the doctors, nurses, accountants, computer programmers etc.. that are getting high paying jobs as the economy improves. Even though it would be more accurate, we would still have problem #1. So it's pointless.

[classhandicapper]

The CBO report says there will be 900,000 fewer people living below the poverty level if we pass the $10.10 minimum wage. It doesn't say 900 000 will escape poverty and 2,000,000 will fall into poverty. There is nothing in the study that says two to three times as many retirees will go directly into poverty. That is your belief and it has no basis in fact.

There is one fact.

Every businessman with an IQ higher than a rock that is having his margins squeezed to the point that he can not longer justify the investment he has in the business (which would be all average or inferior businesses) will look to compensate for the higher wage costs. That means he has several choice.

1. Lay people off

2. Defer future hiring he intended to do

3. Raise the prices for his goods and services

4. Automate some of the processes that were previously done by humans because the machines have become more cost effective

All those have negative consequences for minimum wage workers and potential minimum wage workers.

So what happens is that you raise some of them out of poverty (those lucky enough to keep their job at the higher wage), put some of them into poverty (those that lost their job), and prevent some from getting out of poverty (those that would have been hired at a lower wage but not at the new one).

This is basic human behavior and business.

Arguing this is a nonsensical waste of time when the solution is so obvious. You create a friendlier business environment and increase the quality of the workers and we will create more jobs and they will JUSTIFIABLY pay more.

Of course that would be bad for democrats who would rather people depend on the state so they can buy votes.

[mostpost]

You really need to pick a different subject to discuss.

1. The long term economic trend in the US has been positive GDP growth and job creation. If you raise the minimum wage you will STILL GET JOB GROWTH because GDP growth is vastly more important to job creation than the negative impact of the wage increase. That means you cannot say " we created 2 million jobs after the increase in the minimum wage" and have it mean anything. It might have been 2.1 million without the increase. This one of a thousand things we can't control for.

2. It would be way more meaningful if we just looked at the creation of minimum wage jobs after an increase in the minimum wage because the minimum wage has no impact on all the doctors, nurses, accountants, computer programmers etc.. that are getting high paying jobs as the economy improves. Even though it would be more accurate, we would still have problem #1. So it's pointless.
The point-which you missed for the 800th time- is that raising the minimum wage does not kill jobs.

[davew]

The point-which you missed for the 800th time- is that raising the minimum wage does not kill jobs.

what is your definition of 'kill jobs'? If there are 1 million jobs less because of raising minimum wage, what happened to them?

Hiliary may be using her liberal spin and meaning that with more money to spend, people will spend more and businesses will grow.

But someone had to have the guts, sweat, blood and tears to get the company started. There have been many more companies started with less than a handful of people then a few hundred - as successful businesses grow.

[Tom]

You really need to pick a different subject to discuss.

Don't encourage him!

[Clocker]

The point-which you missed for the 800th time- is that raising the minimum wage does not kill jobs.

No one with an understanding of economics claims that it kills existing jobs. Raising the minimum wage reduces the creation of new minimum wage jobs in the future. The greater the increase in wages, the fewer new jobs created. Your numbers provide zero information about minimum wage jobs.

To put it in terms libs can understand, minimum wage increases do not kill jobs, they abort potential jobs that would have been created.

[Grits]

I'm sorry. I did understand the article you linked. Still, your quote concerned me as I don't understand such a blanket statement joining people who are disabled with those who scam the system.

Whether your brother's benefits get gutted or not, you did a wise and a caring thing for him. Decades ago, we did the same for our son who has no brother or sister.

You are not understanding the point of that quote at all.

That quote is simply suggesting that despite the rhetoric, even the democrats in congress understand that employees will only get hired if they are productive enough to justify their salary. So in order to ensure that disabled people could get hired also, they made an exception to minimum wage rules and gave companies an incentive to fill jobs with people that were disabled and not as productive.

I have no problem with any of that. It simply suggests that the democrats are not as dumb as their rhetoric or the studies they point to that suggest that wages don't matter when it comes to employment.

(For the record, I have a special needs brother that is not employable. He gets government benefits. I have no problem paying for him and others like him via my taxes. He also has a trust that I set up privately to help him later in life if/when his benefits get gutted because of all the people getting benefits that shouldn't be and bankrupt the country )

[iceknight]

I'm curious, other than yourself who was responsible for creating the jobs at your small business?

