Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

[QUOTE="jbander, post: 1067670401, member: 70164"] Bullshit, Corporate profits are through the roof. They need nothing other then learning how to share in the increased wealth of this country. They have been pigs for a couple of decades , they think it reasonable to have the average CEO in this country making on average 18 million a year. This type of distribution of are national wealth are against the best interest of this country.[/QUOTE]

That there ind red....This is what passes for polite discussion by the loony left. Sanders, Clintons and Obama all are millionaires. Do you exact the same pound of flesh from them? What have they contributed other than take tax dollars and over inflated speaking fees for 'pay to play' deep pockets?

 

Does unemployment increase when minimum wage increases? No

Thanks for the Bullshit

 

If you ask the Chinese worker who has benefited hugely from the investments made in China by US companies you will find the Chinese worker thinks trickle-down works just fine! And it *does* work just fine!

George Bush instituted tax cuts, including capital gains tax cuts, in 2003 and by 2006 was getting RECORD levels of tax revenues. Higher even than Clinton with Clinton's higher rates during the dot.com boom. And that is accounting for inflation also! How do you explain that if trickle-down doesn't work? John Kennedy cut cap gains taxes and created a boom. Reagan cut cap gains taxes and created a boom. Clinton cut cap gains taxes and created a boom. Your belief that trickle down doesn't work is nothing more than delusion!

Like most on the left, you learned your economics from Scrooge McDuck in Donald Duck comic books. The rich don't bury their money in swimming pools or vaults like Scrooge McDuck. They put their money to *work*. If they don't then inflation eats it up quickly!

When they put their money to work they are either buying something, i.e. creating jobs, or they are investing in something, i.e. creating jobs. It's called "trickle-down"!

 

Yes, it *does* increase. As you've been shown repeatedly. Willful ignorance is *NOTI a survival trait.

 

Actually not. You've shown some nonsense about high school kids but...

 

Oddly...trickle down...kinda doesn't...except maybe for Chinese workers

 

If you have worked any time at Walmart at all you probably aren't making minimum wage. That is reserved mostly for new workers and part-time workers.

And no one is saying *everyone* will go out of business. You are trying to employ the argumentative fallacy known as the False Dilemma. There are lots of other choices than going out of business. Cutting hours, laying off workers, adding more part-time workers are just part of the possible answers.

As I have shown using the 16-19 age cohort, increasing the minimum wage has *always* resulted in a drop in employment for this age cohort. EVERY SINGLE TIME. These workers *also* contribute to households. When they can't find work then their households may also have to depend on government assistance thus raising the taxes needed to support them. A direct consequence of the minimum wage increase.

This is proved by the recent study done by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
go here: http://www.pressherald.com/2017/06/...s-toll-on-workers-study-in-seattle-concludes/

"On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum."

"The costs to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of three to one, according to the study"

This study confirms what conservatives have been saying for years and which has been confirmed by many studies. Even common sense should tell you that nothing in life is free. Someone pays, someone ALWAYS pays. In the case of a rising minimum wage it is the low-wage worker that ultimately pays.

 

If investment in China results in trickle-down working for Chinese workers then investment in the US will result in trickle-down working for American workers.

It is just straight macro economics taught in every legitimate Economics school.

 

Teenagers and high school dropouts are a main constituent of the minimum wage demographic. That's not a delusion, it's just plain fact.

And when their employment rate drops *every single time* the minimum wage is increased that would tell a reasonable person something.

But not you I guess!

 

Bull! You want to put money into the hands of the least productive? Do it with your own money.

Honestly, this is not an argument you can win on the internet. Do it in your own city or county or state. Let us know how it goes.

But my money isn't available for your idiotic theory.

 

This is based on a study "The Spending and Debt Response to Minimum Wage Hikes". In that study the increase in spending is directly associated with taking on significant debt, such as for purchasing durable goods. So you see a short-term impetus that gets eaten up by interest payments over time.

That is *NOT* a boost to the economy, per se. Interest payments are not part of GDP. This is the problem with most studies of minimum wage increases. The studies do *not* consider all other factors. Short term spending is *not* what one should be looking for if you want to affect overall poverty rates.

 

It tells me you have no idea what you are talking about!

 

On what planet does THAT make any sense...

 

What it's NOT...is an increase in unemployment

 

Every planet except the one you seem to be living on.

Capital investment creates jobs. That's how the people with capital earn money with their capital. No Capital -> No Jobs!

Lots of Capital -> Lots of Jobs.

Only a Marxist Democrat can't figure this one out.

Willful ignorance is *NOT* a survival trait!

 

Are you talking about the massive transfer of wealth that has taken place for the last 35 years with were no one has gained a increase in their wages and has gone desperately deep into debt, which of course also go to the top few . Your so full of crap. For 35 years every dime of the new wealth of the wealthiest country in the world has gone to the select few at the top . That's the way that the pigs on the right want it. I never said give it to the poor I said if you want to driving the market the best way to do it would be to give it to the people with the least money. That my friend is a simple fact. That is also why supply side only exist to transfer the wealth of the country to the few at the top. There is only one thing that makes capitalism such a fine economic direction and that is the incentive to get ahead. 35 years has taken that incentive away. There is no arguing that point. You robots are doing the bid of the few and in 95% of the cases against your best interest. That makes the right wing stupid.

 

Of course it is! Interest payments come every month. What are you going to pay them with? The extra you brought in? That leaves you just as poor as you were!

As for unemployment I've shown you that with bls.gov data over and over and over again.

GO AWAY TROLL!

