Top economist says raise minimum wage

"Most experts agree that to get out of the economic slump, we need more jobs.

But another problem is that millions of Americans already have jobs that don't pay very much."

That says it all. If you raise minimum wage, owners will have so littl incentive to hire new people. Already they try as hard as they can NOT to hire people due to the various regulatory bodies and taxes they have to deal with.


If you're alright with raising unemployment from 9 to 11 or 12 percent, I suppose that's fine and dandy. I'm personally not.

 

There was nothing to respond to, because your understanding of production is simplistic, ignorant, and inaccurate just as I said. The idea that only manufacturing counts as productive is idiotic beyond comprehension. Even by the standards of this forum.

 

Another person with an inaccurate, simplistic, and ignorant understanding of productivity. Both of you need to look up competitive advantage, and understand it. This isn't an issue of conservative vs liberal, it is an issue dealing with informed people vs uninformed people. Informed liberals and conservatives alike, both understand how idiotic this brand of thinking is.

 

And yet the only way you can refute the notion is to say that it's "simplistic," "ignorant," and "inaccurate." What was that you said in the beginning?

Yeah, so how about that? Got anything of substance or intelligent to say?

 

Nope, you're pretty much just wrong and far from informed. Productivity is the problem of the economy. Trade deficits aren't going to disappear simply by taxing more and giving employers higher wages. We need to make consumer goods people actually want. Goods other counties want and in this country, not in China.

 

You have not made an argument for me to refute. You don't understand the terms you are discussing, which makes your assertions silly and nonsensical. In order for their to be something for me to argue against, you first must make a coherent argument based on a proper understanding of the terms under discussion. Until that time, all I can say is your understanding of the terms is simplistic, ignorant, and inaccurate. Once you fix that, we can go from there.

 

In a way he has a point. The manufacturing of cheap non-durable goods is best left overseas. If we are going to manufacture something it should be things that require a skilled work force that we can provide that China by and large cannot. Also there are multiple services that need to be provided in order to support manufactured goods. Americans have not adjusted well to a changing world.

 

In other words, I don't have a shred of intellectual capacity to explain my position.

No need, I'm pretty much done with you. You're obviously not very knowledgeable on the subject. You can go back to doing whatever you were doing.

 

It's only foolish to manufacture things which can easily be made overseas cheaper. If things are too expensive to be produced in this country then people shouldn't be in the business of producing.

You can thank the government regulations for that.

 

You said American workers were not productive, even though they are by every single standard used by economists. You then invented your own nonsensical standard, and stated they weren't productive because they didn't meet that standard. Present a legitimate standard, and we can talk. Otherwise we can't. If my unwillingness to allow you to incorrectly use terms offends you, I apologize. However, I cannot argue against what you said, in any way other than to say your assertion is based on an inaccurate understanding of the terms we are discussing.


PS. I never said you were incapable of understanding the terms, only that you DO NOT understand them at the moment. You are perfectly capable of rectifying that problem. However that requires you to be curious, and willing to accept the fact that you don't understand what you are talking about.

 

Quite simple, raise the prices modestly, decrease dividends a few pennies, reduce salaries of top executives and everything will fall into place.

Not all minimum wage jobs are held by teenagers these days; plenty of adults who are out of work are employed at jobs paying minimum wage.

 

Do you know how to make any other statements? How has regulation made it so that natural capitalist trends have occurred?


PS. Before you demand that I defend my position first, that is not how debate works. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, you in this instance. Support this assertion please.

 

Trust me it gets worse. She'll come up with her own definition for words. She'll use them in totally novel and unexpected ways. The goal posts will be constantly moved and you will be assailed by a tidal wave of insults the entire time. Observe...



Good luck.

 

Nope. I merely asked if we are so productive why aren't we producing anything.

It's not my standard. Not just my standard anyway. If people are going to be productive it has to have a net gain on society.

Already did. You ignored it. Production for the sake of production is just as bad as consumption for the sake of consumption. It has to have a net gain on the economy in the long run. Right now, our production does not.

I haven't used the term incorrectly. I am well aware of what productivity means. I merely asked what do we have to show for our productivity.

Irrelevant. You can go back to what you were doing.

 

I could keep saying the "simplistic," "ignorant," and "inaccurate" thing.

Plenty of ways. I asked you a question in the beginning: Have you ever heard of a Paid Sick Leave Bill? You dodged it.

No, that was you. You demanded that I defend my position.

I've been defending my position all along. You haven't gotten past the "simplistic," "ignorant," and "inaccurate" phase. Are you going to answer the question or are you going to dodge for the sixth time?

 

It's a hard debate, Because both sides have valid arguments.

It would be very bad for the USA to try and compete with the wages in countries like China and such. I can't see people willingly work for 1.25 an hour. I know I wouldn't want to work like that, Or to have to work 80 hour work-weeks just to maintain my standards of living.

On the other hand, I cannot see shareholders and employers make any decisions that would lower their profits, As that would be entirely anti-business. Business exists SOLELY to make profits, Even at the expense of the employee. And raising the minimum wage would raise unemployment as well as increase costs of goods and services, Even if only by a small amount.