Do you really believe that the biggest problem in America is that nothing can be discussed at "middle ground", whatever that means? That is a bigger problem than our devalued currency, massive debt that can never be paid off, crumbling infrastructure, shrinking work force, failing schools, corruption and lack of accountability at the highest level, end of the rule of law, etc, etc? I am making a decision to hire, but that SOLELY depends on projected demand for our services, as in, consumer demand. Now, our business is more B2B so our end user business has to have customers for them to request our services.

What is so hard to understand about "middle ground" - it means solution based discussion to problems not "party based" (liberal vs conservative). Every one of those issues you mentioned, if politicians actually talk of those issues instead of just pandering to voter bases, things would get done! Doh!

[hcap]

Your supposed 'rigorous' study was done at the behest of the socialist organization, National Employment Law Project.

http://www.nelp.org/index.php/content/content_about_us/background/

You bellyache constantly that the right joins the fray with tainted/biased studies, yet you seem to have no problem in doing the same. Why don't we leave behind attacks on each others sources and just admit that we are attaching biased information that supports our positions?B.S.
These studies, I am listing a few out of 10 or so listed, are not socialist. Neither is NELP

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment? (2013)....Summary: Reviews the past two decades of research on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment: this study concludes that the weight of the evidence points to little or no effect of minimum wage increases on job growth. The study also finds that a review of the minimum wage literature commonly cited by minimum wage opponents is flawed because it is subjective, relies in large part on studies of wage increases in foreign countries, and fails to consider the most sophisticated and recent minimum wage studies.

Two Leading Studies on Minimum Wage and Job Growth

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.15.5661&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Study: Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment? (2011)

Summary: Examines every minimum wage increase in the United States over the past two decades—including increases that took place during protracted periods of high unemployment—and finds that raising the wage floor boosted incomes without reducing employment or slowing job creation. The research demonstrates how a body of previous research—one frequently relied on by business lobbyists who oppose minimum wage increases—inaccurately attributes declines in employment to increases in the minimum wage by failing to sufficiently account for critical economic factors.

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf
Study: Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders (2010)

Summary: Provides the most sophisticated study to date of the effects of increases in the minimum wage on job growth in the United States. Taking advantage of the fact that a record number of states raised their minimum wages during the 1990s and 2000s – creating scores of differing minimum wage rates across the country – the study compares employment levels among every pair of neighboring U.S. counties that had differing minimum wage levels at any time between 1990 and 2006 and finds that higher minimum wages did not reduce employment.

[hcap]

HCAP,

I'd love to know what part of CAN'T CONTROL for all the factors that impact employment you can't comprehend (as in it's virtually impossible).

What part of not everything is relevant can't you comprehend?

Do you think the Fed, CBO, and multiple PHd economists came up with their projections without looking at past data and experience?

This is meaningless. Both sides of many complex issues have credentialed advocates. Obviously. However complex issues ate not as simplistic as the right thinks. The right here also assumes a priori conclusions as though they are God given and easily demonstrable. God-given conclusions have poor track records, and conservative faith based economics,--- the cornerstone of trickle down supply side dogma----are not at all conclusive as the right BELIEVES they are.
But yes they are usually "simplistic"----overly :lol:

Do you think they pulled this stuff out of their asses?

Depends on which side of the partisan aisle one sits on. Although politics in general is full of ass pullers. No argument

If there is no negative impact to forcefully raising wages, then why doesn't government just decree that everyone should get a $25 an hour raise to stimulate demand?

Please! You are assuming a political across-the-board consensus.

It doesn't because many of the people (including the economists) that want to raise the minimum wage know privately there's a huge tradeoff. They just can't admit to it because then it would be harder to accomplish. So they spin tales using flawed data and studies to advance their political agenda.

There are always tradeoffs. Flawed data is in the eyes of the beholder. So are political agendas. Change ain't easy.

Neither is hope :lol:

Keep believing whatever you want.

I doubt any of us have altered opinions on the other side, and of course all of us will continue in our ways. So what?

