Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

Its the study that was commissioned by the city of Seattle in order to research the increase in minimum wage that the city of Seattle instituted. I am sorry if that upsets you. The liberal town of Seattle commissioned a study to look at the liberal policy that the city itself both proposed and implemented, and they did not get the result they were expecting. Don't argue with me. Argue with the city of Seattle. It was not a "corporate study" as you claimed, it was done by the University of Washington.

I realize that you can use my link ( or any of thousands of leftist sources) to show where CNN attempts to discredit that study, but in the same link it also explains why it is better than the one from Berkley partly because the Washington team had access to the ACTUAL number of hours low-wage workers have logged since the policy went live, which the Berkley study had no such access to actual data. I am not going to waste time where we both cut and paste the pros and cons. The bottom line is that this isn't some obscure study that was pulled from some obscure Conservative Think Tank. This was the study commissioned by the liberal city of Seattle, to assess the effectiveness of their liberal policy that they put in place that drastically raised the minimum wage strictly within its city limits. They did NOT get the results they were expecting or desired. So sorry.

 

There is a big difference between raising the minimum wage in one city or even in one state. It allows people to go else-wear. It still can work if done right. The way it has to be done is across the board all over this country, Then it's always apples for apples, there is then no advantage in competition. If no one can answer this one question then your way is crap. Tell me why I have to use my tax money to help some bottom line of some monster corporation. These working poor have to eat and have to have a roof over their heads. Either we pay with tax dollars for what monster corporations don't for their workers to survive or the monster corporation does. Let me see who should pay.

 

And I gave you quotes from the Communist Manifesto showing what the main tenets are. That's not *my* definition, it is the definition of Marx and Engels. You should actually read the CM sometime instead of staying willfully ignorant.

The main tenets are 1. class warfare (right in the first sentence of Chapter 1), 2. redistribution of wealth (abolish all private property), and 3. central planning of the economy (to make sure necessities are met).

It's all right there in the CM. And it's right there in what Chuck Schumer talked about yesterday. "The rich aren't paying their fair share". "We need to tax the rich more in order to subsidize Medicaid" "The individual mandate is one of the most basic parts of the ACA"

This may be an inconvenient truth for you to accept but it *is* the truth. Willful ignorance is not a survival trait.

 

Once again you mistake Marxism as being Communism. You can't even get the two straight. And we are supposed to believe anything you post?

 

This seems to rattle around in this guys head, The study is crap because it doesn’t compare the McDonald inside of the city to the one that is 10 feet out of the city. The outcome of course could be the same in which case the facts support my contention that the study is crap. It will stop being crap when the study include the McDonald 10 feet outside of the city limits. They have to be totally different to prove the premise of this study done in Seattle. I'm not even saying what the outcome would be , I'm saying that it is incomplete without a total study.

 

If companies are forced outside the city by labor rates inside the city isn't that a *negative* impact of the minimum wage increase?

 

I think one of the things that polarizes us politically is that we tend to view things from very different perspectives. If you're in business, you only see, and more importantly. value what impacts the business side. Business tries to be as efficient as possible to be as profitable as possible. That includes keeping wages low. Those people dislike any government regulations because they impact profit. However, when the tax payer had to care for workers injured or maimed in the workplace, the tax payer insisted on regulations to keep workers from dangerous situation in the workplace.

Before the business world was dominated by multi-national faceless corporations, the business owner often worked beside his employees. Those business owners knew the value the employees added to the business and rewarded their labor accordingly. We've lost sight of humanity in business, and workers are seen as a commodity, not a person, and certainly not as a customer. Henry Ford knew if his workers couldn't afford his product, he wouldn't sell many cars… and he wanted to sell lots of cars.

 

If the left would spend half the time bitching to their reps about high paying jobs they'd be money ahead in the long run... But for some odd reason Conservative vote for opportunity, economic growth and taking back our lost industry and the progressive vote for subsidies, leisure, welfare and wealth distribution and equality, something they have never practiced or shared with fellow workers. The only thing the left has worked hard for and earned is their reputations as slackers and entitleist in the work force

 

Government cannot provide jobs except by taking jobs out of the private economy.

Why is this so hard to understand?

It doesn't help the economy in any way for government to take a dollar out of my pocket so it can give it to someone else. At best it zero's out.

