Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[The Derp]

Mortgages bought during the bubble, with skyrocketing home prices, lower down payments and weaker borrowers were most certainly worse than mortgages bought pre-bubble.

The mortgages the GSE's were buying were the same pre-bubble as they were during the bubble. We have the delinquency figures to tell us that. So you again, are ignoring the facts. Why?

That's why the line on the chart below for GSE's remains steady and consistent
Yes, your ignorance of what the chart says is obvious to me.

The chart here clearly shows the subprime bubble popped beginning in 2006 as delinquency rates for private-label subprimes rose. All other loans, including GSE-backed loans, FHA loans, and non-prime loans saw their delqinuency rates rise nearly two years after the rates for private label subprimes began to rise. Which means, quite clearly, that the private label subprimes were responsible for the bubble and not the GSE's.

 

[The Derp]

Making $515 billion available to make more subprime loans doesn't increase the number of subprime loans? How many times did you fail Econ 101 before you gave up?

I don't even think you know what economics is! Again, GSE-backed loans didn't default until the recession started, they didn't cause it. That was all the Conservative-backed private label subprime lending that popped in 2006 when delinquency rates for those loans started to rise.

 

[danielpalos]

It was public policy to command economize the expanding housing market.

 

[The Derp]

Why would they lose their jobs?
If you're paid $9/hr but produce $11/hr in added value, you keep your job.
If you're paid $12/hr but produce $11/hr in added value, not so much.

So, why would the added value not rise if the wage rose? Seems that the added value would increase by $3 if you are increasing the wage by $3.

Raising the MW didn't kill jobs in Seattle.
It appears to have slowed the growth of low-end jobs.

Which is what we want, right? Better-paying jobs? Do you not want those? What's your position? That we should keep the minimum wage where it is so there are jobs that pay so low, people become eligible for welfare? Because that's what you're arguing whether you realize it or not.

Raising the MW didn't kill jobs in Seattle. In fact, it created jobs as the unemployment rate declined.
I'd love for you to show me how making something more expensive increases the demand for it.

LOL! I've done this countless times but what's another one, right? If you are paying people more, they are spending more. If they're spending more, that means your business revenues increase. So while you may be paying labor more, you're also taking in more revenue because that labor is spending their money.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED RAISING THE MW KILLS JOBS. When that wild claim was debunked by the unemployment rate for the city of Seattle (as well as the 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014), you shifted your argument to claim that raising the MW kills MW jobs. Even though you support that claim with 18-month old figures that do not include the most recent employment data showing Seattle's unemployment rate is lower now than it was before the MW hike. By nearly a full point. Now your argument seems to be that we should preserve low-paying jobs because...because...not sure why you think that. You haven't made that point clear. The reason is because it's a shitty point to have in the first place, putting you in the uncomfortable position of having to simultaneously defend low wages while ignoring the empirical evidence showing no negative effect on employment.

So why are you using out-dated information to make your point? Why not use Seattle's April or May 2017 jobs numbers? That gives you an accurate view of the employment picture for the city of Seattle more than 24 months after their rose their MW. But you didn't. I want to know why?

A business only hires a worker if there is demand.
A business only hires a worker if they produce more value than their expense to the business.

If you cannot afford to pay a living wage, then you cannot afford to be in business. Asking people to work minimum wage for 40 hours a week so you can own a business is entitlement at its most obscene. You are requiring workers use their lives to subsidize your entitlement to own a business. If it's a job worth doing, it's a job that is worth being paid enough to live. $8.25 isn't enough to live, and it qualifies you for several welfare programs including SNAP.

If revenues are increasing because people are spending more,
Do you feel revenues increase less than expenses, as much as expenses or more than expenses?

More. That's what the employment growth in states and cities that raised their MW experienced. So if those places are seeing growth in employment after a MW increase, that would mean that businesses were expanding by hiring more workers. Which would mean revenues more than offset the increase in expenses from a wage increase. But that's just according to the facts. I'm sure your fantasy has a completely different theory that never works in practice.

So here's the problem...you can't be unemployed and be a minimum wage worker.
Which is why workers who are priced out of the job market by the MW hike aren't helped by the hike.

Were they priced out, or did they just get better paying jobs? It would seem the latter is the case. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

Key word in your cut-and-paste: "prediction".
Yes. They predicted what the hike would do to jobs/job creation and examined data after the hike was announced and implemented.
nd again, you are using numbers from 2016. Why not use numbers from 2017?
Find 2017 numbers that refute the numbers thru 2016. Post them. Prove your claim. Or don't.

No, no...you are responsible for using the most recent numbers. By arguing like this, you are admitting that your argument doesn't stand to scrutiny because you're not even using the most recent data! So that begs the obvious question: Why aren't you using the most recent data? Is it a question of laziness? Is it a question of sophism? Is it a question of intellectual dishonesty? Is it a question of ignorance? Why do you do that?

So I'm wondering why you feel the need to use outdated information?
I posted what I found. Feel free to do the same.

So, laziness and sloppiness are not a defense. Grow up and act like an adult. Do the actual work. You are knowingly and deliberately acting shady in this debate because you very obviously know your position is wrong. But you have too much pride/hubris/arrogance to admit it, so you do things like deceptively remove any information that doesn't support your conclusion. Exactly what Rogoff and Reinhart did with their "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper. Like them, you do that omission and willful ignorance intentionally. My question is; Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But if the borrower can pay it, who cares?
Exactly.
It's not crappy if the borrower can repay.
I already said, not all subprime loans default.
A subprime may be riskier, but it's only crappy if it enters delinquency,
Subprime loans are subprime, whether they default or not.

So, not "crappy", just risky. A crappy loan would be a loan that a borrower couldn't or didn't repay. Risky and crappy are not interchangeable. GSE's may have bought risky loans, but the risk paid off. Delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans remained the same (or were slightly better) during the bubble as before it. The bubble was in the private-label subprimes, which popped in mid-2006 (again, we know that because that's what the delinquency data tells us). You are trying to say GSE-backed loans contributed to the private-label subprime bubble, but by their very nature of being GSE-backed loans, they weren't a part of that bubble, nor did they contribute to it. That's why they are separated out from private-label subprimes in this chart:

Sure, those subprimes were riskier, but the risk paid off for the GSE's
Hundreds of billions in government funds point out your error.

The bailout of the GSE's was the aftermath of the recession caused by the popping of the private-label subprime bubble. The mortgages that had to be "rescued" from the GSE's were a consequence not of their inherent risk, but of the cooling of the housing market, which precipitated a credit freeze, which precipitated a recession, which precipitated job loss, which precipitated foreclosures. But again, the "original sin" was the explosion in private-label subprime lending, something GSE's were not a part of.

So did they buy "crappy" mortgages, or did they buy "risky" mortgages?
They bought crappy mortgages. Up to 56% of their total purchases.

Not crappy, risky. There's a difference. But GSE loan performance was unchanged during the bubble, and only rose along with all other mortgages as the recession started and caused all the job loss.

did the mortgages GSE's backed cause delinquencies or not?
Mortgages, good or bad, do not "cause delinquencies".