I'll continue ignoring the 5000 charts you post each day that are full of political spin and agenda and you can keep ignoring my warnings of inevitable monetary, fiscal, and social crisis. Then we'll take notes in 20 years and we'll see how each of us made out.Ignore the truth at your own risk :lol: :lol:

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'.....George Santayana

[classhandicapper]

The point-which you missed for the 800th time- is that raising the minimum wage does not kill jobs.

You have a serious comprehension problem.

The question is not whether jobs continue to grow despite a rise in the minimum wage. That's a given. The question is whether they grow as fast as they would have if the minimum wage did not rise.

[HUSKER55]

you babble a lot. put forth a decent plan to achieve full employment that does not include screwing the evil rich.

[Tom]

Their only plan is to screw the evil rich.

[Robert Goren]

Their only plan is to screw the evil rich.Compared to the GOP/conservative's only plan to screw the lazy poor.

[classhandicapper]

This is all so basic.

Raising the minimum wage is an attempt to transfer income and purchasing power from business owners that employ minimum wage workers and consumers that buy their products to low skilled workers.

The problem is that it doesn't create NEW income. Plus businesses and consumers will respond the best they can to get that income and purchasing power back which in turn hurts some of those very workers. That's why it's a preposterous approach.

If you improve the business environment and improve the workers instead it increases investment and productivity which DOES INCREASE incomes for everyone.

[classhandicapper]

Compared to the GOP/conservative's only plan to screw the lazy poor.

The only approach that makes sense is to increase the productivity and skill set of our workers so they can justifiably be paid more. But while doing that you need to make sure the business environment is friendly.

[sammy the sage]

The CBO report says there will be 900,000 fewer people living below the poverty level if we pass the $10.10 minimum wage. It doesn't say 900 000 will escape poverty and 2,000,000 will fall into poverty. There is nothing in the study that says two to three times as many retirees will go directly into poverty. That is your belief and it has no basis in fact.

name me THE LAST time a CBO report projection WAS accurate... :eek: :rolleyes:

as far as my beliefs on the subject...it doesn't become fact til it happens...that IS inflation...and when on fixed income...that's WHAT happens....check out HISTORY....and THAT is a fact...sorry if you don't comprehend that.... :bang: :rolleyes:

[Robert Goren]

The only approach that makes sense is to increase the productivity and skill set of our workers so they can justifiably be paid more. But while doing that you need to make sure the business environment is friendly.Some jobs are not amenable to increases in skill sets nor can productivity be increased by very much for some of them. You can educate your workforce out of available jobs. You don't need electrical engineers to clean bathrooms. Hiring an RN and paying an RN's salary for a Med Aide job makes no sense.

[hcap]

The only approach that makes sense is to increase the productivity and skill set of our workers so they can justifiably be paid more. But while doing that you need to make sure the business environment is friendly.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--t2ha8hsRcY/T6LiGho8d3I/AAAAAAAAC4w/Qy4bhWRq2Bs/s1600/productivity.png

[hcap]

One more time

http://themillercircle.org/wp-content/uploads/Productivity-vs-wages-1947-20082.png

And

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/change-since-1979-300.gif

Gee, I wonder if I covered all factors anaysing the re-distribution of wealth UP to the very top?

Maybe I should speak to Gordon "greed is good" Gecko?

[Clocker]

A couple of very pretty graphs without even the vaguest attempt to explain the meaning or the causation. :sleeping:

[hcap]

A couple of very pretty graphs without even the vaguest attempt to explain the meaning or the causation. :sleeping:Speak to Gordon.

[classhandicapper]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--t2ha8hsRcY/T6LiGho8d3I/AAAAAAAAC4w/Qy4bhWRq2Bs/s1600/productivity.png


I explained this in the past.

1. Unions priced themselves out of what was becoming a more global market for workers. So jobs started moving overseas where businesses could get similar productivity for much less money.

2. When communism failed, it added hundreds of millions (if not billions) of new workers to that supply and put further downward pressure on wages.

3. Free trade agreements accelerated the process.

4. Immigration (both legal and illegal) added to the supply of workers (especially low skilled) in the US.

5. US regulations and tax structure does not encourage domestic investment.

All the stars have been lined up against workers, but it's a medium term phenomenon (several decades until it plays itself out and incomes elsewhere catch up to those in the US).

To try to offset those pressures you need to change the value proposition so that US workers and US investment is a better deal than elsewhere. You can't change it by forcing US wages higher. Doing that is why unions are in the predicament they're in. You have to improve the workers, reduce the immigration, and improve the business environment.

