Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Okay, you've clearly proven you won't address the question and can't support your claim. Thanks.
Seattle agrees to raise minimum wage to $15
- Thread starter TheyCallMeAzul
- Start date
$12wouldn't be a national standard though. That would be an add on to the FEDERAL level
You're WILDING if you think $15 nationally tomorrow ain't gonna break A LOT of backs out here. NATIONALLY.
So states ARE GOING to tack on an extra dollar and cities even more.
So by the time your average work rolls in, we're talking a DUB.
and its pretty ridiculous Mr. Econ Major to assert that "oh well businesses that fail shouldn't have accounted for the increase in their wages"
You think banks ain't gonna wonder where their investments when when all those companies in the red ain't flip a profit yet?
Madvillain
Pro
All I've SEEN is HIM capitalizing WORDS.
Have you READ the shyt you're sourcing?
I really wonder if you have.
Have you read CRITICISMS of the stuff you source?
Ya'll stay in your content/information bubbles and fail to see right through how they come up with these numbers.
I SUPPORT A WAGE INCREASE...but $15 is NOT sustainabile in 2014 as a NATIONAL standard.
And you will take any criticism as "oh well look at the numbers"
Dawg, the numbers DONT SAY THAT. Thats the fukking issue.
All we have is data, NOT the agenda your so called "correct economists" source.
If Krugman wasn't such a liberal yall wouldn't even quote dude. Thats the fukked up part.
Ya'll know him better for being down with the left than you do what he actually introduced to the field.
It's not that simple. The existence of a kind of job doesn't mean that everyone has access to it, or that there are enough of those jobs to go around. Etc. It's a problem that deserves more introspection than your CAPITALIZED hollow TALKING POINTS.
who am I shytting on?
I got FRIENDS making minimum wage
I'm saying that theres a reason minimum wage jobs...WILL ALWAYS be a minimum wage, no matter what those jobs are.
You're shytting on people who want minimum wage to be higher, just like you shyt on people who enjoy competition in hip hop, and tried to shyt on people who didn't buy into your little "pro-black movement" you had going for a week. You can't disagree with people respectfully.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
You sound like a crazy person swinging at ghosts and it's funny to anybody reading this. This doesn't even have anything to do with ideology, one way or the other.
The only thing that was asked of you was to provide any economic data that would support your claim that the minimum wage data points that you seemingly arbitrarily chose--$10 and $15--would result in outcomes that are reasonable/preferable and so calamitous that anyone proposing it can't be treated with any credibility, respectively. You've provided nothing but all-over-the-place all caps ramblings for several posts now. There's really nothing left to say.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Actually's Napoleon's argument was even more horrendous than I've been giving him credit for. I thought he said $15 was the cut off of point of not being taken seriously. He actually said...
So $10=I support it.
$10.01=you show an inability to be taken seriously.
Because I said so.
So $10=I support it.
$10.01=you show an inability to be taken seriously.
Because I said so.
Last edited:
you shytted on universal income though
but hey, you want jobs out of thin air.
SOMEONEs gonna have to bite that fukking bullet
I support a higher minimum wage...not $15 per fukking hour.
Actually's Napoleon's argument was even more horrendous than I've been giving him credit for. I thought he said $15 was the cut off of point of not being taken seriously. He actually said...
So $10=I support it.
$10.01=you show an inability to be taken seriously.
The current wage is 7.25. Most states have higher minimum wages than that currently. State Minimum Wages | 2014 Minimum Wage by State
FEDERAL minimum wage is what we're discussing. Stop dancing man. This shyt is getting embarassing.
Wheres your data? Graphs of inflation being linked to minimum wage at the initial point of where minimum wage 50 years ago? Why the fukk is that even taken seriously?
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
I'm fully aware of what we're talking about. I'm not sure what that has to do with your inability to support your initial statement that you have yet to qualify in any meaningful way.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Graphs of inflation linked to minimum wage for what? Are we having the save conversation here? I haven't made a single assertion in this thread. I'm asking you to defend your claim with data, which you have proven you can not/will not do.
The Economist explains
Explaining the world, daily
The Economist explains
Why some economists oppose minimum wages
Jan 22nd 2014, 23:50 by R.A.
WORKERS across the rich world have suffered stagnant wages for much of the past decade, in good times and bad. Governments are increasingly responding by boosting minimum wage-rates. State and local governments in America are passing wage increases, and Barack Obama supports a rise in the federal rate from $7.25 per hour to $10.10. Angela Merkel’s new government has signalled its support for a new national minimum wage, and on January 16th George Osborne, Britain’s chancellor, backed an above-inflation rise in the minimum wage. A higher wage floor seems like a simple and sensible way to improve workers' fortunes. Yet many economists argue against it: Germany’s leading economic institutes, for instance, have pushed Ms Merkel to resist calls for a wage floor. Why do economists often oppose minimum wage-rates?