What causes a delinquency? The borrower not repaying. And which borrowers were not repaying first? The ones who got the subprime ARMs from private labels. When those homes went into foreclosure, it drove down the prices for all the other, non-subprime ARMs. That left many "underwater" on their mortgage. Those foreclosures also had the added effect of cooling the housing market, which was Bush's only growth in his entire presidency. So when the housing market cools, all the economic activity from that housing market cools, which leads to job loss, which leads to more foreclosures, and the community enters a death spiral of foreclosures, job loss, foreclosures, job loss...all non-prime, GSE-backed, and FHA loans entering delinquency was a consequence of the subprime ARM bubble popping. So that's why the "bubble" wasn't a general or generic housing bubble, it was specifically a subprime bubble and it was specifically a private-label subprime bubble. Otherwise, all other types of mortgages would have entered delinquency at the same time as the private-label subprimes. But they didn't. So all those other loans entered delinquency because the subprime bubble popped. And the subprime bubble was grown by private labels, not the GSE's. Because if it were the GSE's, then their loans would have entered delinquency the same time the private label subprimes did. But they didn't.

Rising to 56% when?
From 50% in 2004 to 56% in 2008.

So what was it in 2003? And what was it in 2005? And 2006? And 2007? Wait, you know what? We already know because we have these facts: So you just exercised sophism again because you are a natural-born liar and cheat. So yes, it did go up to 56% by 2008, but it dropped down to 40% for 2005 and 2006, and was previously 70% in 2003. So you deliberately and pourposefully left out the numbers that put your numbers into perspective. So why do you do that? Why do you purposefully and deliberately leave information out of your argument? The answer is, of course, because you are a sophist.

And what of the loan performance for the GSE-backed loans?
What of it? Half of them or more, from 2004 and earlier, were conforming loans.

But if they were even partially responsible for the subprime bubble, then they would have seen their delinquency rate rise at the same time private-label subprime delinquency rates were rising. But they didn't. So what does that mean for your argument? That it's bullshit.

Hence, GSE-backed loans were not responsible for the bubble or the pop of that bubble.
In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent.

Did those loans default in greater rates? No. You see delinquencies rising amid private label subprimes, but not GSE-backed subprimes. So there's a disconnect in your argument.

A crappy loan would be a loan that a borrower couldn't or didn't repay.

That would be a defaulted loan. Plenty of crappy loans get repaid.

GSE's may have bought risky loans, but the risk paid off.

The GSEs lost tens of billions on the crappy mortgages they bought. Bizarre definition for "paid off", eh?

You are trying to say GSE-backed loans contributed to the private-label subprime bubble,

Yes, spending over half a trillion (with a T) dollars on subprime mortgages definitely contributed to the subprime bubble.

but by their very nature of being GSE-backed loans, they weren't a part of that bubble

You'll have to explain what you mean by the nature of GSE-backed loans.
I expect your explanation to be humorous.

That's why they are separated out from private-label subprimes in this chart:

Which line in that chart represents GSE subprimes only?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would they lose their jobs?
If you're paid $9/hr but produce $11/hr in added value, you keep your job.
If you're paid $12/hr but produce $11/hr in added value, not so much.

So, why would the added value not rise if the wage rose? Seems that the added value would increase by $3 if you are increasing the wage by $3.

Raising the MW didn't kill jobs in Seattle.
It appears to have slowed the growth of low-end jobs.

Which is what we want, right? Better-paying jobs? Do you not want those? What's your position? That we should keep the minimum wage where it is so there are jobs that pay so low, people become eligible for welfare? Because that's what you're arguing whether you realize it or not.

Raising the MW didn't kill jobs in Seattle. In fact, it created jobs as the unemployment rate declined.
I'd love for you to show me how making something more expensive increases the demand for it.

LOL! I've done this countless times but what's another one, right? If you are paying people more, they are spending more. If they're spending more, that means your business revenues increase. So while you may be paying labor more, you're also taking in more revenue because that labor is spending their money.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED RAISING THE MW KILLS JOBS. When that wild claim was debunked by the unemployment rate for the city of Seattle (as well as the 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014), you shifted your argument to claim that raising the MW kills MW jobs. Even though you support that claim with 18-month old figures that do not include the most recent employment data showing Seattle's unemployment rate is lower now than it was before the MW hike. By nearly a full point. Now your argument seems to be that we should preserve low-paying jobs because...because...not sure why you think that. You haven't made that point clear. The reason is because it's a shitty point to have in the first place, putting you in the uncomfortable position of having to simultaneously defend low wages while ignoring the empirical evidence showing no negative effect on employment.

So why are you using out-dated information to make your point? Why not use Seattle's April or May 2017 jobs numbers? That gives you an accurate view of the employment picture for the city of Seattle more than 24 months after their rose their MW. But you didn't. I want to know why?

A business only hires a worker if there is demand.
A business only hires a worker if they produce more value than their expense to the business.

If you cannot afford to pay a living wage, then you cannot afford to be in business. Asking people to work minimum wage for 40 hours a week so you can own a business is entitlement at its most obscene. You are requiring workers use their lives to subsidize your entitlement to own a business. If it's a job worth doing, it's a job that is worth being paid enough to live. $8.25 isn't enough to live, and it qualifies you for several welfare programs including SNAP.

If revenues are increasing because people are spending more,
Do you feel revenues increase less than expenses, as much as expenses or more than expenses?

More. That's what the employment growth in states and cities that raised their MW experienced. So if those places are seeing growth in employment after a MW increase, that would mean that businesses were expanding by hiring more workers. Which would mean revenues more than offset the increase in expenses from a wage increase. But that's just according to the facts. I'm sure your fantasy has a completely different theory that never works in practice.

So here's the problem...you can't be unemployed and be a minimum wage worker.
Which is why workers who are priced out of the job market by the MW hike aren't helped by the hike.

Were they priced out, or did they just get better paying jobs? It would seem the latter is the case. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

Key word in your cut-and-paste: "prediction".
Yes. They predicted what the hike would do to jobs/job creation and examined data after the hike was announced and implemented.
nd again, you are using numbers from 2016. Why not use numbers from 2017?
Find 2017 numbers that refute the numbers thru 2016. Post them. Prove your claim. Or don't.

No, no...you are responsible for using the most recent numbers. By arguing like this, you are admitting that your argument doesn't stand to scrutiny because you're not even using the most recent data! So that begs the obvious question: Why aren't you using the most recent data? Is it a question of laziness? Is it a question of sophism? Is it a question of intellectual dishonesty? Is it a question of ignorance? Why do you do that?

So I'm wondering why you feel the need to use outdated information?
I posted what I found. Feel free to do the same.

So, laziness and sloppiness are not a defense. Grow up and act like an adult. Do the actual work. You are knowingly and deliberately acting shady in this debate because you very obviously know your position is wrong. But you have too much pride/hubris/arrogance to admit it, so you do things like deceptively remove any information that doesn't support your conclusion. Exactly what Rogoff and Reinhart did with their "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper. Like them, you do that omission and willful ignorance intentionally. My question is; Why?

So, why would the added value not rise if the wage rose?

Why would it? Does a burger flipper make more burgers at $12/hr than at $9/hr? Why?

