Rise of Minimum wage?

[BigBallinStalin]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-minimum-wage_n_2900984.html

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made a case for increasing the minimum wage last week during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing, in which she cited a study that suggested the federal minimum wage would have stood at nearly $22 an hour today if it had kept up with increased rates in worker productivity.

"If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour," she said, speaking to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage. "So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker."

Dube went on to note that if minimum wage incomes had grown over that period at the same pace as it had for the top 1 percent of income earners, the minimum wage would actually be closer to $33 an hour than the current $7.25.

It didn't appear that Warren was actually trying to make the case for a $22 an hour minimum wage, but rather highlighting the results of a recent study that showed flat minimum wage growth over the past 40-plus years coinciding with surging inequality across a number of economic indicators.

Warren went on to argue that raising the federal minimum wage to over $10 an hour in incremental steps over the next two years -- a cause championed by President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address and since taken up in the Senate -- would not be as damaging for businesses as some critics have argued.

Adjust the minimum wage for inflation, and it should be over $10 an hour. Adjust it for productivity and it should be over $20 an hour. Adjust it to match the rise in income for the 1%, and it should be over $30 an hour.

You're being an idiot for reasons already explained.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'll just wait for you to address the substitution effect and how that's related to minimum wage.

It doesn't.

That is an artificial concept used by people who already have a set belief to justify their ideas.

I am saying we need to look beyond.

The basis of an economy is not Kenesian, Australien or whatever school of economics. The basis of an economy is natural resources, technology and damages. Weather has more to do with the economy than any negative impact of minimum wage, seriously!

It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Juan_Bottom]

You're being an idiot for reasons already explained.

Instead of throwing around some bitchy posts, maybe you could spend your time doing a little research about the topic at hand.
"Oh you stupid fucker there are other considerations other than inflation! I'm BBS! This is what I talk like!"
Oh junior...
Listen son, you're clickity-click posting away like you know something, but you don't know sh*t. And you're looking like a fool. Inflation, which is very important somehow, was not a major consideration of Congress the last time they indexed the minimum wage. As I explained, there is no universal formula. Therefor, an intelligent person, like Krugman, Obama, Warren, ECT, might find it important to adjust the new minimum based off of the old calculation and also the inflation index. This is why we say "adjusted for inflation." It's because those other considerations were already made. In fact thanks to inflation alone, people made more money on minimum wage in 1962 than they do today. I mean, it all goes back to the Fair Wage Act, to history. So things might have changed yeah, but that's not the point. If it was the point, then you could explain to us all exactly how the old calculation was made, and exactly needs to change in our considerations, other than inflation. If you actually know anything about this, feel free to roll out the projector. Otherwise just shut up already with your fake "I'm an economist" argument from authority.
This isn't even something new. People have been bitching (not to be confused with b*tchyness - BBS) about this since before the $7 hike. Verily, you should try to shut your mouth and you might learn something. I can't explain this shit to you if you wont listen because you're too busy being a jerk and making Holocaust jokes all of the time.

[BigBallinStalin]

You're being an idiot for reasons already explained.

Instead of throwing around some bitchy posts, maybe you could spend your time doing a little research about the topic at hand.

substitution effect:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&start=240#p4090962

the knowledge problem:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&p=4092540&hilit=substitution+effect#p4092111


And I've already addressed your CPI rubbish. Here:

(at the end of the post)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=255#p4092382


Public Choice at play:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=195#p4084120
(in Canada, but I bet similar exemptions are given in the US)


Marginal productivity and price distortions from minimum wage:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=15#p4063699
(BBS + kenington)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=60#p4066698
(BBS w/ PLAYER)

Unintended consequences from well-intended, yet uninformed voters:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=30#p4063722
(last post by BBS)


etc., etc., etc.,

Keep going on about the $10/hour wage, and I'll keep repeating that your policies do not help poor and/or low-skilled workers.

But based on your history, you're not interested in learning anything that conflicts with your ideology, so after you iron out your personal issues, then we should take your positions seriously.

Until then, this is still true: you're being an idiot for reasons already explained.

[Juan_Bottom]

Wait, that all together is your whole argument? 'The issue is too complex, some people aren't worth anything, giving people too much money will get a lot of people fired....'

Well, the actual discussion on capital hill would have the minimum wage raised to $9-10 specifically because it won't impact the job market much. Why the f*ck do you think Obama would grow the economy then just turn around and tank it?

And that's kinda irrelevant, if we just look at history. People on minimum wage have earned more historically than people on minimum wage earn today, yet I don't recall any recession that spawned from any hike in the minimum wage ever. In fact, Oregon has a law that ties their minimum wage to inflation, yet even the worst reviews say that they job market has shed only a few jobs, which are mainly low-paying food service jobs. And that's during the recession. Meanwhile the most optimistic economists say that it has increased the number of jobs.
All a person has to do is look at all the wealth that is being concentrated on the top, and they will know that any defense of that serf system is bat-sh*t stupid. There's plenty of wealth to be distributed honestly for honest work, and you're dead wrong about the existence of free labor or that an intern isn't worth anything. People are not commodities as you believe them to be.

