If minimum wage were raised ...

[itfitzme]

The raise in the minimum wage puts more money in the pocket of the employees making minimum wage.

Yeah, that seems to be the mis-perception. It appears that some are adding a host of erroneous conditions attached to what "minimum wage" is.

They appear to include, "the wage that teenagers get paid." and "the wage that is to low to live on."

Then, a host of completely incorrect conclusions are drawn based on completely non-sense definitions.

I believe you have caught on to it, that "minimum wage" is the wage that is the minimum. And, yeah, raising it put more money into the pockets of employees making minumum wage.

It is not as simple though as just "put[ting] more money into the pockets of employees making minimum wage."

You cannot ignore all the different things that are connected to the artificial floor that is put on wages. Yes, we all know that the minimum wage is the lowest wage allowed by the government. No, we are not going to pretend like changing that minimum is going to have no effect other than putting money in some poor people's pockets.

That is exactly what you do, ignore all the effects except the one you like. Who do you think you're kidding but yourself? You are the only one ignoring "all the different things."

What you want is to ignore all the different things except the ones that lead to the conclusion that you want to highlight. Then, when taken to task on it by anyone with critical thinking skills, you create some in-group/out-group in your mind so that you can justify to yourself that you are lacking objectivity and biased in perception. Really, what do you expect to get as a response to what you obviously know are erroneous and biased statements and conclusions?

There is a hell of a lot of exploration and understanding that can be gleaned from basic principles. Unfortunately, your insistance on taking a biased perspective based on some emotional fantacy of "good guys" and "bad guys" just relegates the convo to endless circles around your purposful bs.

No one, questioning the full effects of minumum wage are "all the different things that are connected to the artificial floor that is put on wages." except you, for one.

 

[Mathbud1]

Back when there was some shortages in bell peppers due to freezes and whatnot, what pizza companies did with an increase in cost of goods was stop purchasing bell peppers.

Honestly, the deduction that if the FMW goes up on Tuesday, you'll see price increases on Wednesday is malarkey. True, the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays.

There is the key though isn't it.

"the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere"

It seems, and this seems to be the reason you are all-for raising the FMW, that you expect that difference to be made up by a reduction in corporate profit rather than any of the other ways that it could be made up.

Is that accurate?

I can answer this one for candycorn. It is perfectly obvious that her point is,

"but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays."

Clearly, you expect the difference to be made up by always on what the consumer pays.

Yeah, that's the point. And you finally got it. That your understanding of how economics goes is erroneous, based on false assumptions of "always".

I never, in any of my posts, claimed that the only possible effect of raising the minimum wage would be higher consumer costs. I did not make any assumptions of "always" other than this: when there is a cause there will be an effect.

I have tried to explain why I believe that that effect will be, in the net, negative. Basically, all you have done is deny that there will be any negative effect at all without logically defending that point with anything.

I very clearly understand that there are many different factors involved in the complex system that is the economy. I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems for the interactions of their disparate components. One key in any complex system is that any serious change in one component will be felt by most, if not all, other components in the system.

So, if you are done trying to sound superior for your economic training, please explain how raising the minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY lead to an increase in prices.

 

[itfitzme]

Now that we've established that the anti-FMW-increase posters on this thread have been knowingly arguing a biased position, perhaps we can get onto a more realistic examination of what raising the minimum wage may most likely do?

The economy fell in productivity considerably through the recession.

The loss in economic activity is clear in real GDP terms.

---Real GDP---

The employment to population level has fallen since 2000, losing the majority of it through the recession and collapsing to pre 1985 levels.

---EmpRatio---

On the other hand, productivity, production output per worker, remained fairly steady in its upward trend.

---Efficiency---

So, in general, there was no deadweight loss by shedding workers. There was no adjustment except simply that the economy just stopped utilizing that much available labor.

Never the less, it isn't like all those people just vanished. That lost productivity means that average standard of living fell.

---Standard of Living---

So the economy is now well below full output. If those unemployed were to simply be employed at whatever the prevailing average income is, standard of living would be back where it should be, on the upward linear trend from post 2009. In fact, given that full employment is short of the 2000 maximum, standard of living would be even higher.