Seems that the added value would increase by $3 if you are increasing the wage by $3.

This is why liberals are so bad at economics.
If an employee adds $3 more value, that extra $3 is available to be divided between employees and owners.

If you mandate and extra $3 expense, where does it come from?
The obvious choices are from owners and employees.
It comes from employees when suddenly unaffordable head count is reduced.
It come from owners who see reduced profitability.
In some cases, enough of a reduction to cause business closure.

But no, simplistically increasing wages does nothing to increase value added.

Which is what we want, right? Better-paying jobs?

Of course we want better paying jobs.

What's your position? That we should keep the minimum wage where it is so there are jobs that pay so low, people become eligible for welfare?

My position is the minimum wage hurts those low-skilled workers who don't produce enough added value to justify hiring them at that wage.
If a minority teen is only worth $5/hr, he will never get hired at $10/hr.
What do you suggest we do to help those young, inexperienced workers who can't reach that first rung on the economic ladder?

LOL! I've done this countless times but what's another one, right?

You haven't. Not even once.

Use a commodity as an example. Like gasoline.
If you raise the price of gasoline does the demand for it rise? Or fall?
If you raise the price of labor does the demand for it rise? Or fall?

If you took an econ class you'd have seen a supply/demand curve.
It's clear, if you saw one, you never understood it.

If you are paying people more, they are spending more.
If they're spending more, that means your business revenues increase.

If I pay my employees $100 more, how much does my revenue increase?
How do you know?

So while you may be paying labor more, you're also taking in more revenue because that labor is spending their money.

If my revenue increases as much as my costs increase, I'm still less profitable.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED RAISING THE MW KILLS JOBS.

Only because it does.

When that wild claim was debunked by the unemployment rate for the city of Seattle (as well as the 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014),

Unless that rate was only measuring MW unemployment, it doesn't disprove my claim.

you shifted your argument to claim that raising the MW kills MW jobs.

That's always been my claim in regards to MW hikes. Never shifted my argument.

Now your argument seems to be that we should preserve low-paying jobs because...because...not sure why you think that.

If a $10/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $15/hr?
If a $15/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $25/hr?
If a $25/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $35/hr?

If you admit that jobs would be lost at some point with those higher rates, you have to understand how
some workers are hurt by MW. If not the fired workers that you can see, the never hired workers that you can't.
Or, you don't see that. Because liberals are bad at economics.

If you cannot afford to pay a living wage, then you cannot afford to be in business.

Exactly! And screw all those workers who had a job before and now have none, eh comrade?

How much less welfare will the government pay those guys now?

Do you feel revenues increase less than expenses, as much as expenses or more than expenses?

More. That's what the employment growth in states and cities that raised their MW experienced.

That's funny, because the employment growth doesn't measure revenues or expenses.

No, no...you are responsible for using the most recent numbers.

Find more recent numbers that prove your claim. Or don't.
Like I give a fuck if you never post any proof of your claim.

 

[danielpalos]

What happened to "laissez-fair", right wingers. Only Mr. Say, said so, not "market based economics."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would they lose their jobs?
If you're paid $9/hr but produce $11/hr in added value, you keep your job.
If you're paid $12/hr but produce $11/hr in added value, not so much.

So, why would the added value not rise if the wage rose? Seems that the added value would increase by $3 if you are increasing the wage by $3.

Raising the MW didn't kill jobs in Seattle.
It appears to have slowed the growth of low-end jobs.

Which is what we want, right? Better-paying jobs? Do you not want those? What's your position? That we should keep the minimum wage where it is so there are jobs that pay so low, people become eligible for welfare? Because that's what you're arguing whether you realize it or not.

Raising the MW didn't kill jobs in Seattle. In fact, it created jobs as the unemployment rate declined.
I'd love for you to show me how making something more expensive increases the demand for it.

LOL! I've done this countless times but what's another one, right? If you are paying people more, they are spending more. If they're spending more, that means your business revenues increase. So while you may be paying labor more, you're also taking in more revenue because that labor is spending their money.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED RAISING THE MW KILLS JOBS. When that wild claim was debunked by the unemployment rate for the city of Seattle (as well as the 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014), you shifted your argument to claim that raising the MW kills MW jobs. Even though you support that claim with 18-month old figures that do not include the most recent employment data showing Seattle's unemployment rate is lower now than it was before the MW hike. By nearly a full point. Now your argument seems to be that we should preserve low-paying jobs because...because...not sure why you think that. You haven't made that point clear. The reason is because it's a shitty point to have in the first place, putting you in the uncomfortable position of having to simultaneously defend low wages while ignoring the empirical evidence showing no negative effect on employment.

So why are you using out-dated information to make your point? Why not use Seattle's April or May 2017 jobs numbers? That gives you an accurate view of the employment picture for the city of Seattle more than 24 months after their rose their MW. But you didn't. I want to know why?

A business only hires a worker if there is demand.
A business only hires a worker if they produce more value than their expense to the business.

If you cannot afford to pay a living wage, then you cannot afford to be in business. Asking people to work minimum wage for 40 hours a week so you can own a business is entitlement at its most obscene. You are requiring workers use their lives to subsidize your entitlement to own a business. If it's a job worth doing, it's a job that is worth being paid enough to live. $8.25 isn't enough to live, and it qualifies you for several welfare programs including SNAP.

If revenues are increasing because people are spending more,
Do you feel revenues increase less than expenses, as much as expenses or more than expenses?

More. That's what the employment growth in states and cities that raised their MW experienced. So if those places are seeing growth in employment after a MW increase, that would mean that businesses were expanding by hiring more workers. Which would mean revenues more than offset the increase in expenses from a wage increase. But that's just according to the facts. I'm sure your fantasy has a completely different theory that never works in practice.

So here's the problem...you can't be unemployed and be a minimum wage worker.
Which is why workers who are priced out of the job market by the MW hike aren't helped by the hike.

Were they priced out, or did they just get better paying jobs? It would seem the latter is the case. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

Key word in your cut-and-paste: "prediction".
Yes. They predicted what the hike would do to jobs/job creation and examined data after the hike was announced and implemented.
nd again, you are using numbers from 2016. Why not use numbers from 2017?
Find 2017 numbers that refute the numbers thru 2016. Post them. Prove your claim. Or don't.

No, no...you are responsible for using the most recent numbers. By arguing like this, you are admitting that your argument doesn't stand to scrutiny because you're not even using the most recent data! So that begs the obvious question: Why aren't you using the most recent data? Is it a question of laziness? Is it a question of sophism? Is it a question of intellectual dishonesty? Is it a question of ignorance? Why do you do that?

So I'm wondering why you feel the need to use outdated information?
I posted what I found. Feel free to do the same.

So, laziness and sloppiness are not a defense. Grow up and act like an adult. Do the actual work. You are knowingly and deliberately acting shady in this debate because you very obviously know your position is wrong. But you have too much pride/hubris/arrogance to admit it, so you do things like deceptively remove any information that doesn't support your conclusion. Exactly what Rogoff and Reinhart did with their "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper. Like them, you do that omission and willful ignorance intentionally. My question is; Why?