Now if some wise guy wants to argue that we should have a pyramid minimum wage system like Australia, then that's a damn fine argument to make. But if someone wants to argue that "some people aren't worth much money" then those people are idiots. Fire your worker if you don't like the job they are doing. Don't take advantage of everyone by paying them shit wages while you make insane profits. That's the essence of fraud. BBS says that a person's value in the job market is tied to their productivity. Well, obviously that's not f*cking true if 50% of American's are low income or poor, while at the same time our stock market has never been more valuable.

[Ray Rider]

You're being an idiot for reasons already explained.

Instead of throwing around some bitchy posts, maybe you could spend your time doing a little research about the topic at hand.

substitution effect:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&start=240#p4090962

the knowledge problem:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&p=4092540&hilit=substitution+effect#p4092111


And I've already addressed your CPI rubbish. Here:

(at the end of the post)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=255#p4092382


Public Choice at play:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=195#p4084120
(in Canada, but I bet similar exemptions are given in the US)


Marginal productivity and price distortions from minimum wage:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=15#p4063699
(BBS + kenington)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=60#p4066698
(BBS w/ PLAYER)

Unintended consequences from well-intended, yet uninformed voters:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=30#p4063722
(last post by BBS)


etc., etc., etc.,

Keep going on about the $10/hour wage, and I'll keep repeating that your policies do not help poor and/or low-skilled workers.

But based on your history, you're not interested in learning anything that conflicts with your ideology, so after you iron out your personal issues, then we should take your positions seriously.

Until then, this is still true: you're being an idiot for reasons already explained.

BOOM!! Welcome to the school of BBS (quite literally).

[Night Strike]

Well, the actual discussion on capital hill would have the minimum wage raised to $9-10 specifically because it won't impact the job market much. Why the f*ck do you think Obama would grow the economy then just turn around and tank it?

ROFL!!!

This guy thinks Obama has actually done work to grow the economy!

[PLAYER57832]

I'll just wait for you to address the substitution effect and how that's related to minimum wage.

It doesn't.

That is an artificial concept used by people who already have a set belief to justify their ideas.

I am saying we need to look beyond.

The basis of an economy is not Kenesian, Australien or whatever school of economics. The basis of an economy is natural resources, technology and damages. Weather has more to do with the economy than any negative impact of minimum wage, seriously!

It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

feel free....

knowing some economics doesn't make you an expert on the world

[BigBallinStalin]

Wait, that all together is your whole argument? 'The issue is too complex, some people aren't worth anything, giving people too much money will get a lot of people fired....'

Well, the actual discussion on capital hill would have the minimum wage raised to $9-10 specifically because it won't impact the job market much. Why the f*ck do you think Obama would grow the economy then just turn around and tank it?

And that's kinda irrelevant, if we just look at history. People on minimum wage have earned more historically than people on minimum wage earn today, yet I don't recall any recession that spawned from any hike in the minimum wage ever. In fact, Oregon has a law that ties their minimum wage to inflation, yet even the worst reviews say that they job market has shed only a few jobs, which are mainly low-paying food service jobs. And that's during the recession. Meanwhile the most optimistic economists say that it has increased the number of jobs.
All a person has to do is look at all the wealth that is being concentrated on the top, and they will know that any defense of that serf system is bat-sh*t stupid. There's plenty of wealth to be distributed honestly for honest work, and you're dead wrong about the existence of free labor or that an intern isn't worth anything. People are not commodities as you believe them to be.

Now if some wise guy wants to argue that we should have a pyramid minimum wage system like Australia, then that's a damn fine argument to make. But if someone wants to argue that "some people aren't worth much money" then those people are idiots. Fire your worker if you don't like the job they are doing. Don't take advantage of everyone by paying them shit wages while you make insane profits. That's the essence of fraud. BBS says that a person's value in the job market is tied to their productivity. Well, obviously that's not f*cking true if 50% of American's are low income or poor, while at the same time our stock market has never been more valuable.

Pounding out logical fallacies and painting imaginative scenarios isn't doing you any favors. Try as you might, your imagination is not a good substitute for being quiet and learning something useful. I'll wait a few months and see if your level of gibberish has changed for the better.

Good luck with ironing out your personal issues!

[stahrgazer]

There's plenty of wealth to be distributed honestly for honest work, and you're dead wrong about the existence of free labor or that an intern isn't worth anything.

While there is plenty of wealth to be distributed for honest work, an intern is getting valuable experience to be employed later. You wouldn't expect a college to pay that intern for sitting in class, would you? Well, WOULD YOU?