How high may be estimated by extending the pre 2000 trend in the longer view here.

That is a considerable amount of missing RGDP per capita and aggregate RGDP.

And there is the thing.

 

[candycorn]

So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?

Back when there was some shortages in bell peppers due to freezes and whatnot, what pizza companies did with an increase in cost of goods was stop purchasing bell peppers.

Honestly, the deduction that if the FMW goes up on Tuesday, you'll see price increases on Wednesday is malarkey. True, the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays.

There is the key though isn't it.

"the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere"

It seems, and this seems to be the reason you are all-for raising the FMW, that you expect that difference to be made up by a reduction in corporate profit rather than any of the other ways that it could be made up.

Is that accurate?

No, I expect prices to rise.I would like for companies to again care about their customers (internal and external) because I think when you have good employees that you nurture, care about, mentor, provide opportunity for, etc... that creates happier customers. I keep going back to MCD. Used to be one of my "of course" options for lunch. Now it's almost an afterthougth.

 

[itfitzme]

There is an opportunity cost to the labor that was shed from 2000 on, much of it during the recession. That unemployed labor still consumes, regardless.

Minimum wage can increase without increasing real prices. In the current economic conditions, there is considerable leeway for an increase in minimum wage without increasing prices. All that unemployed labor hours is why minimum wage can increase without impacting real prices. Real prices, real GDP are equivalent to labor hours. That unutilized labor is one definable source of real income available for a minimum wage increase.

Increasing minimum wage does not require an increase in real prices.

 

[itfitzme]

There is the key though isn't it.

"the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere"

It seems, and this seems to be the reason you are all-for raising the FMW, that you expect that difference to be made up by a reduction in corporate profit rather than any of the other ways that it could be made up.

Is that accurate?

I can answer this one for candycorn. It is perfectly obvious that her point is,

"but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays."

Clearly, you expect the difference to be made up by always on what the consumer pays.

Yeah, that's the point. And you finally got it. That your understanding of how economics goes is erroneous, based on false assumptions of "always".

I never, in any of my posts, claimed that the only possible effect of raising the minimum wage would be higher consumer costs. I did not make any assumptions of "always" other than this: when there is a cause there will be an effect.

I have tried to explain why I believe that that effect will be, in the net, negative. Basically, all you have done is deny that there will be any negative effect at all without logically defending that point with anything.

I very clearly understand that there are many different factors involved in the complex system that is the economy. I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems for the interactions of their disparate components. One key in any complex system is that any serious change in one component will be felt by most, if not all, other components in the system.

So, if you are done trying to sound superior for your economic training, please explain how raising the minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY lead to an increase in prices.

Then you are not reading your own posts as well as the posts you respond to because no one has ever said that "raising minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY leae to an increase in prices."

There isn't a single post in this thread that overtly states or even implies that. You're making that up in your own mind.

You hurt ego isn't my problem. I have never "tried to sound superior". That is just your own subjective personal issue that has nothing to do with me.

There is no general law of complex systems that requires a change in one variable to "negatively affect" all other variables. So it is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.

Even if it were true that raising minimum wage "might" increase prices, "might" is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.

One simple fact is that if minimum wage were pegged to COLA, doing so would NEVER be an economic problem. The reason is simple. Economic/production efficiency always increases so standard of living per worker constantly increases. This guarantees, at least till we run out of oil, that the available goods and services that that minimum wage buys is always increasing. CPI pegged min wage is a constant real dollar amount for the same basket of goods. And with effiency constantly increasing, then the number of baskets of goods available is always increasing ahead of the consumption of minimum wage earners.

To put it another way. Every year, a minimum wage earner is producing more and more stuff compared to the year before. Real dollar minimum wage earning only buy the same amount of stuff year after year. So, every year, CPI pegged mimimum wage earners are producing ever increasingly more than they consume.

In the larger part of this "complex system", increasing minimum wage will seldom result in real price increases. It can't. And in the smaller number of conditions that it might, the fundamental problem is somerhing else so serious that increased min wage is the least of the problems.

