no wonder you're such a fanOriginally Posted by Loki
no wonder you're such a fan
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Says the person who's yet to criticize the Obama administration for making the exact kind of deceptive claims. After all, it's only bad when the other side is doing it.
What utter bullshit. Most MNCs don't pay anywhere near the minimum wage.
Hope is the denial of reality
No it is a mean of 500,000 and upto a million. The first quote says up to a million. The only thing factually incorrect is your phrase "up to 500,000" that is false.Love how the article claims up to 500,000 lost jobs and the first quote by a republican immediately bumps that number up to a million
I see a difference in not sharing info, and calling bullshit when someone links a report that shows a positive, nil, and negative effect but only wants to bitch about the negative. I apologize for not posting enough "dishonest" material in order to dissect it.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 02-19-2014 at 06:45 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
No, it's not and would not be. It would be strictly proportional. But I believe the sources you've quoted in the past make the allegation that minimum wage has not maintained the purchasing power it had in the '70s and that purchasing power has actually decreased. That would be regressive, if it's actually true.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The "positive" effects are bullshit; they entail some people losing money and other people gaining that money. The net effect is negative because of the lost jobs.
I mean, we can lift everyone out of poverty by forcing anyone with a billion dollars to give half their money to the poor. Would that be a "positive"?
Hope is the denial of reality
I was referring to the $9 option, which shows the possibility of a slight raise in employment.
Which really calls into question this hard on you have for immediately jumping to an extreme minimum wage increase every time someone suggests a small increase.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Wait, what? It says 100k lost jobs with that option...
Weren't you supportive of spending an ungodly amount of money to bailout the US car companies? Because the number of jobs at stake there was far under half a million...And that decrease would have been temporary; we're talking about a permanent decrease in employment here.
Hope is the denial of reality
the report states a range from a slight increase in employment to 200,000 lost. so a slight increase is on one end, just like 1,000,000 lost is on the other end of a $10.10 minimum wage. The fact that the numbers don't align blows holes in your go to response of raising the minimum wage to some random sky high number.
I don't recall taking a side either way on this. According to google I didn't even reply to the bailout bonus thread that ended up over here. But this wouldn't be the first time you've confused my stance as supporting one side of something because I pointed out some bullshit argument the other side was using.Weren't you supportive of spending an ungodly amount of money to bailout the US car companies? Because the number of jobs at stake there was far under half a million...And that decrease would have been temporary; we're talking about a permanent decrease in employment here.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Wait, so now you're using the exact same tactic that you just attacked by only looking at the bottom estimate on the confidence interval?
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm balancing the negative. I directly said that in an above post. Hence why I called it a possibility. You scream doom and gloom and $50 minimum wages while linking to quotes about the possibility of a million lost jobs, I use the exact same report to point out what might actually happen with a $9 minimum wage compared to a $10.10 (which doesn't jive with your whining).
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 02-19-2014 at 09:05 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
What is it you usually say about weasel words? Or is that bullshit too?
Once again, I really don't think you understand how confidence intervals work. You can't just decide that a number from one end is any more credible than the number from the other. The normal practice is to either state the entire confidence interval or to provide the mean.
Hope is the denial of reality
so why did you link to an article quoting the possibility of a million lost jobs instead of just linking to the study?
and i understand just fine, thats why i asked you earlier on to justify why a million was anymore credible than nil.
and you're still ignoring that different minimum wages end up with different results.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The link says 0 to 1 million...I didn't say the million number was any more credible.
Um, when has anyone denied that? A minimum wage of $50 an hour would also have a different effect. The smaller the disparity between market wages and a minimum wage, the less economic dislocation the latter will cause. Did you have a point?
Hope is the denial of reality
Still waiting for the NYT to give a reason why a $50 minimum wage wouldn't be great.
nope, you seem to be doing well answering your own complaints. Maybe now we can move on to a new go to response when minimum wage discussions occur?Did you have a point?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I've yet to see any of the lefties here accept the above explanation.