But raising the minimum wage simply squishes the middle because those at the top will raise prices, and aren't going to raise everyone's salaries by the equal percentage to compensate.

The problem isn't the minimum wage is too low.

The problem is, most higher-paying jobs got shipped overseas.

Raising the minimum wage is a political "looks good," maneuver that doesn't do jack shit to help the poor or near-poor, but ties everyone up in this argument so the majority don't argue for what could really work: put tariffs back into imports to make it just as profitable to make stuff here if you want to sell it here, as it is to pay Nike peanuts in Viet Nam yet still sell those two-buck shoes for Two Hundred Bucks here.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'll just wait for you to address the substitution effect and how that's related to minimum wage.

It doesn't.

That is an artificial concept used by people who already have a set belief to justify their ideas.

I am saying we need to look beyond.

The basis of an economy is not Kenesian, Australien or whatever school of economics. The basis of an economy is natural resources, technology and damages. Weather has more to do with the economy than any negative impact of minimum wage, seriously!

It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

feel free....

knowing some economics doesn't make you an expert on the world

Right, but it does help when you talk about something within the realm of economics: minimum wage, "the basis of an economy," etc. Simply saying "that's an artificial concept" doesn't explain away the unintended consequences of minimum wage, nor does it explain why the substitution effect is an artificial concept.

Even the underlined doesn't make much sense. Sure, there are other relevant variables which affect an economy other than minimum wage, but to go on your tangent, the foundation of an economy is more than capital, "natural" resources, technology, and damage.

[AndyDufresne]

knowing some economics doesn't make you an expert on the world

I don't know anything about economics. I remember when I was very young, my relatives were discussing all sorts of economic and financial news at a thanksgiving or some type of meal, and it was boring me, so I told them all "I don't want to be a part of the economy."

Ah, to be young.


--Andy

[Juan_Bottom]

BOOM!! Welcome to the school of BBS (quite literally).

Really?!? Sit down son, it's time we make a man out of you.
1st of all, none of that sh*t was even a concise argument. Why do you even think that it was? It wasn't even based on reality, just hypotheses that ignore both American history and the current discussion of the minimum wage on capitol hill. Do they teach labor history anywhere anymore, or what?

But let's be straight here: BBS isn't saying anything new or anything remotely profound. What he is doing is espousing first year economics vocabular in an attempt to lend himself an air of economic authority. And I get it, m*therfucker's use some big and unfamiliar words, they make a big bullet presentation, and nobody feels like arguing with them because nobody cares. That's how he get's away with it. But think about his message across the fora, and how it's all one big circular argument.

BBS ON POLITICS
"Politicians get votes from people who don't understand how minimum wage laws work." Voters are generally uninformed, which is the underlying problem that is destroying everything.

BBS ON UNIONS AND THE MINIMUM WAGE
With greater risk should come greater reward, however Unions snatch away part of the entrepreneur's reward. Unions use the Minimum wage to increase their earnings and raising the marginal labor product yadda yadda.

Don't you see why BBS' is illogical on point here? The difference between a Union member and a non-union worker is this: Knowledge. Unions know how much profit a company makes, and how much money each employee makes. Thanks to this knowledge, they are able to leverage the employer into sharing a fairer portion of the companies profits with those who create the profit.
So why is it that when Voters don't have information that is really bad, but when workers have information that is equally bad?

BBS' CONCLUSIONS AND HOW TO REPAIR THE SYSTEM

First, you cannot give people too much welfare, or free money, because they will lose all incentive to work.

Second, you cannot force a business to pay people more money because they will lose all incentive to hire people.

Third, you cannot punish big business without punishing small business/you cannot punish business or they will lose all incentive to invest.

Conclusion: BBS has no solution. Business should stand as it is. Minimum wage should remain at it's 40 year low, at the same time the stock market is making record profits.

As John Adams said of Thomas Paine: The man is great at tearing down ideas, but he offers none of his own.

[AndyDufresne]

Conclusion: BBS has no solution.

BBS 2016


--Andy

[Juan_Bottom]

And as far as BBS' conclusions, obviously I disagree with all of them, everything he has said here. I'm a liberal, which to a lot of people is synonymous with anti-business, pro-labor. But you can be pro-labor and pro-business at the same time. I do believe in low corporate tax rates, and high income taxes on people. What I'm against is our system of organized greed.

While there is plenty of wealth to be distributed for honest work, an intern is getting valuable experience to be employed later. You wouldn't expect a college to pay that intern for sitting in class, would you? Well, WOULD YOU?

No. The college shouldn't pay, the employer should pay at least the minimum wage. Our society has decided that an American's time is worth at least $7.25 an hour. Internship is basically capitalist slavery, seemingly in violation of the spirit of the 13th amendment. Whether the intern is learning rocket science or not, they're still doing labor for you.
But in all honesty, if you require your workers to apprentice at their position before they are considered qualified to do the job, then wtf is the point of sending their ass to college in the first place? Run up their debt so they are more docile at work?