That's actually quite interesting now that I think of it. At the very least, the real value of minimum wage labor has increased continuoisly since the invention of ways to improve efficiency. And seeing as the real value, the real output has constantly increased, then the question is, "why, how amd under whatmconditions should real minimum wages ever go down?"

Why should minimum wage not increase seeing as efficiency and inflation always goes up?

 

[Mathbud1]

I can answer this one for candycorn. It is perfectly obvious that her point is,

"but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays."

Clearly, you expect the difference to be made up by always on what the consumer pays.

Yeah, that's the point. And you finally got it. That your understanding of how economics goes is erroneous, based on false assumptions of "always".

I never, in any of my posts, claimed that the only possible effect of raising the minimum wage would be higher consumer costs. I did not make any assumptions of "always" other than this: when there is a cause there will be an effect.

I have tried to explain why I believe that that effect will be, in the net, negative. Basically, all you have done is deny that there will be any negative effect at all without logically defending that point with anything.

I very clearly understand that there are many different factors involved in the complex system that is the economy. I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems for the interactions of their disparate components. One key in any complex system is that any serious change in one component will be felt by most, if not all, other components in the system.

So, if you are done trying to sound superior for your economic training, please explain how raising the minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY lead to an increase in prices.

Then you are not reading your own posts as well as the posts you respond to because no one has ever said that "raising minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY leae to an increase in prices."

There isn't a single post in this thread that overtly states or even implies that. You're making that up in your own mind.

You hurt ego isn't my problem. I have never "tried to sound superior". That is just your own subjective personal issue that has nothing to do with me.

There is no general law of complex systems that requires a change in one variable to "negatively affect" all other variables. So it is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.

Even if it were true that raising minimum wage "might" increase prices, "might" is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.

One simple fact is that if minimum wage were pegged to COLA, doing so would NEVER be an economic problem. The reason is simple. Economic/production efficiency always increases so standard of living per worker constantly increases. This guarantees, at least till we run out of oil, that the available goods and services that that minimum wage buys is always increasing. CPI pegged min wage is a constant real dollar amount for the same basket of goods. And with effiency constantly increasing, then the number of baskets of goods available is always increasing ahead of the consumption of minimum wage earners.

To put it another way. Every year, a minimum wage earner is producing more and more stuff compared to the year before. Real dollar minimum wage earning only buy the same amount of stuff year after year. So, every year, CPI pegged mimimum wage earners are producing ever increasingly more than they consume.

In the larger part of this "complex system", increasing minimum wage will seldom result in real price increases. It can't. And in the smaller number of conditions that it might, the fundamental problem is somerhing else so serious that increased min wage is the least of the problems.

That's actually quite interesting now that I think of it. At the very least, the real value of minimum wage labor has increased continuoisly since the invention of ways to improve efficiency. And seeing as the real value, the real output has constantly increased, then the question is, "why, how amd under whatmconditions should real minimum wages ever go down?"

Why should minimum wage not increase seeing as efficiency and inflation always goes up?

First off, my ego is fine. I said you were trying to sound superior, not that you were succeeding. It was indeed a subjective analysis of your postings.

Now, what you are saying seems to have merit at least when applied to certain jobs. Workers at companies that produce a good probably do get more produced year to year based on changes made by the company that facilitate increased efficiency. I work at a company that produces a good and can see that in practice. Nobody at that company (at least that I know of) is making minimum wage which is in keeping with what you describe.

However, it does not seem to hold up in other cases. How is a fast food worker "producing more and more stuff" every year? What about someone answering phones in a call center or cleaning rooms in a hotel? Jobs like that do not seem to be gaining in efficiency every year other than the personal efficiency of an individual learning a skill and improving it.

In fact none of what you said really seems to argue for a federally mandated minimum wage. Rather it seems an argument that the real value of some jobs will increase yearly which seems to be born out by the market itself without the interference of a federal mandate.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[itfitzme]

I never, in any of my posts, claimed that the only possible effect of raising the minimum wage would be higher consumer costs. I did not make any assumptions of "always" other than this: when there is a cause there will be an effect.