Hope is the denial of reality
Which lefties here have advocated for a $50 minimum wage?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm a leftie, and that's pretty much what I've been saying from the start, I think. I've always said a minimum wage has to be a balance between economic dislocation (fair enough, I used a different word there) and social advantages. BTW, I also believe that there's more effects beyond just somebody's living condition, since, for example, if people get paid more, they will buy more; if wages are too low to live on, that's a good motivation to start a criminal life, after all, if you can't live on your legal job, why even bother; and many more effects.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
That doesn't actually make any sense since any money workers gain through a higher minimum wage someone else must lose. I.E. The workers who remain employed have more to spend but the businesses now have less. Additionally, a higher minimum wage leads to higher prices, which means the purchasing power of consumers goes down. Plus you have the newly unemployed people who can't spend anything because they've gone from making $7 an hour to making $0. Lastly, the working poor aren't the ones responsible for crime; it tends to be people who don't have any job or only have temporary employment. I.E. A higher minimum wage will actually increase the latter group of people.
Hope is the denial of reality
History doesn't agree with you.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
http://www.moralityindex.com/crime.html
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, COL, or retained its purchasing power over the decades. It's a multi-factorial number that becomes regressive when demographics and labor markets are included for context. We're no longer talking about pre-teens or teens working a newspaper route, or flipping burgers....for pocket money or gas money (or saving for college).
Today's minimum/low wage worker is on average 35 years old, with at least one dependent (elderly parent, young child, or spouse), and has some post-HS educational degree or trade skill. We're not talking about High School drop-outs....but folks who've done all the "right" things, work 2 or 3 jobs, more than 40 hours/week, and remain stuck on lower rungs of "the ladder".
Yes, that's a regressive "package".
Hang on. This isn't checkers, but 3-D chess. Minimum wage is not a zero-sum game. Businesses should consider employee wages just like any other "overhead" cost or business "investment". If they can't pay the light or water bill using product or service revenues....maybe they shouldn't be in business to begin with.
And if you're really concerned about the relationship between work and crime......then raising the minimum wage should be right up your alley. The safety net would be reserved for the unemployable, not the underemployed.
Look up the fallacy of mono-causal explanations. I've yet to hear anyone say that the minimum wage is the chief determinant of crime rates.
Are you serious? What a minimum wage does is force the unskilled out of jobs, leading to higher long-term unemployment. How does that reduce crime?Hang on. This isn't checkers, but 3-D chess. Minimum wage is not a zero-sum game. Businesses should consider employee wages just like any other "overhead" cost or business "investment". If they can't pay the light or water bill using product or service revenues....maybe they shouldn't be in business to begin with.
And if you're really concerned about the relationship between work and crime......then raising the minimum wage should be right up your alley. The safety net would be reserved for the unemployable, not the underemployed.
Hope is the denial of reality
Talk about the fallacies of one dimensional employment concepts *cough*.Look up the fallacy of mono-causal explanations. I've yet to hear anyone say that the minimum wage is the chief determinant of crime rates.
Are you serious? What a minimum wage does is force the unskilled out of jobs, leading to higher long-term unemployment. How does that reduce crime?
Besides, the CBO report is more like a compilation of previous economic studies, using 'old' data to make predictions in a 'new' economy.
Look up Loki,
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Does anyone have empirical proof that raising minimum wage (in a developed nation) has caused massive economic damage?
Well, that depends GGT. Do you still champion the idea that outsourcing, globalization, and the relocation of production constitutes massive economic damage?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Depends on what? The definition of massive or the definition of damage?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
That's a loaded question, and you know it. I'll rephrase it:
Does anyone have proof that raising federal minimum wage in the US has led to massive unemployment?
The minimum wage tends to be at a low enough level that it won't cause "massive unemployment." After all most people in the work force today don't work at minimum wage, it only would potentially effect the jobs that in between today's current minimum wage and the new proposed wage. And even then no one is expecting 100% of those jobs to be lost - some businesses will just take the profit hit or more likely raise their prices to compensate. Other businesses of course will cut staff or choose not to hire more when they otherwise would have. The only way the increase in minimum wage leads to "massive" unemployment is if its hiked very significantly.
But just because a problem isn't massive doesn't mean it doesn't cause significant harm to the people who ARE impacted by it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote