Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

You mean that different jobs pay different amounts of cash?

 

The children's rhyme.. I'm rubber and you're glue comes to mind… after reading this post.

This thread isn't about wealth. It's about minimum wage.

The reason to raise the minimum wage is we are in a period of extreme income inequality, where CEOs are making nearly 300 times what the worker is making. The middle and working classes have had stagnant wages for more than a decade, and accumulating debt that has driven demand in the economy down. When demand is down, and it is, the economy is unhealthy. When people aren't spending, it doesn't make any difference how much grain the farmer grows. It doesn't matter how many IPods Steven Jobs makes. If few are buying, the economy will suffer. That's where we are and where we've been. To change this, people need to spend. That's why W and Obama had stimulus money injected into the economy. It worked in the short term, but this is a long term problem. We need people to spend money but they don't have money to spend. It's not going to get better until people start spending.

Now, you tell me how to get people to spend more, since you have the answers and my economic theory is poisoned by my political theory.

https://mises.org/blog/should-we-be-concerned-about-fall-money-velocity

 

1. You agree that we have the first tenet of Marxism, class warfare. Good, you are learning.
2. When government takes my money using force, my PRIVATE PROPERTY, to give it to someone else that *is* abolishing my private property. That may be an inconvenient truth for you to accept but it *is* the truth.
3. When government mandates that I *must* buy a government product that *is* central planning of the economy. That may be an inconvenient truth for you to accept but it *is* the truth.

What communism requires is not the point. Marxism is a continuum, not a point. You are using the argumentative fallacy of Reductionism to escape having to actually address the issue.

Again, you fail to recognize that Marxism consists of three phases, the first which does *not* require government ownership of the means of production.

Setting a federal minimum wage *is* the government setting wages. When you set the bottom you also effectively set all the wage steps above the minimum.

Nor did I say anything about communism or socialism, other than they are phases of Marxism.

Every time you post this same BS I will reply to it.

But it only makes you look like a fool. *ARE* you a fool?

 

The Communist Manifesto contains the tenets of Marxism. Marxism covers an entire continuum of economic states, from fascism to communism.

I gave you quotes explaining the main tenets of MARXISM are. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

They are trying to measure the effects of the increased minimum wage. That increased minimum wage is within the city borders of Seattle. If you are trying to argue that the lower employment recorded within the city of Seattle was made up for by people going outside of the city limits to find work, that STILL is an indication that the increase in minimum wage decreased employment where it was implemented. The argument that you are making is nonsensical.

 

As with any study of the real world you must set boundaries. You can then analyze what happens inside the boundary.

Otherwise you get stuck in the kind of rationalization of "you can't forecast my weather without knowing what is going on everywhere on the planet!"

In the Seattle study the boundary was set as the city limits. A good assumption when you are studying the impacts of what happens inside the city!

 

I think I went through this with you once already. Labor is a commodity. When you have a surplus of a commodity the price for the commodity goes down. It's basic economics.

When you try to raise the price of a commodity in the face of surplus there *will* be a reaction. Remember, the demand here is from the employers, not from labor. The reaction of the buyer, the employer, to an increase in price will consist of a lowering of demand.

This is all basic economics. Why is it so hard to understand?

Again, the way to get the people to spend is to get them jobs. Then there will be more money, i.e. velocity, in the economy.

Not only does artificially raising the minimum wage cause less employment, it also artificially increases inflation. So you get a double whammy, less employment and higher prices.

Obama's stimulus didn't work. As Keynes taught, government can only replace spending with deficit spending. The deficit spending doesn't "stimulate" anything. Keynes taught that along with replacement spending you must have policies from government that *are* stimulative. Things like lower taxes and less regulation. That's why Obama's "stimulus" didn't actually accomplish anything. He even tried *increasing* taxes into a stagnant economy just making things worse!

I keep telling you that the way to get people to spend more is to get them more good jobs.

If you will actually bother to *look* at your graph you will find peaks about 1982, 1995, and 2003. Can you remember what happened in those years? (hint: it wasn't minimum wage increases)

 

Have you *ever*, even once, done a study on anything in the real world? Actually collecting data and analyzing it?

 

What makes you think those outside the minimum wage boundary would see the same impact as those inside the boundary?

 

Look at what I put in bold above, in your post.

You agree with me.

So stop with the preachy attitude.

I keep telling you the same thing that is bold above. The people need good jobs that pay enough to spend money in the economy. Spending money in the economy creates velocity and demand. We are low on both of those now. That's what the chart shows.

If business won't or can't provide the jobs people need, then the government needs to… just like it did after the Great Depression.

 

What an "acceptable salary" is, is really only and solely up to the employee and the employer to decide. If the minimum wage is 0, it means more freedom to negotiate and a broader supply of employers which means more competition, something that in turn means higher/rising wages.

With a minimum wage of 0, there would be tons of new jobs that we currently do not have because those tasks do not correspond to the law. People without specialised uni-degrees and/or with little to no social capital (to use the bourdieuian terminology), therefore get stuck in unemployment. The rich always find a way out, but the poor always get hit the hardest from "benevolent" economic reforms.