No, no...you are responsible for using the most recent numbers.

Employees who aren't worth the higher rate get priced out.

By arguing like this, you are admitting that your argument doesn't stand to scrutiny because you're not even using the most recent data!

I don't have more recent data. If you can find more recent data that drills down as deeply as my source, post it.
Show that the older data that supports my argument is no longer valid.
Until you do, my old data, the only data, wins.

So, laziness and sloppiness are not a defense.

I agree, your lack of opposing data is no defense.

Grow up and act like an adult. Do the actual work.

I posted data. You do some work and post newer data. Or pout about mine. LOL!

But you have too much pride/hubris/arrogance to admit it

I freely admit that you haven't posted data that refutes mine.
It must be because you know your position is wrong.

 

[The Derp]

DERP: No, no...you are responsible for using the most recent numbers.
ZTODDSTER: Employees who aren't worth the higher rate get priced out.

So your response to me pointing out that you weren't using recent numbers is to write a non-sequitur? I guess we'll just take that as a concession that you were trying to exercise sophism in order to push an ideological agenda that isn't supported by facts.

By arguing like this, you are admitting that your argument doesn't stand to scrutiny because you're not even using the most recent data!
I don't have more recent data.

You mean you don't have recent data that supports your argument. You can very easily go to the BLS and pull figures for Washington State as well as the City of Seattle. This took me literally 5 seconds to find on a Google search. Your laziness is not an excuse. If you are too lazy and sloppy to do the hard work of being informed, then we don't have much to talk about. Put in some effort, if possible. Take some personal responsibility for yourself and your argument.

Until you do, my old data, the only data, wins.

I did post new numbers from a BLS link earlier in this thread. You chose to ignore that. So again, your laziness and sloppiness is not an excuse for why you exercise sophism. Try again.

Grow up and act like an adult. Do the actual work.
I posted data.

No, you posted outdated data that was 16 months old! Now you seem to be telling me you're too lazy to update your recent numbers, choosing to rely on a link you didn't bother to fully vet, to carry your pathetically weak argument in favor of minimum wage jobs.

But you have too much pride/hubris/arrogance to admit it
I freely admit that you haven't posted data that refutes mine.
It must be because you know your position is wrong.

First of all, your "data' is all make-believe. You actually haven't posted any data, you've just posted right wing Op-Eds because you're too lazy to do the work yourself, so you have to rely on others to do the misleading work for you, then play dumb, lazy, and ignorant when it's brought up that your numbers are way out of date by nearly 18 months!!

Your argument seems to be that raising the MW kills MW jobs because they aren't MW jobs anymore, and that you want to keep MW jobs because...because...not sure why.

 

[The Derp]

A crappy loan would be a loan that a borrower couldn't or didn't repay.
That would be a defaulted loan. Plenty of crappy loans get repaid.

Then they weren't crappy loans, then. They were risky loans, but clearly the risk was unfounded since the GSE's had delinquency rates far below their private label counterparts...a fact your argument has been unable to reconcile. Also the fact that delinquency rates for GSE loans rose the same time as all other non-subprime loans did, nearly 2 years after the subprime loans entered delinquency, so it was quite obviously the private label subprimes that inflated and popped the bubble. If the GSE's had played a part in it, then they would have seen delinquency rates rise the same time as the subprime rate rose, but they didn't. Therefore, GSE's were not responsible, even partially, for the bubble and collapse. They were swept up in it, just like all other non-subprime mortgages. That is what the data shows.

GSE's may have bought risky loans, but the risk paid off.
The GSEs lost tens of billions on the crappy mortgages they bought. Bizarre definition for "paid off", eh?

No, the mortgages they bought weren't crappy. The mortgages they bought that entered delinquency did so because of the recession caused by the subprime bubble popping mid-2006. The subprime bubble GSE's were not involved with. The GSE-backed loans entered delinquency nearly two years after the subprime bubble popped, when the recession started. That is actually what happened.

You are trying to say GSE-backed loans contributed to the private-label subprime bubble,
Yes, spending over half a trillion (with a T) dollars on subprime mortgages definitely contributed to the subprime bubble.

Again, GSE-backed loans didn't enter delinquency until nearly 2 years after private label subprimes did. That's in the chart I've posted dozens of times that for some reason you feel the need to ignore because it undermines everything you're saying. The bubble was among private-label subprimes, which is why their delinquency rates rose mid-2006 while GSE-backed loans didn't until 2008 because of the recession caused by the subprime bubble popping. The facts ruin the knowingly sophist and false narrative you're trying to construct.

but by their very nature of being GSE-backed loans, they weren't a part of that bubble
You'll have to explain what you mean by the nature of GSE-backed loans.
I expect your explanation to be humorous.

Look at the chart. It answers your stupid question:

See how the private label subprimes start spiking their delinquency rate mid-2006? Now, when in the timeline do the delinquency rates start to rise for GSE's? Be honest now, it's right there, color-coded for you.

That's why they are separated out from private-label subprimes in this chart:
Which line in that chart represents GSE subprimes only?

GSE subprimes are included in the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lines. Again, if their subprimes had been a part of the bubble, you would see movement on the green and purple lines at the same time the blue lines start rising, but you don't. Hence, GSE-backed loans didn't enter delinquency until after the recession started. In fact, as you see in the chart, as the blue lines go up, the purple and green lines actually go down slightly. If what you're saying is true, then those lines would have ticked up when the blue lines ticked up, but they don't. So because they don't, what does that mean? Use your words, now.

 

[The Derp]

So, why would the added value not rise if the wage rose?
Why would it? Does a burger flipper make more burgers at $12/hr than at $9/hr? Why?

So you're not factoring the added value of labor into the product? So then why are you all saying that if the MW is raised, it will raise prices? That self-contradictory argument starts your position off on the wrong foot. You say that raising the MW will raise prices (thus, adding value), then you turn right around and make a completely opposite and self-contradicting argument. Were you intending to do that? Added value includes the added value of labor. As you all say, that's what is baked in the price for consumers. Yeesh. I am tired of watching right-wingers use arguments that contradict their other arguments almost unwittingly. Surely this isn't an accident. Surely this is some form of performance art and I'm supposed to be amused or entertained by the cognitive dissonance?

Seems that the added value would increase by $3 if you are increasing the wage by $3.
This is why liberals are so bad at economics.
If an employee adds $3 more value, that extra $3 is available to be divided between employees and owners.

Now you're just making up arbitrary standards that you redefine in order to fit into whatever argument you're attempting to make.

But no, simplistically increasing wages does nothing to increase value added.

A-HA! Then if that's the case, you cannot make the claim that raising wages leads to increased prices! You add the value of the labor into the pricing. So what we have here is a typical Conservative cognitive dissonance argument. On the one hand, you say that raising wages will lead to a raise in prices....then on the other hand, you say that raising wages doesn't add value to the product that labor is producing. See the cognitive dissonance? It's not just this argument where you make that a thing; you do it in virtually every argument you make. When you increase wages, you are adding to the value of the product the labor created. That is the argument you all have been making with regard to raising the MW. You all say that raising the MW raises prices. Well, what is a price increase but an increase in value. So if you are raising prices because you raise wages, you are increasing the value of the product.

