should minimum wage be mandated?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Dont be silly. Of course there was. Not the overall rate, just the rate for those most affected by min wage.
This is a settled issue. I dont know why you want to debate it when there is academic study on it.

Have you provided a link to this study?

 

[The Rabbi]

Dont be silly. Of course there was. Not the overall rate, just the rate for those most affected by min wage.
This is a settled issue. I dont know why you want to debate it when there is academic study on it.

Have you provided a link to this study?

I've provided three different links in this thread.

 

[Care4all]

Raise the Minimum Wage in Pennsylvania | The Keystone Reseach Center

Good economics, part two. A higher minimum wage can also help stimulate improvements in productivity and quality, the foundation for better living standards. A higher minimum wage forces the lowest-wage employers to focus on approaches more creative than profiting at the expense of their workers. Retail customers may get served more quickly because inexperienced workers are not fumbling over the cash register. Recipients of elder care may find that the aides who helps dress or bathe them today is the same person it was last month.

While small business will resist an increase in the minimum wage, the best small firms know that a higher minimum is not anti-competitive; it just shifts the basis of competition toward improving productivity and quality.

Lessons from the past. Although the idea now seems almost quaint, Americans and Pennsylvanians used to subscribe to the idea that low-wage workers should share in the benefits of an expanding economic pie. From 1947 to 1968, minimum-wage workers saw their inflation-adjusted annual income rise 150 percent even while unemployment remained low. If we had not departed from the principle that low-income workers should share in the benefits of higher overall living standards, the minimum wage would now be around $11 per hour.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're quoting this POS, why?

It is total tripe.

 

[Polk]

You claimed that the increase in unemployment was due to the minimum wage increase, for which you provided no evidence. The recession is what is driving unemployment rates upward.

No, that isn't what I claimed. No wonder your arguments suck--you can't read or write.
I wrote that the rate of unemployment among black teens, the ones most likely to work min wage jobs, went from around 30+% to over 50%.

And you claimed that it was due to unemployment. "Have you not been reading the papers? Do you not see the unemployment rate among black teenagers? Of course it results in higher unemployment. It already has!"

So fight with your own words.

Do you want to attribute that to the recession? But remember, correlation doesn't equal causation, right?

So economic downturns don't cause layoffs? That's really going to be your new argument?

 

[Care4all]

Economists want minimum wage raised - Stocks & economy

MSN Tracking Image
MSNBC.com

Economists want minimum wage raised
5 Nobel winners, others: Phased-in increase to $7.25 would help economy
The Associated Press
updated 6:42 p.m. ET, Wed., Oct . 11, 2006

NEW YORK - More than 650 economists, including five winners of the Nobel Prize for economics, called Wednesday for an increase in the minimum wage, saying the value of the last increase, in 1997, has been “fully eroded.”

Economists including Nobel prize winners Kenneth Arrow of Stanford University, Lawrence Klein of the University of Pennsylvania, Robert Solow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Joseph Stiglitz at Columbia University and Clive Granger of the University of California, San Diego said in a statement released Wednesday that the real value of today’s federal minimum wage is less than it has been at any time since 1951.

Federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have set their minimum wages above the federal level.

“We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have claimed,” the economists wrote.

Critics of a minimum wage hike have contended a higher minimum wage lead employers to cut jobs or move them offshore. They also say that many minimum wage earners are teenagers working after-school jobs.

The economists disagreed, writing that a phased-in increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 “falls well within the range of options where the benefits to the labor market, workers, and the overall economy would be positive.”

The economists wrote that they share the view of a 1999 Council of Economic Advisors Economic report that found “the weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect on employment.”

The economists wrote, “While controversy about the precise employment effects of the minimum wage continues, research has shown that most of the beneficiaries are adults, most are female, and the vast majority are members of low-income working families.”

The economists spoke on a conference call hosted by the Economic Policy Institute, an economic research group based in Washington, D.C.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: Economists want minimum wage raised - Stocks & economy- msnbc.com

MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2009 MSNBC.com

spare me Rab, with your ;;anyone who knows anything about economics crapola!

 

[Care4all]

PLEASE NOTE!