I'm hoping a compromise between shareholders, employers, And employees occurs before we hit a critical point of no return Otherwise, Things will get very unstable. First politically, and if that fails then possibly physically. I'm hoping we can avoid that last one.

Thank you for your time.

 

Food would cost half the price and companies that are safety oriented, which is most of them, would not have to waste tons of money on useless tests but could be more efficient about the processes that they know are safe.

I don't know why you trust the FDA to keep you safe. There's absolutely no good reason to believe that the bureaucrats at the FDA care about you, your welfare, or anything but expanding the power of the FDA and creating selective barriers of entry to protect their large corporate clients from any meaningful competition.

 

Maybe in your fantasy world. But here in the real world the private sector can never be trusted to run an organization like the FDA.

 

This lunatic fantasy of thinking privatizing everything is the magic bullet is classic regressive-think. There's good reasons we learned not to depend on flash paper utilities and to let Gmt. do what is WAS good at. Just because they've stunk it up with corruption, unaccountability, and waste, doesn't mean it can't still work for us. Clean it up and it becomes a beautiful thing again. Privatize and watch it completely disappear. Could that be the plan...?

 

Notice how all the answers from the Libs are "Googled"facts to try to debunk the ones that do actual business here?Not many places really ever pay the minimum wages.Most start at $8.50 or higher,but then again it depends on the cost of living where you live since that varies by state.I dont pay an hourly wage at my shop,but a commission based on hourly labor rate per job.For example,If I do a brake job on a car ,front and back ,and the labor rate in the books call for 2.0 hours to do the job at $50 or so an hour(not my actual charge,just an example)I get paid $100 ,no matter how long it takes me to finish,or how quick I finish.If I want to make more money,I move on to the next car.Almost all auto repair shops use a flat rate commission system.In a way,its great because of the potential to make alot,but in a way its bad if you are not busy,but so far,ive kept my rates low enough to compete,but high enough to profit.Cash for clunkers really screwed us because great decent used cars were sent to the crusher instead of passed on to another owner to be repaired if needed.
The only good thing Cash For Clunkers did was get all those Obama/Biden08 bumper stickers off the road

 

You know who also called for Government takeover of corporations,including the auto industry?
Well,heres a clue:He created the Volkswagen
Or should I say "The Peoples Car"
But even Obozo screwed that up,since the Volkswagen was a huge success,and the Volt is a complete flop!
Notice how these privately funded solar energy companies are thriving while Government sponsored ones fail?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/27/privately-funded-solar-energy-companies-thrive-as-solar-industry-booms/


Privately Funded Solar Energy Companies Thrive as Solar Industry Booms

By Jim Angle

Published September 27, 2011

|

Some may think of the solar energy industry as new and even in need of government help, but those who have worked in it for decades say plenty of privately funded solar power companies are thriving.

Dan Shugar has built the largest solar plants in the world and is now CEO of Solaria Corporation.

"Over the last 20 years, solar has grown from 30 megawatts of shipments to 17,000 megawatts of shipments," he said. "Solar has been the fastest-growing energy technology by far."

Arno Harris, the CEO of Recurrent Energy, which plans large solar projects, agrees.

"Solar power is booming -- and fundamentally because solar is becoming more and more affordable every day," he said.

The solar industry has grown from a mere 20 companies in the 1980s to more than 5,000 today.

"There's been an explosion in growth in solar," Shugar said. "Last year the solar market doubled in the U.S. It's doubling again this year."

And Harris notes the industry now employees 100,000 people, and that it is actually a net exporter, to the tune of $2 billion a year.

As solar companies thrive in a free market, more people are questioning why federal taxpayers should be subsidizing them, as happened in the controversial case of Solyndra, which when bankrupt despite receiving a $530 million federal stimulus loan.

Solar power is becoming increasingly competitive because prices are falling. In fact, solar is now cheaper than power from a new nuclear plant or a new coal-fired plant.

That explains why it is attracting large amounts of private investment.

"What we need to do is really focus on our strengths - which is letting the venture capital community do its work, and letting the government do its work and letting consumers become really sophisticated shoppers in this sphere," Lisa Margonelli of the New America Foundation said.[/U]

Margonelli favors green energy but says a more efficient and direct way to support solar is to give consumers help in buying solar panels rather than giving loans to the companies to make them.

"When you have the government giving away a lot of risk-free money, companies kind of change their orientation towards courting Washington and away from courting consumers," she said.

 

Yet "smart" people like you and President Zero want to throw tax dollars at the public and private sector through income subsidies in the hope that consumers will run out and jumpstart the stagnant economy for you.

But the recovery doesn't last because most of the products they buy ARE MADE IN CHINA which puts Chinese workers back to work filling the demand that Obama created.

And transfers more wealth from this country to China.

Well duh!

Yet in spite of your massive brains that you keep telling us about you never seem to learn the lessons of the first failed Obama stimulus and you want to repeat his stupidity a 2nd time.

 

You could not be more wrong. Higher MW = Higher unemployment. Businesses would simply stop recruiting new workers, more out of work, more welfare, more poverty.

 

Typical....use emotion rather than intelligence.

You all resort to this when the conversation should be finished. And you have lost.