Whih is what we want, right? Better-paying jobs?
Of course we want better paying jobs.

Well, you don't seem to want them. You're lamenting the loss of MW jobs because the wage increases. You're arguing for minimum wage jobs, why?

What's your position? That we should keep the minimum wage where it is so there are jobs that pay so low, people become eligible for welfare?
My position is the minimum wage hurts those low-skilled workers who don't produce enough added value to justify hiring them at that wage.

But you said yourself it's the market that sets the wage, and if you are increasing the value of the product by increasing the cost of labor of that product, then the labor that produced the product adds to the product's value. That's what your argument is whether you realize it or not. It's not a judgement on what a worker deserves, it's what the value of the product is after the wage increase. And the value of the product is more because the cost of labor to produce the product is more, according to your theory, right? So how can you say that raising the MW raises prices, but also say that increasing labor wages doesn't increase the value of the product that labor produces?

If you are paying people more, they are spending more.
If they're spending more, that means your business revenues increase.
If I pay my employees $100 more, how much does my revenue increase?

Depends on if the wages for all other labor is increasing as well. Minimum wage increases don't apply to just one business, they apply to all of them.

So while you may be paying labor more, you're also taking in more revenue because that labor is spending their money.
If my revenue increases as much as my costs increase, I'm still less profitable.

Keyword: "IF". If you are a good business owner then you should be able to capitalize on increased demand and expand your business. If you are a shitty business owner, then you don't. Not everyone who owns a business is good at owning a business. Most businesses fail not because of taxes or wages, but because the people running them don't know what they're doing. It is grotesque entitlement to say that you can only own a business if you pay people wages that they cannot live on without getting some kind of income-based benefit from the government.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED RAISING THE MW KILLS JOBS.
Only because it does.

But the employment data from Seattle as well as the 13 states that raised their MW in 2014 prove otherwise. So either the employment figures are wrong, or you are.

When that wild claim was debunked by the unemployment rate for the city of Seattle (as well as the 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014),
Unless that rate was only measuring MW unemployment, it doesn't disprove my claim.

MW unemployment isn't a thing. If someone is unemployed, they're not a MW worker. So how about you use actual figures from the BLS, not ones made up by some Conservative editorial, mmmmkay?

you shifted your argument to claim that raising the MW kills MW jobs.
That's always been my claim in regards to MW hikes. Never shifted my argument.

No, you just said up there:

ME: YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED RAISING THE MW KILLS JOBS.
YOU: Only because it does.​

You tried to wiggle the parameters of what you meant, afterwards in retrospect. Your argument was plainly that raising the MW kills jobs, and the employment data says it doesn't. Is Seattle's unemployment rate lower now than it was in April 2015, when they raised their MW, yes or no?

Now your argument seems to be that we should preserve low-paying jobs because...because...not sure why you think that.
If a $10/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $15/hr?
If a $15/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $25/hr?
If a $25/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $35/hr?

Maybe we should. Maybe we start with raising it to $15 like Seattle did and go from there. Your problem is that you are too dogmatic to even admit that raising the MW helped employment in the 13 states that raised theirs in 2014, and Seattle in 2015.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

DERP: No, no...you are responsible for using the most recent numbers.
ZTODDSTER: Employees who aren't worth the higher rate get priced out.

So your response to me pointing out that you weren't using recent numbers is to write a non-sequitur? I guess we'll just take that as a concession that you were trying to exercise sophism in order to push an ideological agenda that isn't supported by facts.

By arguing like this, you are admitting that your argument doesn't stand to scrutiny because you're not even using the most recent data!
I don't have more recent data.

You mean you don't have recent data that supports your argument. You can very easily go to the BLS and pull figures for Washington State as well as the City of Seattle. This took me literally 5 seconds to find on a Google search. Your laziness is not an excuse. If you are too lazy and sloppy to do the hard work of being informed, then we don't have much to talk about. Put in some effort, if possible. Take some personal responsibility for yourself and your argument.

Until you do, my old data, the only data, wins.

I did post new numbers from a BLS link earlier in this thread. You chose to ignore that. So again, your laziness and sloppiness is not an excuse for why you exercise sophism. Try again.

Grow up and act like an adult. Do the actual work.
I posted data.

No, you posted outdated data that was 16 months old! Now you seem to be telling me you're too lazy to update your recent numbers, choosing to rely on a link you didn't bother to fully vet, to carry your pathetically weak argument in favor of minimum wage jobs.

But you have too much pride/hubris/arrogance to admit it
I freely admit that you haven't posted data that refutes mine.
It must be because you know your position is wrong.

First of all, your "data' is all make-believe. You actually haven't posted any data, you've just posted right wing Op-Eds because you're too lazy to do the work yourself, so you have to rely on others to do the misleading work for you, then play dumb, lazy, and ignorant when it's brought up that your numbers are way out of date by nearly 18 months!!

Your argument seems to be that raising the MW kills MW jobs because they aren't MW jobs anymore, and that you want to keep MW jobs because...because...not sure why.

So your response to me pointing out that you weren't using recent numbers is to write a non-sequitur.

Sorry, too much cut and pasting.

Derp---Were they priced out, or did they just get better paying jobs?

Todd---Employees who aren't worth the higher rate get priced out.

You mean you don't have recent data that supports your argument.

I mean I don't have more recent data.
Stop whining and find more recent data that supports your argument.

You can very easily go to the BLS and pull figures for Washington State as well as the City of Seattle. This took me literally 5 seconds to find on a Google search.

If that was as detailed as the info I found, it might help your claim.

Try again? Or just whine some more. You're good at that.
Finding relevant data....not so much.

I did post new numbers from a BLS link earlier in this thread. You chose to ignore that.

I'm not ignoring your irrelevant data, just pointing out its irrelevancy.

First of all, your "data' is all make-believe.

Feel free to tell it to Tim Worstall, it was from his article.
I'm sure he'll waste as much of his time trying to educate you as I have.

Once More Into The Breach On This Seattle Minimum Wage And Jobs Theory

You can read his more current post, but I doubt you'll understand it either.....

The propagandists up in the North West have essayed another adventure in their proof about how lovely the Seattle minimum wage rise is. They’re doing so in the same simplistic manner they’ve been trying to prove this for some time now and the answer is the very simple one that I and others have been giving for that same time now. We cannot answer the question of whether a minimum wage rise increases unemployment or not by just looking at the coincidence of a minimum wage rise and a change in the unemployment rate. We’ve got to construct some method of measuring only the effect of the minimum wage rise, not the other 97 million things going on in an economy.

This thus is just not telling us what we want to know:

New data: Seattle City min wage drives its Unrate…to near record low of 2.9%. @NickHanauer @ritholtz @KIRO7Seattle pic.twitter.com/tKLj1oOqhx

— Invictus (@TBPInvictus) April 5, 2017

Sure, it’s lovely that unemployment in Seattle dips under 3%. But an attempt to tie that drop in the unemployment rate to the minimum wage isn’t going to work. For we can as easily note that the unemployment rate has dropped everywhere in the US over this same time period and the minimum wage hasn’t risen everywhere over that time period. We’ve not even got a consistent correlation between minimum wages and unemployment that is.