I have tried to explain why I believe that that effect will be, in the net, negative. Basically, all you have done is deny that there will be any negative effect at all without logically defending that point with anything.

I very clearly understand that there are many different factors involved in the complex system that is the economy. I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems for the interactions of their disparate components. One key in any complex system is that any serious change in one component will be felt by most, if not all, other components in the system.

So, if you are done trying to sound superior for your economic training, please explain how raising the minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY lead to an increase in prices.

Then you are not reading your own posts as well as the posts you respond to because no one has ever said that "raising minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY leae to an increase in prices."

There isn't a single post in this thread that overtly states or even implies that. You're making that up in your own mind.

You hurt ego isn't my problem. I have never "tried to sound superior". That is just your own subjective personal issue that has nothing to do with me.

There is no general law of complex systems that requires a change in one variable to "negatively affect" all other variables. So it is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.

Even if it were true that raising minimum wage "might" increase prices, "might" is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.

One simple fact is that if minimum wage were pegged to COLA, doing so would NEVER be an economic problem. The reason is simple. Economic/production efficiency always increases so standard of living per worker constantly increases. This guarantees, at least till we run out of oil, that the available goods and services that that minimum wage buys is always increasing. CPI pegged min wage is a constant real dollar amount for the same basket of goods. And with effiency constantly increasing, then the number of baskets of goods available is always increasing ahead of the consumption of minimum wage earners.

To put it another way. Every year, a minimum wage earner is producing more and more stuff compared to the year before. Real dollar minimum wage earning only buy the same amount of stuff year after year. So, every year, CPI pegged mimimum wage earners are producing ever increasingly more than they consume.

In the larger part of this "complex system", increasing minimum wage will seldom result in real price increases. It can't. And in the smaller number of conditions that it might, the fundamental problem is somerhing else so serious that increased min wage is the least of the problems.

That's actually quite interesting now that I think of it. At the very least, the real value of minimum wage labor has increased continuoisly since the invention of ways to improve efficiency. And seeing as the real value, the real output has constantly increased, then the question is, "why, how amd under whatmconditions should real minimum wages ever go down?"

Why should minimum wage not increase seeing as efficiency and inflation always goes up?

First off, my ego is fine. I said you were trying to sound superior, not that you were succeeding. It was indeed a subjective analysis of your postings.

Now, what you are saying seems to have merit at least when applied to certain jobs. Workers at companies that produce a good probably do get more produced year to year based on changes made by the company that facilitate increased efficiency. I work at a company that produces a good and can see that in practice. Nobody at that company (at least that I know of) is making minimum wage which is in keeping with what you describe.

However, it does not seem to hold up in other cases. How is a fast food worker "producing more and more stuff" every year? What about someone answering phones in a call center or cleaning rooms in a hotel? Jobs like that do not seem to be gaining in efficiency every year other than the personal efficiency of an individual learning a skill and improving it.

In fact none of what you said really seems to argue for a federally mandated minimum wage. Rather it seems an argument that the real value of some jobs will increase yearly which seems to be born out by the market itself without the interference of a federal mandate.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Yeah, dude, your ego is all up in it. Your personal percetion of someone else "sounding superior" is just that. You start out by being offensive, then you blame other people when they point out you're an @SSH0!#.

Yeah, sure, it's everyone else, not you with your "I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems" bullshit that is "trying to sound superior". Do you have a clue?

Yeah, everyone has been producing more and more stuff each year. That is how most of econonomic growth works. We process information faster, we build houses faster. We produce food with less effort.

Agriculture efficiency has increased massively since the turn of the century, along with everything else, when automation first began. "In 1870, 70-80 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture. As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture." That is an incredible increase in productivity.

And really, you think that McDonald's employees aren't producing and serving more and more per employee with each passing year? Call centers? Staffing agencies? Manufacturing? Do you have a clue what efficiencty is? Efficiency is output per person.