February 15, 1995
50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage
Introduction

For many years it has been a matter of conventional wisdom among economists that the minimum wage causes fewer jobs to exist than would be the case without it. This is simply a matter of price theory, taught in every economics textbook, requiring no elaborate analysis to justify. Were this not the case, there would be no logical reason why the minimum wage could not be set at $10, $100, or $1 million per hour.

Historically, defenders of the minimum wage have not disputed the disemployment effects of the minimum wage, but argued that on balance the working poor were better off. In other words, the higher incomes of those with jobs offset the lower incomes of those without jobs, as a result of the minimum wage [See, for example, Levitan and Belous, (1979)].

Now, the Clinton Administration is advancing the novel economic theory that modest increases in the minimum wage will have no impact whatsoever on employment. This proposition is based entirely on the work of three economists: David Card and Alan Krueger of Princeton, and Lawrence Katz of Harvard. Their studies of increases in the minimum wage in California, Texas and New Jersey apparently found no loss of jobs among fast food restaurants that were surveyed before and after the increase [See Card (1992b), Card and Krueger (1994), and Katz and Krueger (1992)].

While it is not yet clear why Card, Katz and Krueger got the results that they did, it is clear that their findings are directly contrary to virtually every empirical study ever done on the minimum wage. These studies were exhaustively surveyed by the Minimum Wage Study Commission, which concluded that a 10% increase in the minimum wage reduced teenage employment by 1% to 3%.

The following survey of the academic research on the minimum wage is designed to give nonspecialists a sense of just how isolated the Card, Krueger and Katz studies are. It will also indicate that the minimum wage has wide-ranging negative effects that go beyond unemployment. For example, higher minimum wages encourage employers to cut back on training, thus depriving low wage workers of an important means of long-term advancement, in return for a small increase in current income. For many workers this is a very bad trade-off, but one for which the law provides no alternative.

50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage

 

[manifold]

Did I just see Ribeye claim that government spending doesn't stimulate the economy?

And this guy tries to pass himself off as some kind of economics scholar?


Even the most extreme supply-side, free market economists acknowledge that government spending stimulates the economy. Their argument against it is that they believe lowering taxes creates private sector investment that has a larger and more sustainable stimulus.

Seriously, don't believe anything this assclown says. Put him in the Agna/Pukenema/KK bucket where he obviously belongs.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Did I just see Ribeye claim that government spending doesn't stimulate the economy?

And this guy tries to pass himself off as some kind of economics scholar?


Even the most extreme supply-side, free market economists acknowledge that government spending stimulates the economy. Their argument against it is that they believe lowering taxes creates private sector investment that has a larger and more sustainable stimulus.

Seriously, don't believe anything this assclown says. Put him in the Agna/Pukenema/KK bucket where he obviously belongs.

Government spending does not stimulate the economy. And no the most "extreme" free market economists do not acknowledge this in the least.

Economics in One Lesson
Bastiat: Selected Essays, Chapter 1, What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen | Library of Economics and Liberty

 

[manifold]

I don't need your stupid link that I wouldn't trust anyhow. I studied this shit for several years.

Government spending ABSOLUTELY stimulates the economy. The many (valid) arguments against government stimulus spending have NOTHING to do with it not stimulating, at least in the short run.

Man you people are fucking ignorant. And I mean that in the true sense of the word.

 

[auditor0007]

Did I just see Ribeye claim that government spending doesn't stimulate the economy?

And this guy tries to pass himself off as some kind of economics scholar?


Even the most extreme supply-side, free market economists acknowledge that government spending stimulates the economy. Their argument against it is that they believe lowering taxes creates private sector investment that has a larger and more sustainable stimulus.

Seriously, don't believe anything this assclown says. Put him in the Agna/Pukenema/KK bucket where he obviously belongs.

Government spending does not stimulate the economy. And no the most "extreme" free market economists do not acknowledge this in the least.

Economics in One Lesson
Bastiat: Selected Essays, Chapter 1, What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen | Library of Economics and Liberty

Well, it seems to have had a very positive effect in Australia. But those are only facts.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/9/43707206.pdf

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't need your stupid link that I wouldn't trust anyhow. I studied this shit for several years.

Government spending ABSOLUTELY stimulates the economy. The many (valid) arguments against government stimulus spending have NOTHING to do with it not stimulating, at least in the short run.

Man you people are fucking ignorant. And I mean that in the true sense of the word.

