Rule001, you have shown nothing of substance in this forum for the past few weeks, other than popping up every now and then for the occasional (invariably stupid) "troll & run" comment, that apparently were partly in jest. Why you think anybody should take you seriously after that is beyond me. Anyway, the real world effects of minimum wage have been discussed extensively in the past on this board, and suffice it to say it's not as simple as you might think. If you would, in fact "love to hear" about it, I invite you to use the search function and discover why. Until then you lose at the internet, again.
Man, that's all a reasonable person could ask for, a chance. Thanks, and I hope my party's leadership doesn't let you or me down. Keep D&D Civil.
Nice. Yeah, it is awesome. The other night it was very cool to see the presidential seal on the podium and then have the President and First Lady come into the arena. Kind of gives you chills knowing that the most powerful man in the world is in front of you. I'd have felt that way even if it was President Clinton. No matter which party, it is an amazing office and just cool to see the president in person. Back to the topic, at the end of the day I think the United States is the best nation in the world and love to see us doing well. There are differing views on which party each of us think does the best job representing us, but in the end, I think we all want the country to do well and that is what matters the most. The great thing is there are elections and the Republicans will have another chance in 2008 to win the election and take back power. The Democrats have the majority now and being bitter over it won't help anything.
When have I said anything about troll and run? I haven't even talked about the war. I care about the economy. I will go read about past discussions, but have never heard a reputable economist preach in favor of minimum wage.
Because the economy is far more complex than simply higher wage = higher cost. The higher income from the poor also increases the size of the potential market and helps spur the demand side of the economy. To copy something I posted earlier: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts [/i] There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase. A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates). Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment. New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale. A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses. [/i]
I guess I just refuse to believe those studies, mainly because they were done by the EPI. The EPI's board is made up of mostly labor union officials...acording to wikipedia . Your'e taking sources from the left, I'm taking sources from the right. The answer is probably somewhere in between. Your'e entitled to your'e opinion and that's fine. As for me, I will always be agaisnt any goverment regulation on a business's hiring practices. And I'm entitled to my opinion.
Fair enough - but keep in mind the people that argue your side consistently use theory. The ones that argue mine use actual data. An important distinction in that theories are just that - what people believe will happen. Do you know of any studies that show yor view in actual data? Here's another on the lack of negative impact. http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/press_060331.stm Small business and retail job growth faster in states with minimum wages above the $5.15 federal level New York (March 30, 2006) -- As more and more states act to raise their minimum wage, a new report from the Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) shows that the diverse set of states with minimum wages above the federal $5.15 level have had faster job growth among small businesses and in the retail trade sector than states where the lower federal minimum prevailed. The federal minimum wage was last raised in September of 1997, and a few months from now, this will be the longest span without an increase in the wage floor since the establishment of a federal minimum wage in 1938. Since 1997, 19 states and the District of Columbia have raised their own minimum wage levels above the federal $5.15 hourly wage. Michigan joined this group of states two days ago when Governor Granholm signed into law a three-step increase that will raise Michigan's minimum to $7.40 by July 2007. Opponents of an increase in the minimum wage have long argued that because many small businesses are labor intensive and largely employ low-wage workers, such businesses will experience sharp cost increases in the wake of a minimum wage increase, with the result that they will reduce employment levels. To test this claim, FPI compared small business job growth and economic performance between the higher minimum wage states and the remainder of states from 1998 to 2003, the latest year that an analysis for small business is possible. FPI's results consistently contradicted the standard argument of minimum wage opponents. In fact, small businesses in the higher minimum wage states as a group had faster job growth (6.7%) than for the other 40 states combined (5.3%). The higher minimum wage states also saw a greater gain in the number of small businesses, and greater growth in total payrolls and average pay per worker for small employers.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1176.cfm Here's an article that cites "studies", but the numbers are really unimportant. The market will always be going through corrections and just because a study finds employment increasing for the short term, doesn't mean it should be accepted as fact. Can you guarantee me that employment growth at an increasing wage will occur 10 years from now? Job supply is much more elastic in the long run, and as time passes more substitutes for labor will become available and jobs will be lost. I'll admit I'm very pro business so I will be biased. But in my heart I really do believe minimum wage hurts people in the long run more than it helps. But people can always believe what they want.
It’s great to hear sentiments like the ones expressed by the first few Republicans in this thread. With the steady stream of, um, much less noble posting that comes from basso and bigtexxx and their ilk it’s sometimes easy to start thinking that they represent the typical Repubican. On the minimum wage question, in addition to the good posts that have already been made I would add that there are quite a few right wing economists who, unfortunately, deal simply in an idealized theory of the world that denies human nature and social realities. It’s like the flip side of ideal communism, nice in theory but because it denies human nature it’s not a realistic theory. Here’s the second paragraph from that first link as an example of this same kind of thinking but this time from an economist. The economic case against minimum wage laws is simple. Employers pay a wage no higher than the value of an additional hour's work. Raising minimum wages forces employers to dismiss low productivity workers. This policy has the largest affect on those with the least education, job experience, and maturity. Consequently, we should expect minimum wage laws to affect teenagers and those with less education. Eliminating minimum wage laws would reduce unemployment and improve the efficiency of markets for low productivity labor. http://www.mises.org/story/2130 The implication, although not explicitly stated here, is that employers will pay employees the value of their work. This is, of course, naive in the extreme. Unfortunately many employers pay their employees not what they are worth but as little as they can get away with paying them. This, unfortunately, is human nature and it’s the people with the least education, job experience and maturity that are most vulnerable to being taken advantage of like this. I would bet that Rule0001, or even the economists from this naive brand of economics, would have trouble listing very many actual jobs that would be lost if minimum wage was increased because, again, their theory ignores the real world and the realities of human nature. The living wage issue is also critical and largely ignored by these theorists. If someone can’t earn a living wage, or even close to it, by working full time, how are they going to live? How are they going to be able to better themselves and care for their families? People have a strong will to survive. That’s that human nature thing kicking in again, and if the can’t do it legally they will do it illegally, and that has a very real cost to society. If you illegitimize your society by not giving a certain class of people a fair chance to survive and live decent lives then they will not view your laws and norms as just, (and they’d be right for the most part), and they will become a counter culture group that will work against the main stream society and cost it much more money in the end. These are the kinds of real world issues that deal the fatal blow to the naive theories these economists espouse. So while it’s fine and dandy to say, “each will produce according to his or her ability, and each will take according to his or her need,” as the ideal Marxists do, or “employers will always pay workers what they are worth,” as this group of naive economists do, neither of these viewpoints represent real world thinking or problem solving. The bottom line is that you cannot separate economic theory from social theory and the realities of human nature, unless you are dealing with some kind of economics that doesn’t involve humans. If you are dealing with issues that involve human values and decision making, however, then any analysis that ignores human nature will be fatally flawed.