I will show it to you again;

The total economic output of the United States has increased from .035 billion dollars(chained 2009) per thousand employees in 1948 to 0.11 billion dollars (chained 2009) per thousand employees in 2013,

That would be a 314% improvement in productivity. And it isn't "certain jobs". It is all jobs, across the board. Fishing industry has increased in productivity. Entertainment, education, automobile mechanics, apartment managers, and the list goes on and on.

What absurd personal definition of efficiency have you made up?

 

[OnePercenter]

Once again;

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

 

[Mathbud1]

Then you are not reading your own posts as well as the posts you respond to because no one has ever said that "raising minimum wage COULD NOT POSSIBLY leae to an increase in prices."

There isn't a single post in this thread that overtly states or even implies that. You're making that up in your own mind.

You hurt ego isn't my problem. I have never "tried to sound superior". That is just your own subjective personal issue that has nothing to do with me.

There is no general law of complex systems that requires a change in one variable to "negatively affect" all other variables. So it is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.

Even if it were true that raising minimum wage "might" increase prices, "might" is a piss poor reason upon which to base policy.

One simple fact is that if minimum wage were pegged to COLA, doing so would NEVER be an economic problem. The reason is simple. Economic/production efficiency always increases so standard of living per worker constantly increases. This guarantees, at least till we run out of oil, that the available goods and services that that minimum wage buys is always increasing. CPI pegged min wage is a constant real dollar amount for the same basket of goods. And with effiency constantly increasing, then the number of baskets of goods available is always increasing ahead of the consumption of minimum wage earners.

To put it another way. Every year, a minimum wage earner is producing more and more stuff compared to the year before. Real dollar minimum wage earning only buy the same amount of stuff year after year. So, every year, CPI pegged mimimum wage earners are producing ever increasingly more than they consume.

In the larger part of this "complex system", increasing minimum wage will seldom result in real price increases. It can't. And in the smaller number of conditions that it might, the fundamental problem is somerhing else so serious that increased min wage is the least of the problems.

That's actually quite interesting now that I think of it. At the very least, the real value of minimum wage labor has increased continuoisly since the invention of ways to improve efficiency. And seeing as the real value, the real output has constantly increased, then the question is, "why, how amd under whatmconditions should real minimum wages ever go down?"

Why should minimum wage not increase seeing as efficiency and inflation always goes up?

First off, my ego is fine. I said you were trying to sound superior, not that you were succeeding. It was indeed a subjective analysis of your postings.

Now, what you are saying seems to have merit at least when applied to certain jobs. Workers at companies that produce a good probably do get more produced year to year based on changes made by the company that facilitate increased efficiency. I work at a company that produces a good and can see that in practice. Nobody at that company (at least that I know of) is making minimum wage which is in keeping with what you describe.

However, it does not seem to hold up in other cases. How is a fast food worker "producing more and more stuff" every year? What about someone answering phones in a call center or cleaning rooms in a hotel? Jobs like that do not seem to be gaining in efficiency every year other than the personal efficiency of an individual learning a skill and improving it.

In fact none of what you said really seems to argue for a federally mandated minimum wage. Rather it seems an argument that the real value of some jobs will increase yearly which seems to be born out by the market itself without the interference of a federal mandate.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Yeah, dude, your ego is all up in it. Your personal percetion of someone else "sounding superior" is just that. You start out by being offensive, then you blame other people when they point out you're an @SSH0!#.

Yeah, sure, it's everyone else, not you with your "I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems" bullshit that is "trying to sound superior". Do you have a clue?

Yeah, everyone has been producing more and more stuff each year. That is how most of econonomic growth works. We process information faster, we build houses faster. We produce food with less effort.

Agriculture efficiency has increased massively since the turn of the century, along with everything else, when automation first began. "In 1870, 70-80 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture. As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture." That is an incredible increase in productivity.

And really, you think that McDonald's employees aren't producing and serving more and more per employee with each passing year? Call centers? Staffing agencies? Manufacturing? Do you have a clue what efficiencty is? Efficiency is output per person.