The private sector is where wealth is created. So how does taking wealth out of the private sector and spreading it around stimulate the economy? That's Keynesian nonsense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Did I just see Ribeye claim that government spending doesn't stimulate the economy?

And this guy tries to pass himself off as some kind of economics scholar?


Even the most extreme supply-side, free market economists acknowledge that government spending stimulates the economy. Their argument against it is that they believe lowering taxes creates private sector investment that has a larger and more sustainable stimulus.

Seriously, don't believe anything this assclown says. Put him in the Agna/Pukenema/KK bucket where he obviously belongs.

Government spending does not stimulate the economy. And no the most "extreme" free market economists do not acknowledge this in the least.

Economics in One Lesson
Bastiat: Selected Essays, Chapter 1, What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen | Library of Economics and Liberty

Well, it seems to have had a very positive effect in Australia. But those are only facts.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/9/43707206.pdf

I'm not familiar enough with Australia's situation, though I can say no recovery is because of the government "stimulating" the economy. It clearly is not working here in the U.S. and it clearly did not work in Japan during the "Lost Decade."

 

[Polk]

Government spending does not stimulate the economy. And no the most "extreme" free market economists do not acknowledge this in the least.

Economics in One Lesson
Bastiat: Selected Essays, Chapter 1, What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen | Library of Economics and Liberty

Well, it seems to have had a very positive effect in Australia. But those are only facts.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/9/43707206.pdf

I'm not familiar enough with Australia's situation, though I can say no recovery is because of the government "stimulating" the economy. It clearly is not working here in the U.S. and it clearly did not work in Japan during the "Lost Decade."

It didn't work in Japan because they had enough paranoid idiots that anytime the train got moving, paranoia about inflation fired up and they slashed spending against, smothering recovery in the crib.

 

[manifold]

Yes, I know that wealth is only created in the private sector. Do you not understand that government spending finds it's way into the private sector where it can be used to create wealth? I agree that the Keynsian model is neither efficient nor sustainable long-term, but to deny that government spending stimulates the economy is, like I said, wholly ignorant.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, it seems to have had a very positive effect in Australia. But those are only facts.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/9/43707206.pdf

I'm not familiar enough with Australia's situation, though I can say no recovery is because of the government "stimulating" the economy. It clearly is not working here in the U.S. and it clearly did not work in Japan during the "Lost Decade."

It didn't work in Japan because they had enough paranoid idiots that anytime the train got moving, paranoia about inflation fired up and they slashed spending against, smothering recovery in the crib.

Yeah, if only they had spent more! Then any recovery could have been delayed another 10 years.

 

[Polk]

I'm not familiar enough with Australia's situation, though I can say no recovery is because of the government "stimulating" the economy. It clearly is not working here in the U.S. and it clearly did not work in Japan during the "Lost Decade."

It didn't work in Japan because they had enough paranoid idiots that anytime the train got moving, paranoia about inflation fired up and they slashed spending against, smothering recovery in the crib.

Yeah, if only they had spent more! Then any recovery could have been delayed another 10 years.

If they had stuck with it the first time, they would have rebounded much more quickly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, I know that wealth is only created in the private sector. Do you not understand that government spending finds it's way into the private sector where it can be used to create wealth? I agree that the Keynsian model is neither efficient nor sustainable long-term, but to deny that government spending stimulates the economy is, like I said, wholly ignorant.

It finds its way to the private sector via the government, which does not efficiently allocate resources. Only the market can efficiently allocate resources, and the government doing so is doomed to failure. If you'd bother to read Hazlitt or Bastiat you would understand why this doesn't stimulate the economy. But as Bastiat said, "Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference--the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen and also of those which it is necessary to foresee."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It didn't work in Japan because they had enough paranoid idiots that anytime the train got moving, paranoia about inflation fired up and they slashed spending against, smothering recovery in the crib.

Yeah, if only they had spent more! Then any recovery could have been delayed another 10 years.

If they had stuck with it the first time, they would have rebounded much more quickly.

The fact that when the government "stimulates" the downturns last longer have been proven over and over. The Great Depression, Japan's "Lost Decade," and our current recession are perfect examples. It was not for a lack of spending that they lasted so long, that's ridiculous.

 

[manifold]

Yeah, and if Diuretic's pet butterfly flaps it's wings in Australia my balls itch.