Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Congrats your experiences are wholly related to the entirety of the nation and under all circumstances and can be reproduced time and time again. Also hikes that were during the boom years did not, obviously, result in massive unemployment.
I found it hard to find any facts in your posting or any answers to questions asked to you.. Just avoidance.. I wonder why?
Because you run into the fact that we have globalization (blue collar jobs are sent to nations where they can pay less). You do know that, right? I asked why employers in this country hire Higher-skilled workers over low-skilled even though they know they must pay them more? This country implies we are not talking about globalization.
Are you serious? You didn't know that poor people spend a higher percentage of income on consumer products? I never said they didn't spend more. I said spending money does not create wealth. Saving and producing does.
Okay, let me break it slowly. Rich people will use extra income for financial services. They won't spend on consumer goods. Wealthy people don't buy consumer goods? They spend all extra money on financial services. LOLs.
However, we know that the poor will spend more on consumer goods. During the Bush tax refund, the poor contributed to more to the rise of consumer spending that the extremely rich. The poor contribute more to consumer spending than the extremley rich? LOLs.
This is the main reason why the CBO states that unemployment benefits are the most efficient means to help stimulate the economy. Help consumer spending. If this were the case we could just cut everyone a check and not worry about unemployment at all. Unemployment could be 100% and it wouldn't matter. We could just give moeny and tell them to spend it on consumer goods.
There are more poor people than extremely wealthy people. Such a large market helps bolster consumer confidence. I take it that you don't know demography too well or read journals like The Economist or any peer reviewed articles. I have a degree in demography. Demography concerns itself with birth rates, migration rates and death rates. It has nothing to do with how people spend money.
Not to mention a wage gap is not a good thing. We have the biggest disparity between rich and poor in the entire western world. That's not good for our future. We can't have an economic apartheid state. Look at centrally planned economies like Cuba, N. Korea, the former Soviet Union and it becomes obvious that the quickest way to a wage gap is government interference in the economy. Sort of like minimum wage laws. And how does Bill Gates having billions affect you negatively? It doesn't and you know it.
Most professors disagree with you. Most professors? LOLs. Kinda lame, dontcha think?
Not to mention you've not addressed the flaws in your message. So once again, how exactly is a min. wage bad? You need to reread my post. There are no flaws. Some people are legally allowed to work for less than min wage. Some are not. Then answer the flaws in your message. Min wage destroys entry level jobs for certain people. This creates a high income gap, dontcha think?
Currie and Fallick (1993), Gallasch (1975), Gardner (1981), Peterson (1957), Peterson and Stewart (1969).
The minimum wage reduces employment more among teenagers than adults.Adie (1973); Brown, Gilroy and Kohen (1981a, 1981b); Fleisher (1981); Hammermesh (1982); Meyer and Wise (1981, 1983a); Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981); Neumark and Wascher (1992); Ragan (1977); Vandenbrink (1987); Welch (1974, 1978); Welch and Cunningham (1978).
The minimum wage reduces employment most among black teenage males.
Al-Salam, Quester, and Welch (1981), Iden (1980), Mincer (1976), Moore (1971), Ragan (1977), Williams (1977a, 1977b).
The minimum wage helped South African whites at the expense of blacks.
Bauer (1959).
The minimum wage hurts blacks generally.
Behrman, Sickles and Taubman (1983); Linneman (1982).
The minimum wage hurts the unskilled.
Krumm (1981).
The minimum wage hurts low wage workers.
Brozen (1962), Cox and Oaxaca (1986), Gordon (1981).
The minimum wage hurts low wage workers particularly during cyclical downturns.
Kosters and Welch (1972), Welch (1974).
The minimum wage increases job turnover.
Hall (1982).
The minimum wage reduces average earnings of young workers.
Meyer and Wise (1983b).
The minimum wage drives workers into uncovered jobs, thus lowering wages in those sectors.
Brozen (1962), Tauchen (1981), Welch (1974).
The minimum wage reduces employment in low-wage industries, such as retailing.
Cotterman (1981), Douty (1960), Fleisher (1981), Hammermesh (1981), Peterson (1981).
The minimum wage hurts small businesses generally.
Kaun (1965).
The minimum wage causes employers to cut back on training.
Hashimoto (1981, 1982), Leighton and Mincer (1981), Ragan (1981).
The minimum wage has long-term effects on skills and lifetime earnings.
Brozen (1969), Feldstein (1973).
The minimum wage leads employers to cut back on fringe benefits.
McKenzie (1980), Wessels (1980).
The minimum wage encourages employers to install labor-saving devices.
Trapani and Moroney (1981).
The minimum wage hurts low-wage regions, such as the South and rural areas.
Colberg (1960, 1981), Krumm (1981).
The minimum wage increases the number of people on welfare.
Brandon (1995), Leffler (1978).
The minimum wage hurts the poor generally.
Stigler (1946).
The minimum wage does little to reduce poverty.
Bonilla (1992), Brown (1988), Johnson and Browning (1983), Kohen and Gilroy (1981), Parsons (1980), Smith and Vavrichek (1987).
The minimum wage helps upper income families.
Bell (1981), Datcher and Loury (1981), Johnson and Browning (1981), Kohen and Gilroy (1981).
The minimum wage helps unions.
Linneman (1982), Cox and Oaxaca (1982).
The minimum wage lowers the capital stock.
McCulloch (1981).
The minimum wage encourages employers to hire illegal aliens.
Beranek (1982).
Few workers are permanently stuck at the minimum wage.
Brozen (1969), Smith and Vavrichek (1992).