I will show it to you again;

The total economic output of the United States has increased from .035 billion dollars(chained 2009) per thousand employees in 1948 to 0.11 billion dollars (chained 2009) per thousand employees in 2013,

That would be a 314% improvement in productivity. And it isn't "certain jobs". It is all jobs, across the board. Fishing industry has increased in productivity. Entertainment, education, automobile mechanics, apartment managers, and the list goes on and on.

What absurd personal definition of efficiency have you made up?

You do realize you are in the CDZ right? Take a breath.

The problem is you are trying to apply a 10,000 foot view of overall increased efficiency to every individual job. Even if you accept the premise that every job has increased in efficiency, it doesn't necessarily follow that every job has increased the same amount in efficiency. You also can't ignore the possibility that there are jobs that have not appreciably increased in efficiency just because the overall efficiency has increased.

 

[itfitzme]

First off, my ego is fine. I said you were trying to sound superior, not that you were succeeding. It was indeed a subjective analysis of your postings.

Now, what you are saying seems to have merit at least when applied to certain jobs. Workers at companies that produce a good probably do get more produced year to year based on changes made by the company that facilitate increased efficiency. I work at a company that produces a good and can see that in practice. Nobody at that company (at least that I know of) is making minimum wage which is in keeping with what you describe.

However, it does not seem to hold up in other cases. How is a fast food worker "producing more and more stuff" every year? What about someone answering phones in a call center or cleaning rooms in a hotel? Jobs like that do not seem to be gaining in efficiency every year other than the personal efficiency of an individual learning a skill and improving it.

In fact none of what you said really seems to argue for a federally mandated minimum wage. Rather it seems an argument that the real value of some jobs will increase yearly which seems to be born out by the market itself without the interference of a federal mandate.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Yeah, dude, your ego is all up in it. Your personal percetion of someone else "sounding superior" is just that. You start out by being offensive, then you blame other people when they point out you're an @SSH0!#.

Yeah, sure, it's everyone else, not you with your "I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems" bullshit that is "trying to sound superior". Do you have a clue?

Yeah, everyone has been producing more and more stuff each year. That is how most of econonomic growth works. We process information faster, we build houses faster. We produce food with less effort.

Agriculture efficiency has increased massively since the turn of the century, along with everything else, when automation first began. "In 1870, 70-80 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture. As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture." That is an incredible increase in productivity.

And really, you think that McDonald's employees aren't producing and serving more and more per employee with each passing year? Call centers? Staffing agencies? Manufacturing? Do you have a clue what efficiencty is? Efficiency is output per person.

I will show it to you again;

The total economic output of the United States has increased from .035 billion dollars(chained 2009) per thousand employees in 1948 to 0.11 billion dollars (chained 2009) per thousand employees in 2013,

That would be a 314% improvement in productivity. And it isn't "certain jobs". It is all jobs, across the board. Fishing industry has increased in productivity. Entertainment, education, automobile mechanics, apartment managers, and the list goes on and on.

What absurd personal definition of efficiency have you made up?

You do realize you are in the CDZ right? Take a breath.

The problem is you are trying to apply a 10,000 foot view of overall increased efficiency to every individual job. Even if you accept the premise that every job has increased in efficiency, it doesn't necessarily follow that every job has increased the same amount in efficiency. You also can't ignore the possibility that there are jobs that have not appreciably increased in efficiency just because the overall efficiency has increased.

Your point being what?

You start our by being offensive, then blaming other people. Yeah, so it's the CDZ? That means what to you, that you say things like "trying to sound superior for your economic training" then you are clueless that you start shit?

What part of "starting by being offensive" don't you get? You use the second person pronoun then you get all "Oh, you're being personal..."

And, you've made no case that raising minumum wage will summarily increase prices. You are the one making generalized and unproven statements based on some "complex systems" bull shit.

You think "complex systems......" isn't a 10,000 foot view?

Really, you actually believe you are making any sound arguments based on "complex systems"?

 

[itfitzme]

Once again;

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

Maybe... But whatever is done, it shouldn't be done to quickly. The economy doesn't do well with sudden changes.