Historically, economists' scepticism was rooted in the worry that wage floors reduce employment. Firms will hire all the workers it makes sense to hire at prevailing wages, the thinking goes, so any minimum wage that forces firms to pay existing workers more will make those jobs uneconomical, leading to sackings. Yet economists were forced to rethink their views in the early 1990s, when David Card and Alan Krueger of America's National Bureau of Economic Research presented evidence that past minimum-wage increases did not have the expected effect on employment. A rise in New Jersey’s minimum wage did not seem to slow hiring in fast-food restaurants in New Jersey relative to those in neighbouring Pennsylvania, they found. One explanation, some economists speculated, was that firms had previously been getting away with paying workers less than they were able, because workers were prevented from searching for better-paid work by the costs involved in changing jobs. That would mean that when wages were forced up, the firms were able to absorb the costs without firing anyone.
Academics continue to trade studies on whether minimum wages cost jobs. A recent survey ( Poll Results | IGM Forum ) of economists by the University of Chicago showed that a narrow majority of respondents believe a rise in America’s minimum wage to $9 per hour would make it “noticeably harder” for poor workers to find jobs. Yet a narrow majority also thought a rise would nonetheless be worthwhile, given the benefits to those who could find work. Economists' opposition to specific minimum-wage hikes is sometimes due to concerns that politicians will impose recklessly high wage-floors, which firms may find difficult to absorb without laying people off. Some economists argue that there is a better alternative in the form of wage subsidies, which cost governments money but do not discourage hiring.
Recent minimum-wage debates have been complicated by the unusual macroeconomic circumstances of the day. When economies are plagued by weak demand, as much of the rich world has been since the crisis of 2008, firms may be more sensitive to wage floors. (Others argue that healthy corporate profits show that firms have plenty of room to accommodate pay rises.) New technologies could also amplify the employment effect of a wage hike. Given expanding opportunities for automation, firms may seize on higher wage-floors as an excuse to reorganise production and shed jobs. But opinion among economists remains divided (and studies contradictory), because most recent minimum-wage increases have been comparatively modest.
--------------------------
The minimum wage and the state of microeconomics
No, micro is not the "good" economics
Jan 28th 2014, 20:39 by G.I. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
If asked to compile a list of economists’ mistakes over the last decade, I would not know where to start. Somewhere near the top would be failure to predict the global financial crisis. Even higher on the list would be failure to agree, five years later, on its cause. Is this fair? Not according to Noah Smith: these, he says, were not errors of economics but ofmacroeconomics. Microeconomics is the good economics, where economists by and large agree, conduct controlled experiments that confirm or modify established theory and lead to all sorts of welfare-enhancing outcomes.
To which I respond with two words: minimum wage.
One of the first things we learn in microeconomics is that demand curves slope down: raising the price of something reduces the quantity demanded. A minimum wage should reduce the demand for low-skilled workers as surely as a price floor on milk will reduce the amount bought.
Yet ask any two economists – macro, micro, whatever – whether raising the minimum wage will reduce employment for the low skilled, and odds are you will get two answers. Sometimes more. (By contrast, ask them if raising interest rates will reduce output within a year or two, and almost all – that is, excepting real-business cycle purists – will say yes.)
Are there reasons a higher minimum wage will not have the textbook effect? Of course. And a great deal of research has gone into trying to determine them: perhaps the demand for low-skilled labour is highly inelastic in certain circumstances. Perhaps employers have monopsonistic power and set both wages and the level of employment below equilibrium levels. Perhaps there are offsetting general equilibrium effects, e.g. if low-wage workers spend more of their income than their employers or customers, then shifting income from the latter to the former raises aggregate demand. And so on.
But microeconomists are kidding themselves if they think this plethora of plausible explanations makes their branch of economics any more scientific or respectable than standard macroeconomics. Microeconomists and macroeconomists working in good faith approach their problems with open minds, trying to develop models then figure out why they do, or don’t, yield the predicted results. There may be instances where macroeconomists build models that are mutually exclusive, and then win Nobel prizes for them (again, see Noah Smith). That is the exception; generally, what we see over time is macroeconomists building on each others’ work; rational expectations, sticky wages and financial frictions have all been used to refine, rather than supplant, basic macro models. Still, in both macro and micro, economists develop views and pursue research that tends to confirm those views.