Let's, just for the sake of an example, say the minimum wage is "5 monies", but you are sick and can therefore only perform labour worth 3, 5 "monies", this means it is illegal(!) for you to work. This system forces you to stay at home and feel worthless. Or let's say that a company really needs someone to do "task d", but that task is only worth 2 "monies". Now, the company cannot give a job to the unemployed and instead they will give "task d" to someone else who is already doing a, b and c. All this without even getting paid more. They get over-worked and have to report sick and/or prioritise work over family, love and leisure.

Absolutely awful. On top of all this, the parties that normally would support a higher mw, would also support higher tax; something that, in the end, means +/-0

 

We disagree on the means of increasing spending. You want to raise the minimum wage. I want to provide more jobs.

And, once again, FDR's government spending did nothing to get us out of the Great Depression. He kept us in a stagnant economy just like Obama did. Neither of them would actually implement any true stimulative policies.

If FDR couldn't get us out of the Great Depression with government jobs what makes you think it will work today?

 

Oh so any country that pays taxes in communist, very interesting. Sorry buddy we know your full of it and only are blowing smoke ,Hers the challenge you call everything you don't like communist, I ask you to go to a encyclopedia check the main tenets of communism and come back with those tenets to show why I'm a Commie , that my party is communist , in fact that there is any communism in this country at , Not your made up opinion. by the book. , So here we , you say we pay taxes and that makes us communist. I think everyone is rolling on the floor , I chewed you up and spit you out.

 

You really don't know do you. Its proved by your nonsense Sacramento comment.

 

Once again....please respond to what was actually said. Nobody believes your condescension. Have you actually READ our conversation? It surely doesn't warrant condescension on YOUR part.

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.

 

Who in the hell said that, I don't know how a study that hasn't been done will turn out.

 

They are trying to measure the effects of the increased minimum wage. That increased minimum wage is within the city borders of Seattle. If you are trying to argue that the lower employment recorded within the city of Seattle was made up for by people going outside of the city limits to find work, that STILL is an indication that the increase in minimum wage decreased employment where it was implemented. The argument that you are making is nonsensical.

 

You have no clue do you? "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."

 

I think that their community ought to provide them with assistance to help them survive while they build their human capital.

 

I didn't say that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Taxes for the purposes laid out in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 are perfectly fine. If you will actually read the Constitution you will find that Article 8 does *NOT* mention individual welfare. That should be reserved to the States per the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But you just can't quite prove it, can you? That's a shame.

I already showed how you and your party are Marxists. I went to the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels - THE DEFINITIVE SOURCE ON MARXISM! Anything else would be a lesser reference.

 

Why would you want to study an area that is not indicative of anything?

 

False dichotomy. Option three: No living wage and no welfare.

 

Do you accept anything in this as true?

 

NO!

"When you give $1 to people who have lost their jobs and they have run out of savings, those dollars get spent. So Mary gives it to Mike down the street to buy some of his fruits and vegetables. Mike, who relies on customers like Mary, might put 25 cents in the bank but use the rest to buy seed and fertilizer from Tom's store in town. Tom might save a dime of the 75 cents he got from Mike but use the remaining 60 cents for a new pair of glasses."

Substitute upside for Mary. Is the result any different?

"So upside gives it to Mike down the street to buy some of his fruits and vegetables. Mike, who relies on customers like Mary, might put 25 cents in the bank but use the rest to buy seed and fertilizer from Tom's store in town. Tom might save a dime of the 75 cents he got from Mike but use the remaining 60 cents for a new pair of glasses."


"When Mary can't afford to buy anything, Mike loses business, which affects his ability to pay Tom. As the impact ripples through the economy on a larger scale, unemployment spreads. Tax revenues evaporate. Governments must cut services, raise taxes and/or borrow money. That can mean more unemployment, less non-tax money for people to spend and higher government debt, like the kind you would incur if you decided to pay more unemployment benefits."

But if upside has that dollar and spends it then Mike gets the dollar to use as he wants. And Mike will spend part of that dollar at Tom's store. And on and on and on ......

No economic benefit at all from taking the dollar from my pocket and giving it to Mary. NONE! It doesn't matter if upside spends the dollar or if Mary spends the dollar.

The major unspoken assumption in the article and by many of the economists is that upside won't spend the dollar, he will bury it in the back yard. Once again, Scrooge McDuck economics learned out of a comic book! It's not a good assumption!

If the dollar given to Mary is borrowed by the Treasury it gets even worse. That dollar debt will have interest due on it. Every bit of that interest will have to be extracted from the economy, i.e. my pocket, or will have to borrowed as well.

Borrowing by the government to pay interest is a sure sign of pending bankruptcy, just as it is with an individual. An individual loading the interest on credit card A onto card B is in dire financial trouble. Same with the federal government. And our interest payment per year is close to being our deficit. In 2016 our interest on the debt was about $450B if I remember correctly. Our spending deficit was about $550B. If it wasn't for interest on the debt, would could probably balance our spending with our revenue.

Of course the FED could just print more money so as to have a dollar to give Mary but that just makes the dollar in my pocket worth less. It doesn't really help the economy in any way.

 

Actually it is the left who call for opportunity, economic growth and taking back our lost industry and AGAINST subsidies. Since the right mischaracterizes leisure, welfare and wealth distribution and equality as something else and try to redefine everything, I cannot comment on it accurately.