 

[Mathbud1]

Yeah, dude, your ego is all up in it. Your personal percetion of someone else "sounding superior" is just that. You start out by being offensive, then you blame other people when they point out you're an @SSH0!#.

Yeah, sure, it's everyone else, not you with your "I am, further, very experienced in analyzing complex systems" bullshit that is "trying to sound superior". Do you have a clue?

Yeah, everyone has been producing more and more stuff each year. That is how most of econonomic growth works. We process information faster, we build houses faster. We produce food with less effort.

Agriculture efficiency has increased massively since the turn of the century, along with everything else, when automation first began. "In 1870, 70-80 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture. As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture." That is an incredible increase in productivity.

And really, you think that McDonald's employees aren't producing and serving more and more per employee with each passing year? Call centers? Staffing agencies? Manufacturing? Do you have a clue what efficiencty is? Efficiency is output per person.

I will show it to you again;

The total economic output of the United States has increased from .035 billion dollars(chained 2009) per thousand employees in 1948 to 0.11 billion dollars (chained 2009) per thousand employees in 2013,

That would be a 314% improvement in productivity. And it isn't "certain jobs". It is all jobs, across the board. Fishing industry has increased in productivity. Entertainment, education, automobile mechanics, apartment managers, and the list goes on and on.

What absurd personal definition of efficiency have you made up?

You do realize you are in the CDZ right? Take a breath.

The problem is you are trying to apply a 10,000 foot view of overall increased efficiency to every individual job. Even if you accept the premise that every job has increased in efficiency, it doesn't necessarily follow that every job has increased the same amount in efficiency. You also can't ignore the possibility that there are jobs that have not appreciably increased in efficiency just because the overall efficiency has increased.

Your point being what?

You start our by being offensive, then blaming other people. Yeah, so it's the CDZ? That means what to you, that you say things like "trying to sound superior for your economic training" then you are clueless that you start shit?

What part of "starting by being offensive" don't you get? You use the second person pronoun then you get all "Oh, you're being personal..."

And, you've made no case that raising minumum wage will summarily increase prices. You are the one making generalized and unproven statements based on some "complex systems" bull shit.

You think "complex systems......" isn't a 10,000 foot view?

Really, you actually believe you are making any sound arguments based on "complex systems"?

First, calm down. You are the only one here flying off the handle. That isn't helping the discussion. Me calmly pointing out that you coming into the thread immediately telling people that they should shut-up-about-economics-because-they-obviously-know-nothing-about-it sounds like you trying to sound superior might have been the worst thing anyone has ever said to you, if it was, and you need an apology for it, here you go: I'm sorry.

Second, you keep claiming that I think "raising minumum wage will summarily increase prices." Check the thread. I never said that. If you think I did, please quote it. You either have me confused with someone else, or are misunderstanding what I wrote.

Now, if efficiency in every minimum wage job is not increasing at the same rate, then the value of every minimum wage job is also not increasing at the same rate. The FMW affects every minimum wage job.

 

[OnePercenter]

Once again;

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

Maybe... But whatever is done, it shouldn't be done to quickly. The economy doesn't do well with sudden changes.

You mean tens of billions in consumer spending? The economy will do well.

 

[itfitzme]

Once again;

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

Maybe... But whatever is done, it shouldn't be done to quickly. The economy doesn't do well with sudden changes.

You mean tens of billions in consumer spending? The economy will do well.

Which hasn't occured quickly. What did occur quickly was the collapse in consumer spending at the onset of the recession.

Sudden increases in spending, in a time frame that is apparently called "the very short run", causes inflation because output doesn't have time to adjust.

 

[itfitzme]

You do realize you are in the CDZ right? Take a breath.

The problem is you are trying to apply a 10,000 foot view of overall increased efficiency to every individual job. Even if you accept the premise that every job has increased in efficiency, it doesn't necessarily follow that every job has increased the same amount in efficiency. You also can't ignore the possibility that there are jobs that have not appreciably increased in efficiency just because the overall efficiency has increased.

Your point being what?

You start our by being offensive, then blaming other people. Yeah, so it's the CDZ? That means what to you, that you say things like "trying to sound superior for your economic training" then you are clueless that you start shit?