What is true of all economics is that as soon as you wander into policy, you find the debate hijacked by policy advocates who write, report and promote research that reinforces their side of the debate while ignoring or disparaging the other. Do higher capital requirements reduce lending? (Yes: it raises the cost of capital! No: Modigliani-Miller tells us firms are indifferent to capital structure! Yes: banks aren’t like other firms!) Do higher marginal tax rates reduce the work effort and tax paid by the rich? (No: their labour supply is inelastic! Yes: They reclassify their income to avoid taxes!) Does Obamacare hurt part time employment? Does it lower labour supply? Do tougher emissions requirements cost jobs? Does net neutrality lead to more investment in technology? Or less?
It is fair to say that when it comes to the minimum wage, Barack Obama is a policy advocate, not an economist. Tonight in his State of the Union Address, he will repeat his call to raise the federal minimum wage. Today he has announced he will use his executive authority to entitle employees of federal contractors to a higher minimum wage. In its release the White House says:
A range of economic studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without jeopardizing employment.
Well, “range” is a pretty imprecise word. There’s also a range of studies ( http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf )that shows raising the minimum wage doesn’t reduce poverty and does jeopardize employment.
The White House also says:
Low wages are also bad for business, as paying low wages lowers employee morale, encourages low productivity, and leads to frequent employee turnover—all of which impose costs.
Here the White House violates another axiom of microeconomics: it has argued that compelling someone to do something they wouldn’t do voluntarily makes them better off. Under what assumptions can forcing a business to pay a higher wage be good for its business? The White House press release, which also cites the example of retailer Costco which pays well above the minimum wage, seems to invoke efficiency wage theory. This theory, which incoming Federal Reserve chairwoman Janet Yellen helped develop, suggests firms may pay above the market-clearing wage because to pay less would damage morale and productivity and raise turnover. This theory can certainly explain whysome firms, such as Costco, sometimes choose to pay above the market wage. But it cannot justify forcing all firms to do so all the time. This would presume that numerous firms are systematically hurting themselves through their small-minded refusal to pay more. Sure, there are situations where people can be forced into doing something that makes them better off (wearing a seatbelt, getting vaccinated) but is it plausible that WalMart or McDonald’s know their own business so poorly that they are systematically hurting themselves by paying too little? Isn’t it more likely that they have weighed the tradeoff between low wages and poor morale and chosen the combination that maximizes profits?
Microeconomics tells us that it is far more efficient to abolish the minimum wage and address poverty directly through the earned income tax credit or wage subsidies. This would imply that McDonald’s is actually enhancing social welfare by encouraging its employees to take advantage of food stamps and other safety net programmes. Economists know this, yet many advocate a higher minimum wage and disparage McDonald’s anyway. Why? As Noah Smith points out in a different post, “Probably because "earned" income gives people a feeling of dignity, while "handouts" reduce dignity.” (In some cases, it’s because Congress won’t offer up more money for the working poor, so a higher minimum wage is a second best solution; but as Republicans get behind wage subsidies, that may change.) In this case, economists are not acting as economists, but as philosophers.
They are doing the same in the debate over income inequality. Economists can offer explanations for why inequality has risen and what might reverse it, but they cannot advance positive reasons for what the right level of inequality is; this is function of social preferences outside the realm of empirical or even theoretical economics. (At least, they can’t make the case on microeconomic grounds. There are macroeconomic reasons to fret over higher inequality because shifting income from the high consuming poor to the high saving rich reduces aggregate demand.) Fundamentally, economists are troubled by inequality for the same reason non-economists are: it doesn’t seem right.
No, micro is not the "good" economics
Jan 28th 2014, 20:39 by G.I. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
If asked to compile a list of economists’ mistakes over the last decade, I would not know where to start. Somewhere near the top would be failure to predict the global financial crisis. Even higher on the list would be failure to agree, five years later, on its cause. Is this fair? Not according to Noah Smith: these, he says, were not errors of economics but ofmacroeconomics. Microeconomics is the good economics, where economists by and large agree, conduct controlled experiments that confirm or modify established theory and lead to all sorts of welfare-enhancing outcomes.
To which I respond with two words: minimum wage.
One of the first things we learn in microeconomics is that demand curves slope down: raising the price of something reduces the quantity demanded. A minimum wage should reduce the demand for low-skilled workers as surely as a price floor on milk will reduce the amount bought.
Yet ask any two economists – macro, micro, whatever – whether raising the minimum wage will reduce employment for the low skilled, and odds are you will get two answers. Sometimes more. (By contrast, ask them if raising interest rates will reduce output within a year or two, and almost all – that is, excepting real-business cycle purists – will say yes.)