Nice to hear your thoughts Rocket Fan, and other Republicans here. A lot of the posts in this thread sound reasonable, and even civil of all things.
In a market economy, you ARE worth what people is willing to pay you. If you think you are worth 100k a year, but the most anyone will pay is 80k, then guess what, you are worth 80k, not 100k. labor resources are part of overall cost structure, capital will flow to where ever the cost of resources is lowest.
As a side note, I was watching Hannity and Colmes last night Hannity said that the 2006 midterms were a defeat for Republicans but NOT a defeat for conservatives. Dellusional, but interesting. Hannity said that if Republicans had done more on reducing gov. size, illegal immigration, bashing gays, etc., ie stick to their conservative roots, they would have never lost. Hannity glosses over the Bush WH incompetence wrt Katrina, Iraq, ... policy implementation stuff (versus politics which they were very good at). If the "adults in charge" at the Bush WH had actually been competent in running the government (versus winning the next election), the Repubs might have held both Houses.
I know what he meant, and I stand by my statement. I don't like the fact that we are flooded with millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom are having kids here who automatically become US citizens. I think they should have to come into this country just like my wife's mother (she went through Ellis Island) did, and my own ancestors. I'm not against having guest workers come here to do jobs Americans don't want, not at all. And I'm not against people coming here from India, for example, to do tech jobs, because they are going through our legal system. It does tick me off that you have people all over the world who are trying to get here legally, and are having to wait years for the chance. I know that doesn't jive with the feelings of a lot of my fellow liberals, but I think we need some control over this massive influx of illegal immigrants. We need to give them a process that can make them feel secure to work here, and then return to their own country. I think we need to amend the Constitution to let the children of legal immigrant workers, and legal immigrants who do not yet have citizenship become citizens, but those children of illegal immigrants should stay the citizens of the country their parents illegally came from. There's not another 1st world country that allows what we are allowing today... illegal immigration, and automatic citizenship for their children born there. If any exist, please inform me. We are a nation of immigrants. It's what we are. We are indeed the proverbial melting pot. That doesn't mean that we should toss our laws out the window because it keeps wages low for jobs Americans don't want to do. Again, they should go through a legal process to work here. One of the main impediments to having such a process happens to be the greed of employers who like the cheap labor. Tough. They should learn to deal with a legal system. To be clear, special circumstances, codified in law, should exist for political refugees. I have no problem with that at all. I simply want immigration fair, and within the laws of this country. Keep D&D Civil.
I am PRO increase but If you a small business owner Say 10 workers that 1$ an Hour = 400$ a week = 400x50 = 20 000 a yr to a Small Business that is the difference between making it. . and bankrupcy Rocket River
The American voters are stupid and homophobic, that's why we lost. Wait, sorry, that's what Democrats say when they lose. The Republicans deserved to lose, and I'm glad most Republicans realize that. Hopefully we get our stuff together and get some qualified people to run in 2008.
Actually, that is a good point, one I saw made on CNN and MSNBC during the election. It was a vote against incompetence in government, not against conservative ideas. How many of the Democrats won based on raising the minimum wage, raising taxes, affirmative action, rolling back welfate reform, etc.? They won campaigning against the debacle in Iraq and other Bush debacles.
I wasn’t referring to what anybody thinks they or someone else is worth. I was referring to the value of what they actually produce. In theory a person should get paid the value of what they produce and if their boss refuses to pay them that much the employee will quit and go work for someone who will pay him what he’s worth, but in the real world, especially when it comes to the kind of people this economist claims to be looking out for, it doesn’t always work that way, does it? People, especially people without much education and self-confidence, and people who are cultural outsiders for whatever reason, often get taken advantage of. I’m sure you will acknowledge this. So, because this isn’t a perfect world we need government regulations, like minimum wage regulations, to make sure that the most vulnerable aren’t being taken advantage of, and to ensure certain social standards. As a society we don’t accept slave labour or child labour or the extremely poor working conditions that you see in some third world countries, and I trust you agree that that’s a good thing.
But ... if you have a business with 10 employees working full time then that’s not that much money, and if your competitors also have to give their employees the same raise then you won’t be at a competitive disadvantage. Just for the heck of it, what business would have 10 minimum wage employees and no other employees? I’m still having trouble coming up with examples of what businesses might be significantly affected by this law.