What part of "starting by being offensive" don't you get? You use the second person pronoun then you get all "Oh, you're being personal..."

And, you've made no case that raising minumum wage will summarily increase prices. You are the one making generalized and unproven statements based on some "complex systems" bull shit.

You think "complex systems......" isn't a 10,000 foot view?

Really, you actually believe you are making any sound arguments based on "complex systems"?

First, calm down. You are the only one here flying off the handle. That isn't helping the discussion. Me calmly pointing out that you coming into the thread immediately telling people that they should shut-up-about-economics-because-they-obviously-know-nothing-about-it sounds like you trying to sound superior might have been the worst thing anyone has ever said to you, if it was, and you need an apology for it, here you go: I'm sorry.

Second, you keep claiming that I think "raising minumum wage will summarily increase prices." Check the thread. I never said that. If you think I did, please quote it. You either have me confused with someone else, or are misunderstanding what I wrote.

Now, if efficiency in every minimum wage job is not increasing at the same rate, then the value of every minimum wage job is also not increasing at the same rate. The FMW affects every minimum wage job.

I'm responding to what you present. If you aren't able to express yourself clearly, that's your own problem. It just goes back to my point, an inability to take personal responsibility, gotta blame someone else.

 

[Mathbud1]

Your point being what?

You start our by being offensive, then blaming other people. Yeah, so it's the CDZ? That means what to you, that you say things like "trying to sound superior for your economic training" then you are clueless that you start shit?

What part of "starting by being offensive" don't you get? You use the second person pronoun then you get all "Oh, you're being personal..."

And, you've made no case that raising minumum wage will summarily increase prices. You are the one making generalized and unproven statements based on some "complex systems" bull shit.

You think "complex systems......" isn't a 10,000 foot view?

Really, you actually believe you are making any sound arguments based on "complex systems"?

First, calm down. You are the only one here flying off the handle. That isn't helping the discussion. Me calmly pointing out that you coming into the thread immediately telling people that they should shut-up-about-economics-because-they-obviously-know-nothing-about-it sounds like you trying to sound superior might have been the worst thing anyone has ever said to you, if it was, and you need an apology for it, here you go: I'm sorry.

Second, you keep claiming that I think "raising minumum wage will summarily increase prices." Check the thread. I never said that. If you think I did, please quote it. You either have me confused with someone else, or are misunderstanding what I wrote.

Now, if efficiency in every minimum wage job is not increasing at the same rate, then the value of every minimum wage job is also not increasing at the same rate. The FMW affects every minimum wage job.

I'm responding to what you present. If you aren't able to express yourself clearly, that's your own problem. It just goes back to my point, an inability to take personal responsibility, gotta blame someone else.

If I presented it, show me where.

I didn't.

Misinterpret what someone says then say, "not my problem, if you can't express yourself clearly." Nice.

Sounds more like you just don't like anyone questioning your reasoning.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[OnePercenter]

Maybe... But whatever is done, it shouldn't be done to quickly. The economy doesn't do well with sudden changes.

You mean tens of billions in consumer spending? The economy will do well.

Which hasn't occured quickly. What did occur quickly was the collapse in consumer spending at the onset of the recession.

Sudden increases in spending, in a time frame that is apparently called "the very short run", causes inflation because output doesn't have time to adjust.

How can it cause inflation when prices are caped?

 

[itfitzme]

You mean tens of billions in consumer spending? The economy will do well.

Which hasn't occured quickly. What did occur quickly was the collapse in consumer spending at the onset of the recession.

Sudden increases in spending, in a time frame that is apparently called "the very short run", causes inflation because output doesn't have time to adjust.

How can it cause inflation when prices are caped?

What prices are capped?

 

[OnePercenter]

Which hasn't occured quickly. What did occur quickly was the collapse in consumer spending at the onset of the recession.

Sudden increases in spending, in a time frame that is apparently called "the very short run", causes inflation because output doesn't have time to adjust.

How can it cause inflation when prices are caped?

What prices are capped?

Post #249 '-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.'