D.T.W.A.

[PLAYER57832]

You cannot simply look at wages in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture.

Which is exactly why raising minimum wage during periods of recessionary output gaps is a horrible idea. Real wages need to come down during times like this. Save raising the minimum for periods of inflationary output gaps.

If you believe in the growth model. I don't.
Also, what you are really saying is that the cost of living goes down in a recession (or should) and that wages can therefore be lower then. That is true, but remember my basic principle. A wage must pay enough for a person to live. If it doesn't,then that person becomes a drain on society, rather than a positive economic influence. That principle applies regardless of the overall rate.

If the minimum wage were high already, then I would say you are correct. It might even need (in that case) to be dropped. However, right now, our minimum wages are so very, very low, so far below the true cost of living that they can stand to be increased, even in a recession.

Nothing exemplifies this more than the growing income gaps. Also, nothing is more of a hallmark of a failing society historically than a growing gap between the wealthy and middle classes/poor (elimination of the middle class, which is what we are seeing here) along with neglect of infrastructure.

[thegreekdog]

You cannot simply look at wages in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture.

Which is exactly why raising minimum wage during periods of recessionary output gaps is a horrible idea. Real wages need to come down during times like this. Save raising the minimum for periods of inflationary output gaps.

Is BBS sitting for Timminz?

[PLAYER57832]

You cannot simply look at wages in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture.

Which is exactly why raising minimum wage during periods of recessionary output gaps is a horrible idea. Real wages need to come down during times like this. Save raising the minimum for periods of inflationary output gaps.

Is BBS sitting for Timminz?

lol.. I had a similar thought.

[thegreekdog]

Player, your kind and gentle nature is noted. I don't disagree that luck is involved somewhat in success (and that hard work and natural abilities are as well). Where I think you and I fundamentally differ is that you think there is some sort of "right" to certain things (like a "fair" wage, as one example). I don't think there is a right to a fair wage. I think, out of the goodness of our hearts, we give to people who cannot take care of themselves, but we also understand that people sometimes have to do without for reasons, for the most part, in their realms of control. I have heard from a number of sources (which I can try and find if someone wants) that people on welfare or some form of government services are not lazy bums; rather, there is some physical or mental handicap. With that being said, I believe the number of "lazy bums" is increasing.

In sum, I don't mind helping someone out directly. I do mind helping someone out through government intervention because it's less efficient and more costly. But that's a fundamental difference between you and me that will not be resolved.

[Phatscotty]

because then we are getting into an area where the issue is no longer about making sure a specific program meant to aid people, actually aids people. This is mainly about drugs and their effects on the poor, combined with the reality of how "easy/public money" gets spent, along with the result of welfare checks actually enabling people to continue their drugs habits and abuse on a large scale. We aren't helping these people. I think testing will help some of these people, not to mention the king of diamonds I have been holding in my sleeve, which is "LESS PEOPLE WILL APPLY FOR WELFARE". It's working already

The best way to quit drugs is to go broke.
Tough Love

Ah, so big daddy like you has to make sure everyone is living the good life by having drug tests.

I see don't see why your logic shouldn't be applied to those who receive government subsidies--especially the CEOs, Board of Directors, and other big shots in companies that received bailouts. Those guys should be examined to see whether or not they're taking drugs, because according to you, if they take drugs, they shouldn't have that money, because drug habits and abuse don't help people.

So, why only target welfare recipients instead of those who recieve even MORE money from government subsidies? Surely, you would want to bring the maximum benefit to everyone, right?

Drugs don't help people. the difference is welfare peeps are asking for help and they can't survive by themselves. If they take that money they need to "survive" and spend it on drugs, then they are lying and abusing, and in that case they should not qualify for welfare.

CEO's aren't asking for help. To make it short, I would not totally oppose drug testing in areas that are pertinent to the subject matter. There is also the reality that a CEO who pays in millions of dollars has a say in the representation of those taxes. Overall, I would be for looking at CEO's and companies who get this welfare and cut as much out of it as possible. It's easier to cut welfare for CEO's who don't need it than it is to cut welfare for poor people who do need it. The only thing I am saying is a poor person who spends their welfare on drugs doesn't need the money, and it's a complete waste, and in those cases we are hurting those people.