There is a *reason* why the Great Depression lasted as long as it did. Even Keynes taught that deficit spending can only *replace* private spending, it simply cannot stimulate it. You *have* to have stimulative policies like a capital gains tax decrease to actually spur the economy. FDR just never figured this out! It wasn't until WWII that we recovered. More than a decade. Kind of like Obama,, isn't it?

Again, trickle-down *does* work. All you have to do is ask a Chinese worker that has benefited from capital investment in China.

Regulations have *NOT* been cut. Taxes have *NOT* been cut. Zero interest rates don't help if the banks can't lend because of Dodd/Frank.

Where did you get the idea that regulations and taxes have been cut?

 

So you are hanging your hat on the notion that it doesn't include what happens between the Mcdonalds that lie 10 feet ( or even all bordering Mcdonalds) outside of the city limits where the actual increased minimum wage applies and those within the city limit?...LOL really? Is that HONESTLY the best that you have? I realize that you can always attack ANY study based on its design......but does this attack REALLY sound all that impactful to you ? It seems incredibly petty to me; silly even. In the history of picking apart studies, this is perhaps the lamest attack I have personally come across. I sincerely would have thought that you could have found something better than that one. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you can complain about anything, and by virtue of doing so, you can then invalidate ANYTHING that doesn't comport with your pre conceived notions.

Why would you include fast food restaurants that lie outside of the Seattle city limits where the actual increased minimum wage applies? Why do you think this would have such a large impact? Are you talking about employees that work for a Mcdonalds franchise with locations inside and outside of Seattle and the employees that work at multiple locations? How many people could that possibly be? I know these aren't your thoughts anyway, so if it is easier, simply give me your link. Ive seen your paraphrasing skills, and its probably more productive if we just use the link.

 

Henry Ford was a snake Ask any Harley Davidson historian what they think of the guy!

 

Your problem is that you simply don't understand finances at all. Most of the stimulus went to public unions in Democrat states, not to corporations! Much of the rest went to failing alternative energy businesses like Solyndra that had Marxist Democrats running them.

You *really* should go read up on the impacts of the ACA and Dodd/Frank on the economy!

 

I'll keep going as long as this guy keeps on trying to bullshit his way through this, His first premise is 1.class warfare which isn't quite right it's class struggle. I said there is no where in the world where there isn't class struggle , he agreed,. his second one is really just 2. abolish all private property. Which of course is no where to be found in this country or in my party or in my head. His third is 3. central planning, all government does this to a point and they should off course but communism is complete control , which again is nowhere to be found in this country, Other then the degree that they should.. He says these are the top of the list, they aren't. They are the means of production are owned by the Government, Which means they own all business, set wages, tell you what your occupation will be(sometimes)own all the national resources of the country, Tell the company what it will make. Which again can't be found in this country anywhere. He points out about all the communism, socialism, Marxism that can be found in this country, And I'm telling you and supplying proof that it doesn't exist. Don't let a person like this bullshit you into his lies. If any one of you right wingers want to join in this conversation, feel free to, but come with supportable facts or don't come at all.

 

You keep harping on the dynamics of 'demand'. We saw what happens when you artificially boost demand, in the housing crisis. The Government meddled in the mortgage approval process, and created incredible for demand for homes, blowing up the prices of housing.

Your ideology creates bubbles. It creates an acceleration in both the rate and degree of Keynesian boom/bust cycles.

Real growth is created by allowing enterpreneurs to bear the burden of creation and risk, and cycling out those who fail in deference to those who succeed.

Steve Jobs created the iPod, without the perception of 'demand' for it. The public didn't even know what it was. Jobs was a visionary, and his ability and desire to take on and manage the risk necessary to put a product on the market which had no demand, only the belief that it would be demanded.

You wanting to 'churn money through the economy' is an effect of properly coddling that risk-taking entrepreneurial spirit. That is how we build companies that result in a genuine and market-monitored increase in the velocity of money.

Things like MW increases are not necessary in such a market, which is why - during GW Bush - McDonald's couldn't hire employees.

They simply weren't offering enough pay.

So what happened? Did McDonald's close? No. McDonald's across the country were regularly offering $11-$13+ dollars an hour, in order to pull in the necessary help.

Your political ideology has poisoned your economic ideology. I'm going to attempt one final analogy, which works on several levels. We want potential to succeed maximized, which means pulling from that pool of potential as little in the way of resources as possible.

The resources are not in Government. It is the tax on resources - and it's powerful and clever, and bound to build narratives that justify its existence and growth. It does so by damaging contrary arguments, among numerous other things.

To the analogy.