[Clocker]

Speak to Gordon.

Gordon is using your account to post pointless data?

[pandy]

This thread started with Hilary's "don't let anyone tell you that businesses create jobs" but went off course to the minimum wage. Getting back to what Hillary said, it's absurd and indefensible.

[Tom]

Compared to the GOP/conservative's only plan to screw the lazy poor.

Not true.
Just make them accountable.
Unless yo mean screw them making giving them jobs, expecting to pay theri own way......that kind of screw job?

The BUSH Tax cuts gave the largest percentage to the bottom earners.

Your parroting skills are still as sharp as ever.

[Greyfox]

This thread started with Hilary's "don't let anyone tell you that businesses create jobs" but went off course to the minimum wage. Getting back to what Hillary said, it's absurd and indefensible.

Mostie and hcap - won't touch that part of what she said with a 10 foot pole.
Of course it's ludicrous.
They believe though that if they pound the minimum wage drum loud enough and long enough, we'll forget that stupid remark.

[pandy]

Even a small home-based business with no employees stimulates the economy and helps create, or maintain job growth. I write and publish a book. Here is a list of all the businesses that will make money off of it beside me: the printer, the ISBN seller, the artist who did my cover, the post office, the paper company, the ink company, the e-commerce site that I buy my envelopes off of, the company that makes the envelope, the credit card companies including Paypal, plus various e-commerce websites such as Amazon.

That's why it's critically important for government to minimize regulations and taxes aimed at businesses, so as not to make it too difficult for people to go into business. Plenty of tax revenue is generated just from the sales. This is a big problem, too much red tape.

[hcap]

I explained this in the past.

1. Unions priced themselves out of what was becoming a more global market for workers. So jobs started moving overseas where businesses could get similar productivity for much less money.

What is predominantly evident and relevant, is that worker productivity has constantly gone up whereas their wages consistently have gone down. Yes jobs have moved overseas, yes globalization has undercut the domestic worker, but you claimed "The only approach that makes sense is to increase the productivity and skill set of our workers so they can justifiably be paid more" Now you add more points which are obviously an attempt to insert "all factors"--some of which are not the significant ones against my counter to your original productivity remark, and divert from your that original claim. I have addressed your productivity concerns. Workers are producing more by a wide margin.

You might as well aim at globalization, the fall of communism, the Fed, illegal immigrants and whatever else may add to the mix. But nevertheless, the main point is workers are making more items and performing more services on their own, and yes in combination with management per hour worked.....STILL STANDS

The source for these graphs are mostly the BLS

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/

Income inequality has grown over the last 30 years or more driven by three dynamics: rising inequality of labor income (wages and compensation), rising inequality of capital income, and an increasing share of income going to capital income rather than labor income. As a consequence, examining market-based incomes one finds that “the top 1 percent of households have secured a very large share of all of the gains in income—59.9 percent of the gains from 1979–2007, while the top 0.1 percent seized an even more disproportionate share: 36 percent. In comparison, only 8.6 percent of income gains have gone to the bottom 90 percent” (Mishel and Bivens 2011).

[classhandicapper]

Some jobs are not amenable to increases in skill sets nor can productivity be increased by very much for some of them. You can educate your workforce out of available jobs. You don't need electrical engineers to clean bathrooms. Hiring an RN and paying an RN's salary for a Med Aide job makes no sense.

I understand that. You are never going to make a McDonald's worker productive enough to earn a lot of money and you are never going to make a brain surgeon flip burgers.

However, you can improve the reliability, accuracy, speed, interpersonal skills, cleanliness, etc.. of workers at McDonald's and make the experience better for both the owners and customers. That in turn attracts more customers, improves the business, and justifies more money. They may also move up the chain and be replaced by younger people take the lower level jobs.

Giving them more money without a corresponding improvement in quality gives the owner a reason to replace them with automation because the comparative value changes towards replacing them.

[Tom]

That is why min wage jobs just that.
You don't upgrade the skills of the job, you update the skills of the workers so they can move into better jobs - more pay, more benefits, more responsibilities. Then the next wave of high schools kids and retired folks take those minimum jobs that suit their situations.

If all you do is up the wages at the bottom, what incentive is there for people to seek better jobs?