What we’ve actually got to do is try to work out some method of what would have happened in Seattle from all of the effects of everything else other than the minimum wage, then compare it to what did happen with the minimum wage. The difference between these two will be the effect of the minimum wage rise.

Seattle City Council know this, which is why they asked the University of Washington to run exactly such a study. It’s possible that I’ve missed the latest update but I think not. And that latest result says the following:

In a region where all low-wage workers, including those in Seattle, have enjoyed access
to more jobs and more hours, Seattle’s low-wage workers show some preliminary signs
of lagging behind similar workers in comparison regions.
 The minimum wage appears to have slightly reduced the employment rate of
low-wage workers by about one percentage point. It appears that the Minimum
Wage Ordinance modestly held back Seattle’s employment of low-wage workers
relative to the level we could have expected.

The specific effect of the minimum wage alone upon employment seems to be negative.

Worth noting what my original prediction was. Specifically I pointed out that it would not lead to some howling wasteland where once an economy stood. Rather, that raising the price of low end labour would lead to less low end labour being employed. Quite why the propagandists are so irate over this observation is difficult to understand. If I said that raising the price of apples would mean people bought less apples they’d have shrugged their shoulders in agreement. The only goods we know of where rising prices increase demand are Giffen Goods–and there rising demand from rising prices is what makes them Giffen Good, gives them the name. So far the only such Goods we’ve identified are the basic carbohydrate stodge in peasant subsistence societies. It’s possible that other things are, even that labour is but we’d need very much more proof of this than Nick Hanauer’s cheerleaders resolutely ignoring absolutely everything everyone tries to tell them.

Seattle’s falling unemployment rate tells us absolutely nothing about the effects of Seattle’s minimum wage rise. After all, national unemployment rates have fallen too but minimum wages haven’t risen across the country.

Seattle's 2.9% Unemployment Rate Tells Us Nothing About The Effects Of Seattle's Minimum Wage Rise

Your argument seems to be that raising the MW kills MW jobs because they aren't MW jobs anymore

No, you moron, raising the MW kills minimum wage jobs because not everyone is worth the MW.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A crappy loan would be a loan that a borrower couldn't or didn't repay.
That would be a defaulted loan. Plenty of crappy loans get repaid.

Then they weren't crappy loans, then. They were risky loans, but clearly the risk was unfounded since the GSE's had delinquency rates far below their private label counterparts...a fact your argument has been unable to reconcile. Also the fact that delinquency rates for GSE loans rose the same time as all other non-subprime loans did, nearly 2 years after the subprime loans entered delinquency, so it was quite obviously the private label subprimes that inflated and popped the bubble. If the GSE's had played a part in it, then they would have seen delinquency rates rise the same time as the subprime rate rose, but they didn't. Therefore, GSE's were not responsible, even partially, for the bubble and collapse. They were swept up in it, just like all other non-subprime mortgages. That is what the data shows.

GSE's may have bought risky loans, but the risk paid off.
The GSEs lost tens of billions on the crappy mortgages they bought. Bizarre definition for "paid off", eh?

No, the mortgages they bought weren't crappy. The mortgages they bought that entered delinquency did so because of the recession caused by the subprime bubble popping mid-2006. The subprime bubble GSE's were not involved with. The GSE-backed loans entered delinquency nearly two years after the subprime bubble popped, when the recession started. That is actually what happened.

You are trying to say GSE-backed loans contributed to the private-label subprime bubble,
Yes, spending over half a trillion (with a T) dollars on subprime mortgages definitely contributed to the subprime bubble.

Again, GSE-backed loans didn't enter delinquency until nearly 2 years after private label subprimes did. That's in the chart I've posted dozens of times that for some reason you feel the need to ignore because it undermines everything you're saying. The bubble was among private-label subprimes, which is why their delinquency rates rose mid-2006 while GSE-backed loans didn't until 2008 because of the recession caused by the subprime bubble popping. The facts ruin the knowingly sophist and false narrative you're trying to construct.

but by their very nature of being GSE-backed loans, they weren't a part of that bubble
You'll have to explain what you mean by the nature of GSE-backed loans.
I expect your explanation to be humorous.

Look at the chart. It answers your stupid question:

See how the private label subprimes start spiking their delinquency rate mid-2006? Now, when in the timeline do the delinquency rates start to rise for GSE's? Be honest now, it's right there, color-coded for you.

That's why they are separated out from private-label subprimes in this chart:
Which line in that chart represents GSE subprimes only?

GSE subprimes are included in the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lines. Again, if their subprimes had been a part of the bubble, you would see movement on the green and purple lines at the same time the blue lines start rising, but you don't. Hence, GSE-backed loans didn't enter delinquency until after the recession started. In fact, as you see in the chart, as the blue lines go up, the purple and green lines actually go down slightly. If what you're saying is true, then those lines would have ticked up when the blue lines ticked up, but they don't. So because they don't, what does that mean? Use your words, now.

No, the mortgages they bought weren't crappy.

They needed a few hundred billion in government funds, because all their mortgages were good.

Nah, it sounds stupid no matter who says it.

Again, GSE-backed loans didn't enter delinquency until nearly 2 years after private label subprimes did.

Yet their $515 billion added to the bubble. Obviously.

Look at the chart.

I did, it doesn't explain what you mean by the nature of GSE-backed loans.

Which line in that chart represents GSE subprimes only?

GSE subprimes are included in the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lines.

Unless you find the GSE subprimes only, your chart doesn't support your claim.
Because added GSE conforming loans to GSE subprimes is a really stupid way to discuss subprimes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, why would the added value not rise if the wage rose?
Why would it? Does a burger flipper make more burgers at $12/hr than at $9/hr? Why?

So you're not factoring the added value of labor into the product? So then why are you all saying that if the MW is raised, it will raise prices? That self-contradictory argument starts your position off on the wrong foot. You say that raising the MW will raise prices (thus, adding value), then you turn right around and make a completely opposite and self-contradicting argument. Were you intending to do that? Added value includes the added value of labor. As you all say, that's what is baked in the price for consumers. Yeesh. I am tired of watching right-wingers use arguments that contradict their other arguments almost unwittingly. Surely this isn't an accident. Surely this is some form of performance art and I'm supposed to be amused or entertained by the cognitive dissonance?

Seems that the added value would increase by $3 if you are increasing the wage by $3.
This is why liberals are so bad at economics.
If an employee adds $3 more value, that extra $3 is available to be divided between employees and owners.

Now you're just making up arbitrary standards that you redefine in order to fit into whatever argument you're attempting to make.

But no, simplistically increasing wages does nothing to increase value added.

A-HA! Then if that's the case, you cannot make the claim that raising wages leads to increased prices! You add the value of the labor into the pricing. So what we have here is a typical Conservative cognitive dissonance argument. On the one hand, you say that raising wages will lead to a raise in prices....then on the other hand, you say that raising wages doesn't add value to the product that labor is producing. See the cognitive dissonance? It's not just this argument where you make that a thing; you do it in virtually every argument you make. When you increase wages, you are adding to the value of the product the labor created. That is the argument you all have been making with regard to raising the MW. You all say that raising the MW raises prices. Well, what is a price increase but an increase in value. So if you are raising prices because you raise wages, you are increasing the value of the product.