[PLAYER57832]

Then make minimum wage $15 per hour and watch what happens.

Less jobs...it is counter active

As BBS said, I do disagree, but here is something else.

A big difference between economic conservatives and liberals is that conservatives more or less feel that its societies' job to structure itself the way businesses want because businesses bring the income to the economy. They say that most external costs can simply be ignored, to either be paid "later" (pollution, infrastructure repair) OR not at all (who cares about endangered species, etc.)

Liberals, by contrast say that first you "take care of your house", that there is no inherent "right" for anyone to make income just because they want to do so, that its fully natural for some businesses to fail and some to survive. They say that the inherent right is to keep the world sustainable for EVERYONE, not just those who decide to take on one business or another. To a true liberal, only in very, very narrow circumstances is it OK for businesses to make a profit by ignoring the overall costs they incure.

The conservative says "prove to me chemical x is going to cause harm, then I will stop.. else I have a right to produce it"

The Liberal says " prove any , any chemical (any real change, for that matter), is fully SAFE, else we don't need you to produce it (with very few exceptions), because history shows that most changes are bad, not good and because its up to you, the one profiting from what you are producing to prove you are not causing harm, its not up to society to spend our money to prove your way of doing business is OK,

The exact same applies to jobs. If you have a truly profitable business, then you can afford to pay at least a wage that will allow someone to have their needs met, if they live frugally. If you cannot do that, then your business is just not profitable. You need to change your business model, or do something different, not simply demand that taxpayers support your workers for you (and therefore your business). Small temporary exceptions for true startups might be allowable, as are exceptions for people who hire certain "undesirable" or "hard to train" people (convicts, teenagers, the disabled, disaster zones, etc.). However, every reasonably working adult should command a wage that allows them to live. Beyond that its trickier, not something for the government to dictate. However, allowing companies (even small ones, except in very specific cases) to pay less means that those people will have to be supported by other taxpayers.

[Woodruff]

Drugs don't help people.

You keep saying this, but it keeps being a lie.

CEO's aren't asking for help.

You watched some different Congressional meetings than I did, then.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, your kind and gentle nature is noted. I don't disagree that luck is involved somewhat in success (and that hard work and natural abilities are as well). Where I think you and I fundamentally differ is that you think there is some sort of "right" to certain things (like a "fair" wage, as one example). I don't think there is a right to a fair wage. I think, out of the goodness of our hearts, we give to people who cannot take care of themselves, but we also understand that people sometimes have to do without for reasons, for the most part, in their realms of control. I have heard from a number of sources (which I can try and find if someone wants) that people on welfare or some form of government services are not lazy bums; rather, there is some physical or mental handicap. With that being said, I believe the number of "lazy bums" is increasing.

In sum, I don't mind helping someone out directly. I do mind helping someone out through government intervention because it's less efficient and more costly. But that's a fundamental difference between you and me that will not be resolved.

Here is the irony. You say that I have a "kind and gentle heart", and I believe know that I have indeed helped those around me.

Yet, it is I and not you who is saying we need the government to step in here. (and yes, I know you do help those around you as well.. you mentioned tax help, and that is just one area).
The reason we have to have the government do it is that while people are quick to help those they know, those they feel "deserve it", many of those who need the most help don't fit into those categories. I don't live in Pittsburgh. I don't even begin to know who really needs help. Nor do I have the skills to help people get out of heavy drug use, alchoholism, to combat the impact of generations of discrimination, etc, etc. The problem is so vast it needs qualified and comprehensive programs to deal with it. Relying on private entities means duplication, means favoring specific groups who seem to be the "cause of the day", even if its not really the cause with the most need.

I will give you an example. Ask wealthy people for some money to help scouts, to repair a church roof, etc... and it comes "pouring in". Ask them to help pay for the drug rehab of the deadbeat on the street and exactly how much do you think they will give? A few people will (particularly those who have family in similar situations), but most won't... Maybe AFTER they take care of the scouts, have their vacations,e tc... and need a tax break. That is government's role... to ensure that the basic NEEDS of society are met, whether it is "fun" and "glamorous" or not.

OR, take another example. If you could choose where to put your money, how much would you really put toward the military?.. how much would you put toward protecting marine resources.. maintaining National Parks you may never visit? The problem with democracy is that there is not enough time to educate everyone to the needs of everything, the importance of all things out there needing attention. At some point, we have to elect people who can take more time to hopefully make decent decisions in those regards (Republic). Except.. recently, all anyone wants to pay attention to is their paycheck. That doesn't mean their paycheck is really more important, it just means that we need some strong, educated leaders to push us to better decisions, not the selfish ones.


Ironically, I agree with the "lazy bums" bit, but its not those classic deadbeats in slums who are the growing number, it is the 20 somethings, yes many who exist here in CC even (along with a LOT who are not lazy bums), who have been given a fair number of advantages, who seem to think they are or were fully entitled to all those benefits, but now have no obligation to even pay back what they got, never mind help the next folks along. Yet, those are not the ones who will be "punished" most by these cuts.

That is the irony. The cuts proposed are like taking the shingles from the roof, the stones from the basement and selling them because they are not "where people live" right now. The reason we are in the bad shape we are now (to the extent we are, some good decisions have been made... education has, for example, been at least minimally maintained up until now) is precisely because so many costs keep getting passed on to the future, and I most definitely DO mean corporate tax breaks and rules that allow banks, large corporations, stockholders and the very wealthy to keep from paying all the taxes they should. Our economy is not in bad shape because folks on welfare are getting shape. That angers people. They are vulnerable and a good target politically, but cutting that won't solve the problem. Cutting education, allowing people to pull from the public system and move their money into private schools where they can be taught religion and heavy partisanship (among other issues) won't create a better, healthier society or economy. Increasing taxes, but more importantly changing the tax system will. BUT that won't happen without some pain.

[spurgistan]

Player, your kind and gentle nature is noted. I don't disagree that luck is involved somewhat in success (and that hard work and natural abilities are as well). Where I think you and I fundamentally differ is that you think there is some sort of "right" to certain things (like a "fair" wage, as one example). I don't think there is a right to a fair wage. I think, out of the goodness of our hearts, we give to people who cannot take care of themselves, but we also understand that people sometimes have to do without for reasons, for the most part, in their realms of control. I have heard from a number of sources (which I can try and find if someone wants) that people on welfare or some form of government services are not lazy bums; rather, there is some physical or mental handicap. With that being said, I believe the number of "lazy bums" is increasing.

In sum, I don't mind helping someone out directly. I do mind helping someone out through government intervention because it's less efficient and more costly. But that's a fundamental difference between you and me that will not be resolved.

From some of the stuff I've seen on overheads for private charities and public assistance programs, I'm not sure that this line is correct, although, like so many things, it requires a giant "it depends." Fun fact: government is not inherently more wasteful than private operations (see: Greg Mortensen, who may have gotten a bum rap, but still)

[thegreekdog]

Player, your kind and gentle nature is noted. I don't disagree that luck is involved somewhat in success (and that hard work and natural abilities are as well). Where I think you and I fundamentally differ is that you think there is some sort of "right" to certain things (like a "fair" wage, as one example). I don't think there is a right to a fair wage. I think, out of the goodness of our hearts, we give to people who cannot take care of themselves, but we also understand that people sometimes have to do without for reasons, for the most part, in their realms of control. I have heard from a number of sources (which I can try and find if someone wants) that people on welfare or some form of government services are not lazy bums; rather, there is some physical or mental handicap. With that being said, I believe the number of "lazy bums" is increasing.

In sum, I don't mind helping someone out directly. I do mind helping someone out through government intervention because it's less efficient and more costly. But that's a fundamental difference between you and me that will not be resolved.

From some of the stuff I've seen on overheads for private charities and public assistance programs, I'm not sure that this line is correct, although, like so many things, it requires a giant "it depends." Fun fact: government is not inherently more wasteful than private operations (see: Greg Mortensen, who may have gotten a bum rap, but still)

I'm not sure that's a fact, but it is is fun.

Private charities, for the most part, suck ass (technical legal term). I try to give as directly as I can.

[thegreekdog]

You watched some different Congressional meetings than I did, then.

You must not have been watching the show trials, I mean Congressional meetings, that occurred this week.

"YOU'RE MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY! STOP NOW!"

[begin rant]Gotta love that kind of stuff from the United States Congress. This is what is making me painfully angry. These morons who understand nothing about business, economics, or taxes are making broad based statements that are so unamerican they should be drummed out of Congress summarily. Nancy Pelosi is telling outright lies and passing them off as truth. It's unbelievably disgusting. I wish I could find some sound clips of these things. Fucking Congress. [/end rant]

[PLAYER57832]

because then we are getting into an area where the issue is no longer about making sure a specific program meant to aid people, actually aids people. This is mainly about drugs and their effects on the poor, combined with the reality of how "easy/public money" gets spent, along with the result of welfare checks actually enabling people to continue their drugs habits and abuse on a large scale. We aren't helping these people. I think testing will help some of these people, not to mention the king of diamonds I have been holding in my sleeve, which is "LESS PEOPLE WILL APPLY FOR WELFARE". It's working already

The best way to quit drugs is to go broke.
Tough Love

Ah, so big daddy like you has to make sure everyone is living the good life by having drug tests.

I see don't see why your logic shouldn't be applied to those who receive government subsidies--especially the CEOs, Board of Directors, and other big shots in companies that received bailouts. Those guys should be examined to see whether or not they're taking drugs, because according to you, if they take drugs, they shouldn't have that money, because drug habits and abuse don't help people.

So, why only target welfare recipients instead of those who recieve even MORE money from government subsidies? Surely, you would want to bring the maximum benefit to everyone, right?

Better add "anyone owning stocks in those companies", because the truth is they are both the new owners and the primary benefactors of the largess. CEOs might be overpaid (many are very much overpaid!), but at least they do work some (theoretically anyway .. note, that last in parenthesis was mostly sarcasm

[PLAYER57832]

You watched some different Congressional meetings than I did, then.

You must not have been watching the show trials, I mean Congressional meetings, that occurred this week.

"YOU'RE MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY! STOP NOW!"

No, more like "HEY YOU JUST COST US BILLIONS'' and are STILL putting us at even more risk, and are NOT PAYING FOR THE DAMAGE YOU CAUSE... Also, you want tax subsidies, that will have to come off the backs of working americans, but still think you deserve help, so you can take even bigger profits???

[[begin rant]Gotta love that kind of stuff from the United States Congress. This is what is making me painfully angry. These morons who understand nothing about business, economics, or taxes are making broad based statements that are so unamerican they should be drummed out of Congress summarily. Nancy Pelosi is telling outright lies and passing them off as truth. It's unbelievably disgusting. I wish I could find some sound clips of these things. Fucking Congress. [/end rant]

Look, I actually do think it is unfair to target the oil companies specifically for making a profit with rising gas prices. (I DO think they have more to answer for environamentally, but I don't blame the companies for taking advantage, I just think the government needs to do its job.. something difficult when most of congress, the country just want to cut money to the government without real regard to where it goes).

HOWEVER, I do think that all such subsidies and tax breaks should just plain stop. Profit is fine, but not off the backs of taxpyers. And, no matter how you slice it, when folks argue that these EXTREMELY profitable companies (we are not just talking about some profit, but RECORD profits.. at the same time they cost millions jobs, etc.) "cannot afford" to pay more, but think its perfectly OK to cut Medicare, Medicaid and school funding.. that is plain disgusting.

And no, no amount of charitable giving will ever either be as efficient or even as much as government funding.

[Timminz]

You cannot simply look at wages in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture.

Which is exactly why raising minimum wage during periods of recessionary output gaps is a horrible idea. Real wages need to come down during times like this. Save raising the minimum for periods of inflationary output gaps.

If you believe in the growth model. I don't.
Also, what you are really saying is that the cost of living goes down in a recession (or should) and that wages can therefore be lower then.

No. That is not what I'm saying at all. In fact, almost the opposite. When the economy is operating below normal output (a recessionary output gap. Not necessarily the same thing as when you say "a recession"), real wages (that is, the purchasing power of people's take-home) will fall (along with other factors of production), which is one of the driving forces behind the automatic adjustment process that brings the economy back towards normal output. So, no. I'm not at all saying that during a recession, the cost of living will drop. In fact, quite the opposite. That's why recessions suck so bad for so many people.

Now, when you say that you don't believe in "the growth model", which model are you talking about? Classical? Neo-classical? Endogenous? The entire field of macroeconomics?