Are there reasons a higher minimum wage will not have the textbook effect? Of course. And a great deal of research has gone into trying to determine them: perhaps the demand for low-skilled labour is highly inelastic in certain circumstances. Perhaps employers have monopsonistic power and set both wages and the level of employment below equilibrium levels. Perhaps there are offsetting general equilibrium effects, e.g. if low-wage workers spend more of their income than their employers or customers, then shifting income from the latter to the former raises aggregate demand. And so on.
But microeconomists are kidding themselves if they think this plethora of plausible explanations makes their branch of economics any more scientific or respectable than standard macroeconomics. Microeconomists and macroeconomists working in good faith approach their problems with open minds, trying to develop models then figure out why they do, or don’t, yield the predicted results. There may be instances where macroeconomists build models that are mutually exclusive, and then win Nobel prizes for them (again, see Noah Smith). That is the exception; generally, what we see over time is macroeconomists building on each others’ work; rational expectations, sticky wages and financial frictions have all been used to refine, rather than supplant, basic macro models. Still, in both macro and micro, economists develop views and pursue research that tends to confirm those views.
What is true of all economics is that as soon as you wander into policy, you find the debate hijacked by policy advocates who write, report and promote research that reinforces their side of the debate while ignoring or disparaging the other. Do higher capital requirements reduce lending? (Yes: it raises the cost of capital! No: Modigliani-Miller tells us firms are indifferent to capital structure! Yes: banks aren’t like other firms!) Do higher marginal tax rates reduce the work effort and tax paid by the rich? (No: their labour supply is inelastic! Yes: They reclassify their income to avoid taxes!) Does Obamacare hurt part time employment? Does it lower labour supply? Do tougher emissions requirements cost jobs? Does net neutrality lead to more investment in technology? Or less?
It is fair to say that when it comes to the minimum wage, Barack Obama is a policy advocate, not an economist. Tonight in his State of the Union Address, he will repeat his call to raise the federal minimum wage. Today he has announced he will use his executive authority to entitle employees of federal contractors to a higher minimum wage. In its release the White House says:
A range of economic studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without jeopardizing employment.
Well, “range” is a pretty imprecise word. There’s also a range of studies ( http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/min_wage_review.pdf )that shows raising the minimum wage doesn’t reduce poverty and does jeopardize employment.
The White House also says:
Low wages are also bad for business, as paying low wages lowers employee morale, encourages low productivity, and leads to frequent employee turnover—all of which impose costs.
Here the White House violates another axiom of microeconomics: it has argued that compelling someone to do something they wouldn’t do voluntarily makes them better off. Under what assumptions can forcing a business to pay a higher wage be good for its business? The White House press release, which also cites the example of retailer Costco which pays well above the minimum wage, seems to invoke efficiency wage theory. This theory, which incoming Federal Reserve chairwoman Janet Yellen helped develop, suggests firms may pay above the market-clearing wage because to pay less would damage morale and productivity and raise turnover. This theory can certainly explain whysome firms, such as Costco, sometimes choose to pay above the market wage. But it cannot justify forcing all firms to do so all the time. This would presume that numerous firms are systematically hurting themselves through their small-minded refusal to pay more. Sure, there are situations where people can be forced into doing something that makes them better off (wearing a seatbelt, getting vaccinated) but is it plausible that WalMart or McDonald’s know their own business so poorly that they are systematically hurting themselves by paying too little? Isn’t it more likely that they have weighed the tradeoff between low wages and poor morale and chosen the combination that maximizes profits?
Microeconomics tells us that it is far more efficient to abolish the minimum wage and address poverty directly through the earned income tax credit or wage subsidies. This would imply that McDonald’s is actually enhancing social welfare by encouraging its employees to take advantage of food stamps and other safety net programmes. Economists know this, yet many advocate a higher minimum wage and disparage McDonald’s anyway. Why? As Noah Smith points out in a different post, “Probably because "earned" income gives people a feeling of dignity, while "handouts" reduce dignity.” (In some cases, it’s because Congress won’t offer up more money for the working poor, so a higher minimum wage is a second best solution; but as Republicans get behind wage subsidies, that may change.) In this case, economists are not acting as economists, but as philosophers.
They are doing the same in the debate over income inequality. Economists can offer explanations for why inequality has risen and what might reverse it, but they cannot advance positive reasons for what the right level of inequality is; this is function of social preferences outside the realm of empirical or even theoretical economics. (At least, they can’t make the case on microeconomic grounds. There are macroeconomic reasons to fret over higher inequality because shifting income from the high consuming poor to the high saving rich reduces aggregate demand.) Fundamentally, economists are troubled by inequality for the same reason non-economists are: it doesn’t seem right.