Whih is what we want, right? Better-paying jobs?
Of course we want better paying jobs.

Well, you don't seem to want them. You're lamenting the loss of MW jobs because the wage increases. You're arguing for minimum wage jobs, why?

What's your position? That we should keep the minimum wage where it is so there are jobs that pay so low, people become eligible for welfare?
My position is the minimum wage hurts those low-skilled workers who don't produce enough added value to justify hiring them at that wage.

But you said yourself it's the market that sets the wage, and if you are increasing the value of the product by increasing the cost of labor of that product, then the labor that produced the product adds to the product's value. That's what your argument is whether you realize it or not. It's not a judgement on what a worker deserves, it's what the value of the product is after the wage increase. And the value of the product is more because the cost of labor to produce the product is more, according to your theory, right? So how can you say that raising the MW raises prices, but also say that increasing labor wages doesn't increase the value of the product that labor produces?

If you are paying people more, they are spending more.
If they're spending more, that means your business revenues increase.
If I pay my employees $100 more, how much does my revenue increase?

Depends on if the wages for all other labor is increasing as well. Minimum wage increases don't apply to just one business, they apply to all of them.

So while you may be paying labor more, you're also taking in more revenue because that labor is spending their money.
If my revenue increases as much as my costs increase, I'm still less profitable.

Keyword: "IF". If you are a good business owner then you should be able to capitalize on increased demand and expand your business. If you are a shitty business owner, then you don't. Not everyone who owns a business is good at owning a business. Most businesses fail not because of taxes or wages, but because the people running them don't know what they're doing. It is grotesque entitlement to say that you can only own a business if you pay people wages that they cannot live on without getting some kind of income-based benefit from the government.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED RAISING THE MW KILLS JOBS.
Only because it does.

But the employment data from Seattle as well as the 13 states that raised their MW in 2014 prove otherwise. So either the employment figures are wrong, or you are.

When that wild claim was debunked by the unemployment rate for the city of Seattle (as well as the 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014),
Unless that rate was only measuring MW unemployment, it doesn't disprove my claim.

MW unemployment isn't a thing. If someone is unemployed, they're not a MW worker. So how about you use actual figures from the BLS, not ones made up by some Conservative editorial, mmmmkay?

you shifted your argument to claim that raising the MW kills MW jobs.
That's always been my claim in regards to MW hikes. Never shifted my argument.

No, you just said up there:

ME: YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED RAISING THE MW KILLS JOBS.
YOU: Only because it does.​

You tried to wiggle the parameters of what you meant, afterwards in retrospect. Your argument was plainly that raising the MW kills jobs, and the employment data says it doesn't. Is Seattle's unemployment rate lower now than it was in April 2015, when they raised their MW, yes or no?

Now your argument seems to be that we should preserve low-paying jobs because...because...not sure why you think that.
If a $10/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $15/hr?
If a $15/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $25/hr?
If a $25/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $35/hr?

Maybe we should. Maybe we start with raising it to $15 like Seattle did and go from there. Your problem is that you are too dogmatic to even admit that raising the MW helped employment in the 13 states that raised theirs in 2014, and Seattle in 2015.

So you're not factoring the added value of labor into the product?

You're confusing cost of labor with value of labor.
You think paying a burger flipper $12/hr versus $9/hr will magically make the burgers more valuable.
It only makes them more expensive to produce.

MW unemployment isn't a thing.

MW employment is. So how much did it change after the MW hike was announced/implemented?
My source actually tried to find that employment change. You've failed to do the same.

Maybe we start with raising it to $15 like Seattle did and go from there.

Maybe we should. After all, destroying the economy by government edict is a liberal thing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, why would the added value not rise if the wage rose?
Why would it? Does a burger flipper make more burgers at $12/hr than at $9/hr? Why?

So you're not factoring the added value of labor into the product? So then why are you all saying that if the MW is raised, it will raise prices? That self-contradictory argument starts your position off on the wrong foot. You say that raising the MW will raise prices (thus, adding value), then you turn right around and make a completely opposite and self-contradicting argument. Were you intending to do that? Added value includes the added value of labor. As you all say, that's what is baked in the price for consumers. Yeesh. I am tired of watching right-wingers use arguments that contradict their other arguments almost unwittingly. Surely this isn't an accident. Surely this is some form of performance art and I'm supposed to be amused or entertained by the cognitive dissonance?

Seems that the added value would increase by $3 if you are increasing the wage by $3.
This is why liberals are so bad at economics.
If an employee adds $3 more value, that extra $3 is available to be divided between employees and owners.

Now you're just making up arbitrary standards that you redefine in order to fit into whatever argument you're attempting to make.

But no, simplistically increasing wages does nothing to increase value added.

A-HA! Then if that's the case, you cannot make the claim that raising wages leads to increased prices! You add the value of the labor into the pricing. So what we have here is a typical Conservative cognitive dissonance argument. On the one hand, you say that raising wages will lead to a raise in prices....then on the other hand, you say that raising wages doesn't add value to the product that labor is producing. See the cognitive dissonance? It's not just this argument where you make that a thing; you do it in virtually every argument you make. When you increase wages, you are adding to the value of the product the labor created. That is the argument you all have been making with regard to raising the MW. You all say that raising the MW raises prices. Well, what is a price increase but an increase in value. So if you are raising prices because you raise wages, you are increasing the value of the product.

Whih is what we want, right? Better-paying jobs?
Of course we want better paying jobs.

Well, you don't seem to want them. You're lamenting the loss of MW jobs because the wage increases. You're arguing for minimum wage jobs, why?

What's your position? That we should keep the minimum wage where it is so there are jobs that pay so low, people become eligible for welfare?
My position is the minimum wage hurts those low-skilled workers who don't produce enough added value to justify hiring them at that wage.

But you said yourself it's the market that sets the wage, and if you are increasing the value of the product by increasing the cost of labor of that product, then the labor that produced the product adds to the product's value. That's what your argument is whether you realize it or not. It's not a judgement on what a worker deserves, it's what the value of the product is after the wage increase. And the value of the product is more because the cost of labor to produce the product is more, according to your theory, right? So how can you say that raising the MW raises prices, but also say that increasing labor wages doesn't increase the value of the product that labor produces?

If you are paying people more, they are spending more.
If they're spending more, that means your business revenues increase.
If I pay my employees $100 more, how much does my revenue increase?

Depends on if the wages for all other labor is increasing as well. Minimum wage increases don't apply to just one business, they apply to all of them.

So while you may be paying labor more, you're also taking in more revenue because that labor is spending their money.
If my revenue increases as much as my costs increase, I'm still less profitable.

Keyword: "IF". If you are a good business owner then you should be able to capitalize on increased demand and expand your business. If you are a shitty business owner, then you don't. Not everyone who owns a business is good at owning a business. Most businesses fail not because of taxes or wages, but because the people running them don't know what they're doing. It is grotesque entitlement to say that you can only own a business if you pay people wages that they cannot live on without getting some kind of income-based benefit from the government.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED RAISING THE MW KILLS JOBS.
Only because it does.