[thegreekdog]

What specific tax subsidies do oil companies get, Player? Specifically. Not generally. Specifically. The answer is that there are some.

After you identify the specific tax subsidies, ask yourself this question - Why do the oil companies get these subsidies? And I'm not just talking about "so they can do X." I'm talking about who gives them these subsidies.

Finally, after you've done that, find out whether the government regulates where, when, how, and why oil companies can drill and/or produce oil for consumption and see if there is any correlation between high oil prices and those rules and regulations.

[PLAYER57832]

Private charities, for the most part, suck ass (technical legal term). I try to give as directly as I can.

To the extent that this is true, its because they get to pick where they put their money.

Its rather like comparisons between private schools and public ones. One big reason why private schools always do better is that they get to pick the kids and parents they have. Public schools must take everyone, and a good many of those "everyones" have a lot of problems.

Also, overlap and duplication are not considered because there are always more people out there.

[PLAYER57832]

You cannot simply look at wages in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture.

Which is exactly why raising minimum wage during periods of recessionary output gaps is a horrible idea. Real wages need to come down during times like this. Save raising the minimum for periods of inflationary output gaps.

If you believe in the growth model. I don't.
Also, what you are really saying is that the cost of living goes down in a recession (or should) and that wages can therefore be lower then.

No. That is not what I'm saying at all. In fact, almost the opposite. When the economy is operating below normal output (a recessionary output gap. Not necessarily the same thing as when you say "a recession"), real wages (that is, the purchasing power of people's take-home) will fall (along with other factors of production), which is one of the driving forces behind the automatic adjustment process that brings the economy back towards normal output. So, no. I'm not at all saying that during a recession, the cost of living will drop. In fact, quite the opposite. That's why recessions suck so bad for so many people.

What I said applies even more, then. It is even more insane for bigwigs to keep taking their bonuses, etc, to demand that everyone else pay more in taxes, while their personal incomes and profits rise due to increased costs.

Now, when you say that you don't believe in "the growth model", which model are you talking about? Classical? Neo-classical? Endogenous? The entire field of macroeconomics?

LOL... I believe in sustainability. Most economic models consider that a "failure".

[thegreekdog]

Private charities, for the most part, suck ass (technical legal term). I try to give as directly as I can.

To the extent that this is true, its because they get to pick where they put their money.

Its rather like comparisons between private schools and public ones. One big reason why private schools always do better is that they get to pick the kids and parents they have. Public schools must take everyone, and a good many of those "everyones" have a lot of problems.

Also, overlap and duplication are not considered because there are always more people out there.

Oh, that's not why I think they suck. I think they suck because only a small percentage of the money I give to them goes to the people who need the money. So if I give $100 to the United Way, $40 goes to the United Way and $60 goes to the person in need. The government is similar. If I give $100 to the government, $85 goes to the administrator and $15 goes to the person in need.

[BigBallinStalin]

Then make minimum wage $15 per hour and watch what happens.

Less jobs...it is counter-productive

Yup.

Player will tell you something like: NUH-UH, minimum wage (as it's currently set) doesn't cause structural unemployment!

I, along with a good many economists (of which I am not, of course) will agree, though not to doubling it in one fell swoop, of course. And, ironically enough, you can look at several nations around the world for examples.

Pay people more, and in the short term, you do see more layoffs or declines to hire. Mostly they are people who would have been laid off anyway.. either because they were poor workers or because the business was not doing well. The higher wage speeds up what would have happened anyway. Some businesses may hold of a bit longer in hiring. HOWEVER, after 2 years everything balances back out. Businesses that need workers pay what the rate is.

But you also neatly sidestep one of the real points. If you are NOT paying someone enough to get a house, eat, clothe themselves and get health care (and I DO mean living frugally!), then you are saying either these people can work, but its OK that they starve/live on the street OR you are depending on other taxpayers to subsidize them. The fact is if you are NOT paying a living wage, then your business is taking away from the economy and society more than it is giving out.

This is also true when you decide its OK to build a business based on the education you got here, the supports available here, but hey.. its OK to move the production jobs overseas so you can get a fatter paycheck and please the stockholders. Worse, in many cases, our country allows even vital industries to migrate (steel is a classic example) so that if we ever do face another major crisis or war, our country is going to be in very bad shape. YET, those same companies and the people who ran them, their descendents have benefitted from all that income .... and often are now among the biggest complainers about both higher taxes and protectionism (Jr Rockafeller is something of an exception, at least on the surface.. he at least opposed tax breaks to the oil companies which gave his family their fortune.. but I don't know enough to say if that is a consistant stance of his and certainly acknowledge that there are many wonderful people who happen to have inherited wealth... its just there are plenty of the other kind as well).

You cannot simply look at wages in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture.

Tell yourself that.

Then make minimum wage $15 per hour and watch what happens.

We might be more like Scandinavia... countries where they have the highest rate of population happiness and well-being in the world.

"You cannot simply look at wages in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture."

What's the whole picture of the Scandinavian countries and how might the US being able to implement similar policies to get to their results?

[BigBallinStalin]

You cannot simply look at wages in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture.

Which is exactly why raising minimum wage during periods of recessionary output gaps is a horrible idea. Real wages need to come down during times like this. Save raising the minimum for periods of inflationary output gaps.

Is BBS sitting for Timminz?

lol.. I had a similar thought.

Nah, he lrn2economics.

[BigBallinStalin]

because then we are getting into an area where the issue is no longer about making sure a specific program meant to aid people, actually aids people. This is mainly about drugs and their effects on the poor, combined with the reality of how "easy/public money" gets spent, along with the result of welfare checks actually enabling people to continue their drugs habits and abuse on a large scale. We aren't helping these people. I think testing will help some of these people, not to mention the king of diamonds I have been holding in my sleeve, which is "LESS PEOPLE WILL APPLY FOR WELFARE". It's working already

The best way to quit drugs is to go broke.
Tough Love

Ah, so big daddy like you has to make sure everyone is living the good life by having drug tests.

I see don't see why your logic shouldn't be applied to those who receive government subsidies--especially the CEOs, Board of Directors, and other big shots in companies that received bailouts. Those guys should be examined to see whether or not they're taking drugs, because according to you, if they take drugs, they shouldn't have that money, because drug habits and abuse don't help people.

So, why only target welfare recipients instead of those who recieve even MORE money from government subsidies? Surely, you would want to bring the maximum benefit to everyone, right?

Drugs don't help people. the difference is welfare peeps are asking for help and they can't survive by themselves. If they take that money they need to "survive" and spend it on drugs, then they are lying and abusing, and in that case they should not qualify for welfare.

CEO's aren't asking for help. To make it short, I would not totally oppose drug testing in areas that are pertinent to the subject matter. There is also the reality that a CEO who pays in millions of dollars has a say in the representation of those taxes. Overall, I would be for looking at CEO's and companies who get this welfare and cut as much out of it as possible. It's easier to cut welfare for CEO's who don't need it than it is to cut welfare for poor people who do need it. The only thing I am saying is a poor person who spends their welfare on drugs doesn't need the money, and it's a complete waste, and in those cases we are hurting those people.

The ones receiving government subsidies definitely ask for help. Explain how bailouts weren't not requested by businesses via their financially backed politicians.

[thegreekdog]

You cannot simply look at wages in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture.

Which is exactly why raising minimum wage during periods of recessionary output gaps is a horrible idea. Real wages need to come down during times like this. Save raising the minimum for periods of inflationary output gaps.

Is BBS sitting for Timminz?

lol.. I had a similar thought.

Nah, he lrn2economics.

Yeah, I see that you are both logged on right now at the same time. So, unless you have multiple computers, you aren't sitting for Timminz.

[BigBallinStalin]

Which is exactly why raising minimum wage during periods of recessionary output gaps is a horrible idea. Real wages need to come down during times like this. Save raising the minimum for periods of inflationary output gaps.

Is BBS sitting for Timminz?

lol.. I had a similar thought.

Nah, he lrn2economics.

Yeah, I see that you are both logged on right now at the same time. So, unless you have multiple computers, you aren't sitting for Timminz.

Damn your oversight and government regulation!

[insert nonsensical rant about governments and CC totalitarianism and and and and other bad stuff]

[Timminz]

You cannot simply look at wages in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture.

Which is exactly why raising minimum wage during periods of recessionary output gaps is a horrible idea. Real wages need to come down during times like this. Save raising the minimum for periods of inflationary output gaps.