The minimum wage has had a massive impact on unemployment in Puerto Rico.
Freeman and Freeman (1991), Rottenberg (1981b).
The minimum wage has reduced employment in foreign countries.
Canada: Forrest (1982); Chile: Corbo (1981); Costa Rica: Gregory (1981); France: Rosa (1981).
Characteristics of minimum wage workers
Employment Policies Institute (1994), Haugen and Mellor (1990), Kniesner (1981), Mellor (1987), Mellor and Haugen (1986), Smith and Vavrichek (1987), Van Giezen (1994).
Nice long list, no links??? Anything more recent?
Casper
Sure more money is always fine and that is why many of us have applied ourseleves, to make more money. That said there should be a minimum thatan employer can pay their workers and again we get back to their past actions as the reason there is one. I am sure many businesses would be fair in their treatment of their workers, the problem is there are plenty that would not, why do you think some companies off-shore jobs, they pay slave labor wages ten seel those products at their normal rate to those they laid off, something that should be stopped, produced overseas, pay the import taxes, end of that problem. You trust big business to do the right thing if you wish, I will keep my eyes open.
Casper
Slavery is involuntary and is not a paid position. Off shoring a job is voluntary and pays. There is no such thing as slave wages. It cannot, by definition, exist.
Let alone the fact that common sense would indicate that if a company has a payroll of $1M, and you increase the wages, then obviously you either need to increase costs, or lay off employees. In the growing world economy, its increasingly difficult to increase costs to compete, which only leaves laying off employees..
Why is this so difficult for so many to understand?
Of the millions dollars worth of payroll how many are minimum wage earners? You cannot keep including all workers only the small number of minimum wage earners as if everyone would get the increase, so your math is then based on false data.
The link is to an OP'ed and you might want to read the last paragraph. You are talking about teens working and what the institute forgot to take in all the factors plus they never once show the connection between minimum wage and unemployment. Try again.
Casper
Slavery is involuntary and is not a paid position. When no employer will pay more than the very minimum people have to take what they can get. What is so hard for you understand in that fact.Off shoring a job is voluntary and pays. Sure it does, it pays for the company, not you or me. A product that is off-shored does not reduce in price for those buying the product it only adds to the businesses profit margins. Voluntary on their part but not the workers out of a job.There is no such thing as slave wages. It cannot, by definition, exist.Wow! Playing games now are we, you know darn well what the term means whether or not you want to admit it or not does not change the fact that they can and do exist and would be even more common were there not a minimum wage in place.
Of the millions dollars worth of payroll how many are minimum wage earners?
Very few, which emphasises the fact that people wouldnt work for slave wages. By your own statement you disputed your own previous claims..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas
You cannot keep including all workers only the small number of minimum wage earners as if everyone would get the increase, so your math is then based on false data.
Ahh no.. Because ALL employees come from a payroll budget.. If person A is having their pay increased because they were working for minimum wage which increases, then this gets offsets fom person B who wont get their customary increase yearly.. Every reaction has a reaction.. Payroll budgets are no exception..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas
The link is to an OP'ed and you might want to read the last paragraph. You are talking about teens working and what the institute forgot to take in all the factors plus they never once show the connection between minimum wage and unemployment. Try again.
Casper
Payroll again, regardless of teens or non teens all come from the same budgets. You dont get to pretend the paycheck of teens have less of an impact on the companies because the checks are being written to a teen vs an adult. In addition, are you telling me that teens having a harder time finding employment because minimum wages have increased have no impact and are meaningless? Looks like you are the one who needs to try again...
When no employer will pay more than the very minimum people have to take what they can get. What is so hard for you understand in that fact.
Because employers will pay more than minimum wage.. You pretend they dont and then try to argue that people are working for slave wages when they arent.. If we had a high percentage of individuals working for minimum wage, you'd have a point.. but clearly you dont since we dont..
By raising the minimum wage, the government doesn’t guarantee jobs. It guarantees only that those who get jobs will be paid at least that minimum. But precisely by requiring this, the government destroys jobs. Someone whom an employer was willing to pay only the oldt minimum wage of $5.15 might not produce enough to be worth paying, say, $7.25.
reprinted with permission from
David R. Henderson
Yep. I worked at a city pool as a lifeguard in high school. There were 5 employees making min wage that sold concessions and worked the front desk. The minimum wage went up. 3 of those jobs were eliminated. They got snack machines for concessions and kept 2 on for the front desk. This also made the pool less safe as you had less adults to monitor the kids during breaks.
One example of literally thousands where the min. wage hurt teenagers. Also hurts future teens as it denies them the opportunity to work and learn valuable job skills.
I reiterate you COULD have done those things. Poor people CAN'T do those things. If your car died you have more options than most. I promise you that your car is probably better than somebody who has only been making min. wage.
The point is COMPLETELY invalid. You were never poor. Accept it and move on. You had WAY more options. So yes, you worked a min wage job for a period of time...yet you had move wealth than people have worked min wage jobs their entire working career.
I find it odd you don't understand that your circumstance was never comparable to somebody who is truly poor.
My argument is simply you had more options than poor people, thus you can't really state you've been through the same thing. Your argument is despite having all those advantages you've lived well and prospered on min. wage, thus anyone can. Which is without logic? The one that states that you had more wealth and a better prospects or the one that doesn't figure those things into the equation when comparing themselves to the poor.
you keep stating a person who is truly poor? explain
I truly feel I was poor at one time and luckily I live in America where if one wants to make money all one needs to do is work hard and reap the rewards of capitalism
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