But the employment data from Seattle as well as the 13 states that raised their MW in 2014 prove otherwise. So either the employment figures are wrong, or you are.

When that wild claim was debunked by the unemployment rate for the city of Seattle (as well as the 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014),
Unless that rate was only measuring MW unemployment, it doesn't disprove my claim.

MW unemployment isn't a thing. If someone is unemployed, they're not a MW worker. So how about you use actual figures from the BLS, not ones made up by some Conservative editorial, mmmmkay?

you shifted your argument to claim that raising the MW kills MW jobs.
That's always been my claim in regards to MW hikes. Never shifted my argument.

No, you just said up there:

ME: YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED RAISING THE MW KILLS JOBS.
YOU: Only because it does.​

You tried to wiggle the parameters of what you meant, afterwards in retrospect. Your argument was plainly that raising the MW kills jobs, and the employment data says it doesn't. Is Seattle's unemployment rate lower now than it was in April 2015, when they raised their MW, yes or no?

Now your argument seems to be that we should preserve low-paying jobs because...because...not sure why you think that.
If a $10/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $15/hr?
If a $15/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $25/hr?
If a $25/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $35/hr?

Maybe we should. Maybe we start with raising it to $15 like Seattle did and go from there. Your problem is that you are too dogmatic to even admit that raising the MW helped employment in the 13 states that raised theirs in 2014, and Seattle in 2015.

But no, simplistically increasing wages does nothing to increase value added.

A-HA! Then if that's the case, you cannot make the claim that raising wages leads to increased prices!

You've discovered that just because the cost of your inputs rose, you can't automatically raise your prices.
Congrats!
Now that you know that, what happens to newly unprofitable businesses?
Is it okay that you've eliminated all their jobs? Because that's what you're pushing for.

On the one hand, you say that raising wages will lead to a raise in prices

In some cases, for some goods. In other cases, not at all.

then on the other hand, you say that raising wages doesn't add value to the product that labor is producing.

You clearly have no clue what value added even means. I'm embarrassed for you.

What you need to do is take the cost of all your inputs.
I'll give you a hypothetical, so you can whine some more.

If your widget, that's a hypothetical product, takes $1 of raw materials, $1 of labor and $1 of capital investment and you can sell it for $5, you have $2 of value added.

Now, in idiot liberal world, that's you, the government raises the cost of your labor to $2 and an idiot liberal, still you, thinks that that means the $5 widget is suddenly worth $6.
An idiot liberal, you again, thinks that revenue will automatically rise because minimum wage workers will magically increase their purchases of your widget.
An idiot liberal, you again, thinks that if purchases of your widget increase as much as your labor costs increased, that your profitability will remain the same....or even increase.

 

[The Derp]

So your response to me pointing out that you weren't using recent numbers is to write a non-sequitur.
Sorry, too much cut and pasting.
Derp---Were they priced out, or did they just get better paying jobs?
Todd---Employees who aren't worth the higher rate get priced out.

So who are the people getting "priced out"? The declining unemployment rate in Seattle would seem to indicate the opposite. If all these MW workers were "priced out", then surely that would be reflected in a rising unemployment rate, correct? So your argument seems to be that raising the MW leads to better paying jobs for everyone.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So your response to me pointing out that you weren't using recent numbers is to write a non-sequitur.
Sorry, too much cut and pasting.
Derp---Were they priced out, or did they just get better paying jobs?
Todd---Employees who aren't worth the higher rate get priced out.

So who are the people getting "priced out"? The declining unemployment rate in Seattle would seem to indicate the opposite. If all these MW workers were "priced out", then surely that would be reflected in a rising unemployment rate, correct? So your argument seems to be that raising the MW leads to better paying jobs for everyone.

So who are the people getting "priced out"?

People who were worth the old rate but aren't worth the new rate.

If all these MW workers were "priced out", then surely that would be reflected in a rising unemployment rate, correct?

You'd have to look at MW employment at the old rate and MW employment after the new rate was announced/implemented. Correct?

So your argument seems to be that raising the MW leads to better paying jobs for everyone.

My argument seems to be that raising the MW leads to some people losing their jobs or never getting hired.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So your response to me pointing out that you weren't using recent numbers is to write a non-sequitur.
Sorry, too much cut and pasting.
Derp---Were they priced out, or did they just get better paying jobs?
Todd---Employees who aren't worth the higher rate get priced out.

So who are the people getting "priced out"? The declining unemployment rate in Seattle would seem to indicate the opposite. If all these MW workers were "priced out", then surely that would be reflected in a rising unemployment rate, correct? So your argument seems to be that raising the MW leads to better paying jobs for everyone.

Seattle is far from a scientific experiment with one variable held constant but we do know it's pure madness to claim minimum wages don't matter when robots are taking jobs every day, Walmart is struggling for survival against Amazon everyday, 20 million jobs already went to China because of lower wages, the basic law of supply and demand says when you raise price demand falls, and when a minimum wages makes it illegal to hire anyone not worth the minimum wage .

 

[Markle]

No he didn't. Right-wingers are desperate to rewrite history in order for their failed policies to have credibility. No, FDR didn't extend the Great Depression, and you cannot explain how he did. You just say things that you expect people to accept as fact, but they're not. I am challenging your claim on this. I doubt you could support it using your own words.

I can, but why waste my time? Besides, this provides the sources and links.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg Sullivan August 10, 2004

Category: Research

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.


After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.


"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."


In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.


"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."


Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.


In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.


Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.


"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."


The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.


Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.


Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.


"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"


NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.


"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."


Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.


The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936.


The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935.


As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate.


Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.


Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.


"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."


-UCLA-

LSMS368


Read more: FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

 

[Markle]

Bubbles don't happen "just because".
They do. Human nature....positive feedbacks....look at history.

Yes, look at history. The dotcom bubble, for example, was caused by the cut to Capital Gains Taxes in 1997.

The mortgage bubble was caused by the tax cuts, and deregulation of the mortgage lending industry.

Bush wasn't inflating a bubble to put people in homes
But putting all those people into homes inflated the bubble.

No! Again, if you had watched The Big Short, you would have known that wasn't the case at all! It wasn't putting people into homes, it was about getting people to buy as many homes as they could, sometimes multiple homes. Loan performance for GSE-backed loans (aka "poor people loans") was the same and/or better than loan performance prior to the bubble as the below chart shows:

The surplus was erased
Yeah, I miss the Internet Bubble too.

Surplus wasn't caused by the Internet Bubble, it was caused by increased taxation and an economy that had been growing throughout the 90's.

Until Obama. His record deficits made Bush look like a skinflint.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It was Bush who set a record of four all-time-high deficits in his 8 years. None of Obama's deficits were larger than Bush's last deficit. Bush also set four record deficits during his term; 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009. The deficits for each of those years was an all-time high. So just like what happened in Kansas, Conservatives cut taxes, erased a surplus, produced record deficits, and didn't result in growth.

You've lost all these same bogus points dozens of times. Loser!