If you believe in the growth model. I don't.
Also, what you are really saying is that the cost of living goes down in a recession (or should) and that wages can therefore be lower then.

No. That is not what I'm saying at all. In fact, almost the opposite. When the economy is operating below normal output (a recessionary output gap. Not necessarily the same thing as when you say "a recession"), real wages (that is, the purchasing power of people's take-home) will fall (along with other factors of production), which is one of the driving forces behind the automatic adjustment process that brings the economy back towards normal output. So, no. I'm not at all saying that during a recession, the cost of living will drop. In fact, quite the opposite. That's why recessions suck so bad for so many people.

What I said applies even more, then. It is even more insane for bigwigs to keep taking their bonuses, etc, to demand that everyone else pay more in taxes, while their personal incomes and profits rise due to increased costs.

Now, when you say that you don't believe in "the growth model", which model are you talking about? Classical? Neo-classical? Endogenous? The entire field of macroeconomics?

LOL... I believe in sustainability. Most economic models consider that a "failure".

Discussing economics with you is ALMOST as frustrating as discussing science with jay.

[keiths31]

Then make minimum wage $15 per hour and watch what happens.

Less jobs...it is counter active

As BBS said, I do disagree, but here is something else.

A big difference between economic conservatives and liberals is that conservatives more or less feel that its societies' job to structure itself the way businesses want because businesses bring the income to the economy. They say that most external costs can simply be ignored, to either be paid "later" (pollution, infrastructure repair) OR not at all (who cares about endangered species, etc.)

Liberals, by contrast say that first you "take care of your house", that there is no inherent "right" for anyone to make income just because they want to do so, that its fully natural for some businesses to fail and some to survive. They say that the inherent right is to keep the world sustainable for EVERYONE, not just those who decide to take on one business or another. To a true liberal, only in very, very narrow circumstances is it OK for businesses to make a profit by ignoring the overall costs they incure.

The conservative says "prove to me chemical x is going to cause harm, then I will stop.. else I have a right to produce it"

The Liberal says " prove any , any chemical (any real change, for that matter), is fully SAFE, else we don't need you to produce it (with very few exceptions), because history shows that most changes are bad, not good and because its up to you, the one profiting from what you are producing to prove you are not causing harm, its not up to society to spend our money to prove your way of doing business is OK,

The exact same applies to jobs. If you have a truly profitable business, then you can afford to pay at least a wage that will allow someone to have their needs met, if they live frugally. If you cannot do that, then your business is just not profitable. You need to change your business model, or do something different, not simply demand that taxpayers support your workers for you (and therefore your business). Small temporary exceptions for true startups might be allowable, as are exceptions for people who hire certain "undesirable" or "hard to train" people (convicts, teenagers, the disabled, disaster zones, etc.). However, every reasonably working adult should command a wage that allows them to live. Beyond that its trickier, not something for the government to dictate. However, allowing companies (even small ones, except in very specific cases) to pay less means that those people will have to be supported by other taxpayers.

My business is profitable. In fact I am expanding. I will be putting $700,000 in construction jobs in the community. When complete, my payroll for all three businesses will be $1.5 million/year. But here is the thing...I have less employees now than I did four years ago before minimum wage went up by $0.75/hour every year until it reached it's current level of $10.25/year. The reason I have less employees is because I have a certain % to meet for labour for my business to be profitable. To keep the current employees happy, I had to give them a $0.75/hour raise to keep in line with minimum wage, PLUS their yearly performance wage increase. Now to keep my costs in line I had to cut labour. I couldn't cut from my rent as it is what it is. I couldn't cut from my utilities (in fact they went up). I couldn't cut from my COS as I have no control over that. The only measure I had control over is labour. So shifts were cut, people weren't hired when others quit and hours were reduced for existing employees. That and the price of my product went up, which means people buying my product had less buying power then before.
So minimum wage going up is bad. The government should not be in the business of forcing employers to ensure that people are making a living wage. It is in the hands of the person to do what they can to increase their earning power. Schooling, though important, isn't the be all end all factor. I graduated college, but couldn't find work in my field. I took a minimum wage job (back when it was $6.00/hour), worked hard, improved myself, learned everything I could and worked my way up. I bought the business 15 years later. Just seems to me people think are too good for a minimum wage job and want everything handed to them.