Wealth is like grain. Grain can be eaten (consumed), stored, or multiplied. What society chooses to do with it dictates good or bad economic management.

So how does wealth grow? By being eaten? Only to the degree that it provides immediate energy from which activities other than eating are engaged in. Yet, eating is critical. But is it the most important thing to cultivate? One can only eat until supply is exhausted, so it is clearly critical to multiply supply.

Now, in this analogy, demand is assumed: we have to eat, right? That's built in demand. Society operates on such demand, and also responds to demands it is not even aware exists (today, we couldn't do without our cell phones; 30 years ago such concepts were unheard of).

An entrepreneur engages in business, primarily to make money, and only can do so if they are successful in catering to demands that exist, or correctly guessing that it will if supply is provided - and said entrepreneur succeeds to the degree that they provide this supply via better service, prices, or features. Back to the grain.

The best way to provide for additional and long-term demand is to cater to supply: the farmer must be incentivized to grow that grain. He can employ others in that effort - most business operates in the red initially, in order to build that mechanism; they pay employees initially based upon risk capital, other from themselves, or from others. When he employs others, they begin to have the ability to accrue their own grain.

They may choose to eat it, or store it. They may...choose to plant (invest) it. That is promotion of a horizontal market.

Providing a whole bunch of people a whole bunch of grain expands the vertical market. The market can do that with sustainable jobs via the incentivizing of supply, but the Government's only mechanism to do so is to get out of the way, because the Government itself isn't entrepreneurial.

The Government can boost a vertical market by subsidizing end-users, and/or artificially inducing wage increases in the manner you propose - but that simply burdens the entrepreneur, and disincentivizes further production, or incentivized ways around that additional cost.

Let the grain grow. The rest takes care of itself.

 

Your posts are difficult to read. Try paragraphs.

 

We know that.

Employment increased elsewhere. In Wisconsin, in fact, it's up to 96.9% employed.

 

He is suggesting that his only point is Marxism , I wonder why he said this then "I didn't explain what it means to be a Communist." Then said "And I gave you quotes from the Communist Manifesto showing what the main tenets are."

 

Did Henry Ford and Harley Davidson argue about the minimum wage?

 

So now Wisconsin is one block outside the city limits of Seattle.

 

You have my permission not to read them.

 

Ya it would seem silly to a person who hung his hat on a study to find out that the study is incomplete.

 

Should I take that to mean that you don't want to actually respond to what I said?........in case it was an oversight on your part, I will repost so that you can give a proper answer....

So you are hanging your hat on the notion that it doesn't include what happens between the Mcdonalds that lie 10 feet ( or even all bordering Mcdonalds) outside of the city limits where the actual increased minimum wage applies and those within the city limit?...LOL really? Is that HONESTLY the best that you have? I realize that you can always attack ANY study based on its design......but does this attack REALLY sound all that impactful to you ? It seems incredibly petty to me; silly even. In the history of picking apart studies, this is perhaps the lamest attack I have personally come across. I sincerely would have thought that you could have found something better than that one. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you can complain about anything, and by virtue of doing so, you can then invalidate ANYTHING that doesn't comport with your pre conceived notions.

Why would you include fast food restaurants that lie outside of the Seattle city limits where the actual increased minimum wage applies? Why do you think this would have such a large impact? Are you talking about employees that work for a Mcdonalds franchise with locations inside and outside of Seattle and the employees that work at multiple locations? How many people could that possibly be? I know these aren't your thoughts anyway, so if it is easier, simply give me your link. Ive seen your paraphrasing skills, and its probably more productive if we just use the link.

 

Faw I'll quote you"Why would you include fast food restaurants that lie outside of the Seattle city limits where the actual increased minimum wage applies?" Because to my knowledge it doesn't apply. The point is you have to look in the immediate area outside of the increased minimum wage area. to make this study anymore then ****. As I said before I'm not even suggesting what a total study outcome would be, I'm saying that it only has value when it is apples for apples.

 

Why do you have to look outside of the area where the minimum wage applies? That doesn't make any sense. You may as well say that you have to look at Sacremento in order to assess how minimum wage is working in Seattle. Whatever correlation your source is trying to make (which you obviously don't understand the premise being put forth by your source), it is undoubtedly small potatoes compared with the totality of minimum wage within Seattle.

 

If the people that aren't getting the increased wage just outside of the minimum wage increase area and have the same results as the study than the study means nothing , Is this that complicated.