 

According to the Soc Sec Admin the average wage in the US has kept up with inflation since 1970. So what do you mean no one has gained an increase in their wages? SOMEONE DID! Or the average wage would not have gone up!

You can't spend money when there is nothing to buy. When you interrupt the availability of capital then you get less supply. Less supply means less spending. It's called a negative spiral. It's why we've never been able to truly recover from the Great Recession.

 

What does anything you have to say, have anything to do with the fact that increased minimum wage does nothing as far as competition is concerned or is it in any way a threat to business. If every minimum wage person gets a increase by law then every business would be paying the same, So tell me where this need is to go out of business , dump workers or put more people on part time wages. That simply bullshit. You nose ring that your betters lead you around by is showing. I don't give a dam about your polluted studies, you keep on bringing up, first I know who does those studies and second I know why their studies turn out the way they do. Let me tell you about your group that did the study "
A December 1, 2002, news story in the New York Times [1] on the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., of Cambridge, MA, called the institution non-partisan but failed to identify a penny of the $10 million it receives in conservative philanthropic underwriting.

"Reporter David Leonhardt found time to report that the bureau, headed by Martin S. Feldstein, guru to Bush-economics, is the 'nation's premier economic research organization,' but couldn't do a simple Google search to determine where it gets its money.

"But reporter Leonhardt 'does' have some interesting things to say about Harvard University:

"Still, Ec10, as it is known at Harvard, is hardly neutral -- in its readings or its lectures -- and its point of view contributes a good deal to his importance. Over the last two decades, thousands of Harvard undergraduates have received a decidedly anti-tax, free-market-leaning introduction to economics.
"And there's this gem about Feldstein's partisanship and his crappy economic analysis, 'driven' by partisanship:

"For his part, Mr. Feldstein has shown little taste since the 1980's for straying from the Republican Party line. In 1992, he predicted that the Clinton administration's tax increase would stifle economic growth and do little to erase the deficit...In 2001, when President Bush was forming his cabinet, Mr. Feldstein and his wife began a Boston Globe article by writing, 'Paul O'Neill was an inspired choice for secretary of the Treasury.' Mr. Feldstein is also on the board of Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical company with strong Republican ties.
"And the next time you hear someone refer to Feldstein as from Harvard, remember that, according to Feldstein,

"I have a Harvard office, but I hardly ever use it..." This is from a study by the New York times and rewritten in sourcewatch Every word you are trying to sell here is bullshit. Your source is crap.

 

For Christ sake I'm talking about with inflation. You tell me how keeping up with inflation while going deeper in debt to keep a roof over your families head is good enough. What they get now is what they got in 1981 as far as what it can buy . There is no other standard.

 

What in the hell does availability of product have to do with whats happening . There is way more now to buy then ever , American business has never been in a better place , the GDP is at its hi. The market has gone up 167% during the Obama administration. There has been the fastest increase of profit in our history, The problem is it has only gone to the few at the top , you can't argue that point. And we have the highest profit margin in our history. Or it was at the tail end of the Obama presidency.

 

This is the fumiest remark today "When you interrupt the availability of capital then you get less supply. Less supply means less spending. It's called a negative spiral. It's why we've never been able to truly recover from the Great depression. If you transfer every dollar to the bottom tell me how that disrupts supply. That's bullshit, it doesn't matter where the money comes from it drives the market exactly the same. That would be buy the rich or by the poor or bu the taxes spent on running this country. A dollar spent by any one of those three drives the market in the same way. lets try this on for size, Obama distributed his recovery money to business, to the unemployed and to the people. Business put their money in the mattress, the people and unemployed spent it driving the market. Because there was no demand , well that is the problem, how can you use the trickle down lie to increase demand . Well you can't. The only way is to give it to the demand side. they spend it.

 

Did you bother to even read the first paragraph of the study? People lost money because the businesses had to make arrangements to stay in business. Like cutting hours to make people part-time!

This is *NOT* rocket science! All you need to do to understand it is to try and run a small business on a small profit margin sometime.

You honestly don't understand supply and demand, do you? Most Marxist Democrats don't. The price point at which you can sell something is based on what the customer will (or can) pay. Raising the minimum wage doesn't automatically mean you can raise your prices! As price goes up, demand goes down. If every competitor in a market raises their price it may mean that they *all* lose business.

You mean they have been taught basic Econ 101 and how supply and demand curves work? Since when did this become some kind of a right-wing conspiracy? Most business schools or Economic schools that are part of larger university do *NOT* teach Marxism any more. It is a discredited economic theory. It may be taught as an example of how *not* to do things but that is all. The labor theory of value is kaput - unless you want to move to Venezuela to live and work!

Your problem is that Clinton's tax increse *did* stifle growth until Newt and company convinced him to cut the capital gains tax! And Bush cut capital gains tax as well and spurred economic growth that resulted in more tax revenue that Clinton got, even accounting for inflation.

I'm sorry, but my source is reliable, accurate, and reasonable to anyone that isn't a Marxist.

Price and wage controls simply do not work - EVER! They distort the markets and always result in unintended consequences. If increases in the minimum wage could lead everyone to prosperity then the entire would would be prosperous. It would just be a matter of figuring out how high the minimum wage needs to be.

Wage controls not only hurt the poor directly by impacting unemployment but they raise inflation which hurts the poor even more. Nothin's free in this world - NUTHIN!

 

The funny part of this you believe this crap. The rich does not in anyway spend their money faster then the poor or middle class or any other group. they are the ones that will most likely put it in their mattress. The others can't can they , these two groups have increased their debt limit through the ceiling. way faster then they have been able to invest their money to be used to drive the market. Who in the hell do you think holds their debt. You people are clowns.