And lets say that for the sake of argument all of the apprentices and interns working for TV networks suddenly quit, and no one replaced them. What would happen?
Years from now would there be no more TV engineers to keep the broadcasts flowing. Interns and apprentices are important. They're human beings. They're not slaves or commodities.

But raising the minimum wage simply squishes the middle because those at the top will raise prices, and aren't going to raise everyone's salaries by the equal percentage to compensate.

Probably not true. This is a theory. Is this historically accurate?
Our economy already shed a whole bunch of jobs as business' tried to shore up their costs. There aren't a lot of jobs left to cut, and the economy is stable/improving. The only place left for most kinds of business to move is to ask their employees to work harder, but production is already at an all-time high while the minimum wage is at a 40-year low. We pretty much have to raise the minimum wage at this point. You can't ask American's to work harder than they did 20 years ago for less pay than they received 40 years ago. Where's our brighter future?

what could really work: put tariffs back into imports to make it just as profitable to make stuff here if you want to sell it here, as it is to pay Nike peanuts in Viet Nam yet still sell those two-buck shoes for Two Hundred Bucks here.

I agree.

[BigBallinStalin]

And as far as BBS' conclusions, obviously I disagree with all of them, everything he has said here. I'm a liberal, which to a lot of people is synonymous with anti-business, pro-labor. But you can be pro-labor and pro-business at the same time. I do believe in low corporate tax rates, and high income taxes on people. What I'm against is our system of organized greed.

You're a well-intended state socialist who rejects critical thinking and unfortunately supports poor outcomes. Only you can take the first step away from your echo chamber.

Making elaborate straw man fallacies still isn't doing you any favors.

[Juan_Bottom]

Yeah, cause all those socialist country's are rolling over like the Titanic.
& everyone there is poor as f*ck and all their goods come from China.

[BigBallinStalin]

With age, comes wisdom--hopefully.

[PLAYER57832]

And as far as BBS' conclusions, obviously I disagree with all of them, everything he has said here. I'm a liberal, which to a lot of people is synonymous with anti-business, pro-labor. But you can be pro-labor and pro-business at the same time. I do believe in low corporate tax rates, and high income taxes on people. What I'm against is our system of organized greed.

You're a well-intended state socialist who rejects critical thinking and unfortunately supports poor outcomes. Only you can take the first step away from your echo chamber.

Making elaborate straw man fallacies still isn't doing you any favors.

Try your own.... you keep harping on your ideals. Fine... carry it out. What would happen if things went the way you wish. I don't mean esoteric, it would all work out. I mean specifics, perferably with historical proof that takes ALL people in a particular society into account.

[BigBallinStalin]

And as far as BBS' conclusions, obviously I disagree with all of them, everything he has said here. I'm a liberal, which to a lot of people is synonymous with anti-business, pro-labor. But you can be pro-labor and pro-business at the same time. I do believe in low corporate tax rates, and high income taxes on people. What I'm against is our system of organized greed.

You're a well-intended state socialist who rejects critical thinking and unfortunately supports poor outcomes. Only you can take the first step away from your echo chamber.

Making elaborate straw man fallacies still isn't doing you any favors.

Try your own.... you keep harping on your ideals. Fine... carry it out. What would happen if things went the way you wish. I don't mean esoteric, it would all work out. I mean specifics, perferably with historical proof that takes ALL people in a particular society into account.

Here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wa ... al_studies

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't even think that you read that all the way through. That actually confirmed what Player is saying.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't even think that you read that all the way through. That actually confirmed what Player is saying.

Until BBS goes in and edits it, perhaps.

But yeah... ALSO, that is just one blip. I said carry it out to full extent, and I don't mean JUST minimum wage, either.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't even think that you read that all the way through. That actually confirmed what Player is saying.

Read the cited articles and start quoting. Then your positions can be taken seriously.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't even think that you read that all the way through. That actually confirmed what Player is saying.

Read the cited articles and start quoting. Then your positions can be taken seriously.

Yeah, we thought you would lapse into "well, you know... its just the accepted view and anyone who disagrees is just dumb".

The basic problem is, you are debating something entirely different than we are, or at least I am.

MY point , to be extremely brief, is that it doesn't matter what economic model you want to believe, any model is only going to be so good as the data put in. Economists have for far too long ignored chunks that really do matter. They have been able to pretend they don't matter for various reasons, but that is no longer the case. Or, worse, they pretend that they understand because they understand part of the human response to various issues. The trouble is, understanding the response is not at all the same as understanding the issue itself.

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, explain what's wrong with the substitution effect. Explain which economic models you're talking about. Explain which variables for whatever models are being left out.

Launch into the attack of macro- and microeconomics.