If you don't understand inertia, visit the local welfare office.

[classhandicapper]

hcap,

You are making the same mistake you were making with job growth and the minimum wage.

You can't just look at the data and say that since income growth has not kept up with productivity, productivity does not matter.

You have to control for ALL the factors that impacted income growth during that period. That's why I listed the reasons they diverged. There were factors other than productivity that swamped the impact of productivity on wage growth.

You have to ask where would incomes be without that productivity growth?

I am suggesting they would be even lower.

You don't stop doing a good thing because it is not having the full desired effect by itself. You do it anyway and try to correct the things that are having a bad effect so the net is good.

[Robert Goren]

I understand that. You are never going to make a McDonald's worker productive enough to earn a lot of money and you are never going to make a brain surgeon flip burgers.

However, you can improve the reliability, accuracy, speed, interpersonal skills, cleanliness, etc.. of workers at McDonald's and make the experience better for both the owners and customers. That in turn attracts more customers, improves the business, and justifies more money.

Giving them more money without a corresponding improvement in quality gives the owner a reason to replace them with automation because the comparative value changes towards replacing them.Most employers of minimum wage workers do not give raises for improvement ever. That is the problem. They think the current minimum wage is too high and no amount of improvement will get the worker value up to what he is to paying him now.

[Clocker]

What is predominantly evident and relevant, is that worker productivity has constantly gone up whereas their wages consistently have gone down.

Stated without proof. Productivity is a function of labor, capital, and management. Productivity has gone up. You assume that some unstated portion of that increase is due to increased productivity of labor, and that labor is not getting its fair share for its contribution to the increase in productivity. I don't pretend to know if that is true or not, but you present zero evidence to show it.

Income inequality has grown over the last 30 years or more driven by three dynamics: rising inequality of labor income (wages and compensation), rising inequality of capital income, and an increasing share of income going to capital income rather than labor income.

I am assuming that this is a quote from someplace, and not your own words. Those are not three dynamics. Those are three different ways of saying the same thing. And those are not causes, those are results. There is no evidence presented to show why this is happening, or whether why it is happening is based on valid causes or not.

[Tom]

Most employers of minimum wage workers do not give raises for improvement ever. That is the problem. They think the current minimum wage is too high and no amount of improvement will get the worker value up to what he is to paying him now.

Very true in many cases.
Would you pay $5 for something your could sell for $4?

[thaskalos]

How do we determine how "civilized", or "enlightened" a country is? By the longevity and well-being of its citizens? By a review of the schooling system...and the education that it passes to its young people? By the stress and debt levels of its citizens? By its treatment of the old and the vulnerable?

Or is it by assessing the country's military might? By noting the prosperity level of its wealthiest citizens? Or by the number of billion-dollar corporations that it houses?

Times get tough...and people suffer. Countries must take measures to relieve some of that suffering...lest there be blood in the streets. Government assistance programs and minimum wage increases are inherently unpopular among certain sectors of the population...but you cannot do away with these programs unless you address the problem which necessitates them in the first place. As in medicine...the focus in our country is in treating the symptom, instead of investigating and treating the CAUSE of the problem.

[hcap]

hcap,

You are making the same mistake you were making with job growth and the minimum wage.

You can't just look at the data and say that since income growth has not kept up with productivity, productivity does not matter.

You have to control for ALL the factors that impacted income growth during that period. That's why I listed the reasons they diverged. There were factors other than productivity that swamped the impact of productivity on wage growth.

You have to ask where would incomes be without that productivity growth?

I am suggesting they would be even lower.

You don't stop doing a good thing because it is not having the full desired effect by itself. You do it anyway and try to correct the things that are having a bad effect so the net is good.

Wait one minute.........

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--t2ha8hsRcY/T6LiGho8d3I/AAAAAAAAC4w/Qy4bhWRq2Bs/s1600/productivity.png

What are the factors behind worker productivity? And how much are workers responsible for the steady increase? Or do you believe they are not responsible for some of the increased productivity and it's all due to management and automation?

[tucker6]

Wait one minute.........

What are the factors behind worker productivity? And how much are workers responsible for the steady increase? Or do you believe they are not responsible for some of the increased productivity and it's all due to management and automation?
That graph definitively shows that automation and computers in the workplace, which started around 1980, has had HUGE impacts on productivity. I bet if you could compare workers apples to apples from 1970 to now without advances in technology, direct worker productivity is likely the same. Therefore, worker wages should increase commensurate with price inflation in a world without competition. However, in a world of automation and competition, the skill and productivity of the worker is less valued, and therefore the jobs will flow to the lower cost sector worldwide and deflate the ability of our wage workers from earning a wage in tandem with inflation.

[AndyC]

How do we determine how "civilized", or "enlightened" a country is? By the longevity and well-being of its citizens? By a review of the schooling system...and the education that it passes to its young people? By the stress and debt levels of its citizens? By its treatment of the old and the vulnerable?

Or is it by assessing the country's military might? By noting the prosperity level of its wealthiest citizens? Or by the number of billion-dollar corporations that it houses?

Times get tough...and people suffer. Countries must take measures to relieve some of that suffering...lest there be blood in the streets. Government assistance programs and minimum wage increases are inherently unpopular among certain sectors of the population...but you cannot do away with these programs unless you address the problem which necessitates them in the first place. As in medicine...the focus in our country is in treating the symptom, instead of investigating and treating the CAUSE of the problem.

All good questions.

Unfortunately it is hard to address the problem when there isn't consensus as to what the problem is. Clearly government assistance programs haven't done the trick and some will say they have made problems worse.

[OntheRail]

Wait one minute.........

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--t2ha8hsRcY/T6LiGho8d3I/AAAAAAAAC4w/Qy4bhWRq2Bs/s1600/productivity.png

What are the factors behind worker productivity? And how much are workers responsible for the steady increase? Or do you believe they are not responsible for some of the increased productivity and it's all due to management and automation?
I have a friend who owns a manufacturing company. At one time he employed 14 machinist to run Bridgeport Mills and SouthBend Lathes . He purchased a Haas VMC his production when up waste dropped and cut four employees. He now has 4 such mills and 2 programer/machinist and one broom pushers as employees... he also works the floor. So a rise in products with fewer employees ( less compensation ) and more return on capital investment. Just one real world example.

[classhandicapper]

Most employers of minimum wage workers do not give raises for improvement ever. That is the problem. They think the current minimum wage is too high and no amount of improvement will get the worker value up to what he is to paying him now.

Employers generally give raises when market forces dictate they have to. That happens when employment is high and people have opportunities to leave and advance. We have a huge surplus of unskilled and under-educated workers in this country. It grows with every immigrant that sneaks across the border. That puts downward pressure on everything. I'm not anti immigration, but it's a terrible idea now given our employment situation and all the other downard pressures.

[hcap]

I have a friend who owns a manufacturing company. At one time he employed 14 machinist to run Bridgeport Mills and SouthBend Lathes . He purchased a Haas VMC his production when up waste dropped and cut four employees. He now has 4 such mills and 2 programer/machinist and one broom pushers as employees... he also works the floor. So a rise in products with fewer employees ( less compensation ) and more return on capital investment. Just one real world example.I agree. But I ran the manufacturing side of a small business for many years. Started as a semi-skilled craftsman and worked my way up.

Not all businesses are in a position to automate. Nor can certain tasks-at least until A.I. arrives practically-be automated. Service industries have benefited also from technological influences as manufacturing, but less so. and once again until robby the robot can wait tables people will still be an integral part.

When I hired someone to fill a skilled position, experience and education and motivation were key points. We had gone as far as possible as to what was cost effective in terms of automation. The human element does count in many situations particularly when a small business has limited resources. Large organizations are much more likely to automate to a greater degree.

My experience has taught me-not counting a full scale replacement of workers by machines which we did at times, productivity was increased by the right person, and many people learned to be that right person. The overall graph I posted shows that as well as the underlying technological advancements of our times.

[OntheRail]

Employers generally give raises when market forces dictate they have to. That happens when employment is high and people have opportunities to leave and advance. We have a huge surplus of unskilled and under-educated workers in this country. It grows with every immigrant that sneaks across the border. That puts downward pressure on everything. I'm not anti immigration, but it's a terrible idea now given our employment situation and all the other downard pressures.

The Liberal Dipsticks don't care about a secure border. They only see Dem voters crossing. Why talking about immigration...makes you a racist. That's why they are also opposed to any Voter ID requirements... legal or not let 'em vote. The impact on Society as a whole is of no consequence as long as they Party keeps the Reid's and Pelosi hacks in power. They like the voting block but can see how that effects the labor pool. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Get ready for amnesty for 9 million right after the election.
34 Tons of poster board - to make ID cards - has been ordered.

What do you expect when your president is a foreigner?

[classhandicapper]

Wait one minute.........

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--t2ha8hsRcY/T6LiGho8d3I/AAAAAAAAC4w/Qy4bhWRq2Bs/s1600/productivity.png

What are the factors behind worker productivity? And how much are workers responsible for the steady increase? Or do you believe they are not responsible for some of the increased productivity and it's all due to management and automation?

I don't know, but it's probably both.

Workers will eventually get compensated for that increased productivity, but first we have to have some kind of global equilibrium in terms of wages, benefits, taxes, regulations, and productivity etc... At that point jobs will start growing faster here, we'll reach a higher level of employment, and then companies will have to start competing for US workers.

What I am suggesting is that IMO we should do everything we can (within reason) to accelerate that process. One thing would help would be closing the damn borders. There's a reason so many wealthy businessmen are in favor of amnesty and open borders. It helps keep wages down. We import both the skilled and unskilled labor they need instead of training and using US workers that are already here.

[reckless]

Get ready for amnesty for 9 million right after the election.
34 Tons of poster board - to make ID cards - has been ordered.

What do you expect when your president is a foreigner?

Plus this a President who hates this country, hates its citizens and is an incompetent boob in everything he does pertaining to policy and good governance.

Hillary and Obama may think 'you didn't build that', but both are hell bent in destroying what we did build.

God save America!

[Tom]

This is the core of the liberal mindset - THEY didn't build anything.
They just want to tax it and take it.
Liberals have no respect for people's rights or their hard work.
All they see is more loot.

[fast4522]

This is the core of the liberal mindset - THEY didn't build anything.
They just want to tax it and take it.
Liberals have no respect for people's rights or their hard work.
All they see is more loot.

And got the boot. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[RunForTheRoses]

Get ready for amnesty for 9 million right after the election.
34 Tons of poster board - to make ID cards - has been ordered.

What do you expect when your president is a foreigner?

Even Chris Matthews, he of the Obama driven tingly leg, sees the abomination in this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/392152/chris-matthews-obama-acts-theres-no-other-world-out-there-his-brendan-bordelon

MSNBC host Chris Matthews expressed dismay over President Obama’s post-election press conference on Wednesday, calling him entirely deaf to the millions of Americans who voted against his plan to grant executive amnesty for as many as 6 million illegal immigrants.

“The people, if you look at the polling, their problem is illegal immigration,” he said. “He says, ‘I’m going to fix the problem.’ He doesn’t mean he’s gonna stop illegal immigration. He’s not going to do anything to stop illegal hiring, which is the magnet for illegal immigration, really. He’s going to basically say, ‘I’m going to deal with them by giving them green cards.’”

“What bothered me about him tonight — he keeps talking about common ground,” Matthews said. “Damnit, there’s very little common ground between left and right! But what there is, is compromise.”

“There’s something in this guy that just plays to his constituency, and acts like there’s no other world out there,” the MSNBC host lamented. “And that’s going to be a collision at the end of this year like you’ve never seen. I do believe it’s will be waving a red flag in front of the bull. I think Mitch McConnell’s headed for a fight with the president.”

[pandy]

Well put by Matthews.

[Clocker]

Well put by Matthews.

He does have his moments. The guy is very knowledgeable about recent political history and behind the scenes stuff. He started going really over the top when he went on MSNBC. It was like a competition to see who could be crazier, Matthews or Keith Olbermann. He seems to be getting a little more realistic lately.

[pandy]

He does have his moments. The guy is very knowledgeable about recent political history and behind the scenes stuff. He started going really over the top when he went on MSNBC. It was like a competition to see who could be crazier, Matthews or Keith Olbermann. He seems to be getting a little more realistic lately.

I agree. Years ago I thought he was one of the all time greatest political analysts, even though I'm a moderate and a fiscal conservative. But, as you say, he got off track once he went to MSNBC.

[JustRalph]

Well put by Matthews.

Considering the phrasing came right from Mitch McConnell, it was easy