Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Kode, Dec 2, 2016.

  1. bois darc chunk

    bois darc chunk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2015
    Messages:
    8,626
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, you're incorrect. Bush had a stimulus in 2008 directly aimed at the middle class. It was not a lending program, but instead came in the form of a "tax rebate." In other words, he opened the treasury and gave money back to the people… to spend in the economy.

    We need velocity in the economy- the dollar changing hands many times. Only then will we see economic growth. People are saddled with too much debt and stagnant salaries aren't spending.

     
  2. bois darc chunk

    bois darc chunk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2015
    Messages:
    8,626
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the problem is you simply refuse to accept there are other economic theories that have merit other than your own.
     
  3. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,309
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You simply don't know what you are talking about. Stop repeating "Marxist Democrat". There's no such thing. No Democrat opposes capitalism.


    No it didn't. Not the average wage.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
  4. bois darc chunk

    bois darc chunk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2015
    Messages:
    8,626
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm glad your son is doing well.

    He's making a lot more than minimum wage.. like more than $1000 a month. He has some disposable income, that he has chosen to save. Remove that $1000 a month cushion, and his economic situation dramatically changes. He doesn't have money to save. He can't afford to have a car. People living on minimum wage cannot participate in the economy past subsistence level, at a time when we need everyone participating in the economy above that level.

    You listed the median income of the US as $48K a year. That means half the country makes less than $48K a year. Half.The.Country.

    This is a statistical bell curve:
    [​IMG]
    That is the form our income distribution should take where the vast majority of people are in the middle, with much fewer poor on one end and much fewer rich on the other end.

    This is where we are:
    [​IMG]

    Notice the shift and compare where we are now to where we were in 1971.
     
  5. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trying to manipulate the economy so that it benefits the people you want it to benefit, is like trying to change the flow of a water fall.

    Whatever you do to people, they will react to and avoid.
    In the UK since minimum wage was introduced, pay has risen. But so have prices.

    The numbers on the notes in my pocket are bigger than 20 years ago and they buy only a fraction of what they used to do.
    I am not twice as rich as I was. I am less rich, it seems to me.
    My hourly rate has trebled and yet I have less now than 30 years ago.

    All this is, is people dicking around with stuff they don't understand.
    Well paid people, being paid to dick low paid people around. Accountancy tricks change nothing.

    Value is assigned by the individuals trading and not by the man who prints the notes.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
  6. upside222

    upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You simply don't know what you are talking about. Stop repeating Marxist Democrat talking point lies.[/quote]



    [/quote]You didn't answer the question.[/quote]

    Of course I answered it. You not liking the answer is ireelevant.


    These wage figures came right out of the Soc Sec site. Not Heritage. I told you that. I'm beginning to think you truly do have memory issues!

    And really, REALLY, you are using americanprogress pap?

    "These are difficult facts for the right wing to explain. After all, President Clinton did the one thing that right-wing, supply siders say you absolutely cannot do if you want to have good economic outcomes—he raised taxes. And for his part, President Bush did the one thing that those same people promise will result in enormous economic gains—he cut taxes."

    They can't even admit that Clinton cut capital gains taxes in 1997!

    They both cut capital gains taxes and created booms!
     
  7. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,309
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So a person must have a household income of at least $90,000/yr to be as well off as they were in 1971. Below that income level is loss; above that income level is increase.

    We had better start realizing that "good times" are not going to be handed to us again. It's over. If we want times to become good again we will have to create it for ourselves and we CANNOT do it under this economic system government by this kind of government. We need to change both and take the situation in hand. And one of the first steps will be to legislate "instant runoff voting" in each state.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
    bois darc chunk likes this.
  8. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what cutting capital gains tax does.
    It provokes investment.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
    upside222 likes this.
  9. upside222

    upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This didn't happen until 2011/2012 AFTER OBAMACARE!

    The recession didn't cause it. Obama and Obamacare DID!


    Nope. Under Bush the lfpr actually grew from 2006 to 2008. And part-time jobs decreased.

    Nope. Dodd/Frank raised capital reserve requirements for local and regional banks so high it cut deeply into the amount of loans they could make. Willful ignorance is *NOT* a survival technique.

    You are just like Obama, laughing while America goes to the poor house.
     
    Hotdogr likes this.
  10. upside222

    upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What happens to the stock a co-op member owns when they retire?
     
  11. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,309
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Check again. Nobody talks about "average wage" because it is so meaningless.
     
  12. jbander

    jbander Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    2,959
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, If it bothers you just don't read it, that comment was just for you, not everyone., I know people will have problems reading my posts and there is a reason but I'm still going to comment.
     
  13. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @bois darc chunk

    This is a statistical bell curve:
    [​IMG]
    That is the form our income distribution should take where the vast majority of people are in the middle, with much fewer poor on one end and much fewer rich on the other end.


    Why "should it"?
    Because you are in the middle?
    Because social justice?
    Because economic forces?

    Why have you chosen this particular graph for an ideal to achieve? Or why have you chosen this graph to represent the normal.
    Why not a love heart shaped one for example? Or a banana. Why a standard deviation curve?
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
  14. jbander

    jbander Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    2,959
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Because only mindless people say that's the case and boy do you top the list. By the way why do you call people commies when they are not even close to being that. That to me is dumb.
     
  15. jbander

    jbander Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    2,959
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'll do this one more time, You look right outside of the city borders(where there is no minimum wage increase) to see if you get the same numbers as in the city limits , if you do the study is worthless.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
  16. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How "deeply"? 1%, 4%?

    Surely making the fractional reserve 10% again means that only a maximum of 9% of their existing loan book was lost to them as potential credit to loan out.

    So while that created problems of a kind, the real credit crunch was that half the banks assets values got wiped out.
    Not 9%..... 50%. They had no money to loan out. And with interest rates so low, no access to getting more. No incentive for people to lend to them.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
  17. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,309
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As a member of People's Food Coop, if I own stock in, say, Microsoft, I do what anyone else does, not that it is relevant to the thread. I have no idea why you would ask this other than to dodge the subject. You don't seem to know the difference between a WSDE (worker co-op) and an ESOP.

    If you're referring to stock in the co-op where the stock owner works, that would be subject to bylaws governing the structure and operation of the co-op.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
  18. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    12,975
    Likes Received:
    3,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its NOT worthless, because they are trying to measure the effects of the increased minimum wage where it is implemented. That increased minimum wage is within the city borders of Seattle. If you are trying to argue that the higher unemployment recorded WITHIN the city of Seattle, was made up for by lower unemployment OUTSIDE of the city limits, that STILL is an indication that the increase in minimum wage decreased employment where it was implemented. The purpose of the study was to determine the effect WITHIN the area where minimum wage was increased. The argument that you are making is TRULY nonsensical.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
  19. jbander

    jbander Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    2,959
    Likes Received:
    290
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'm done trying to help people who are confused by this simple concept, if you don't get it , I can't help you get it. Actually it looks like your just arguing the point to be obnoxious.
     
  20. bois darc chunk

    bois darc chunk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2015
    Messages:
    8,626
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The bell curve represents normal distribution statistically. I used it to contrast the second graph in that post. In the United States, we have growing income inequality. History tells us that revolutions result from not addressing income inequality. This thread is about raising the minimum wage, in an effort to improve our sluggish economy and returning a share of income to those that have lost ground over time. The US middle class has shifted from 61% of the population to 50%, with most of the change skewing toward the lower end of the economic scale. We are moving toward being a poor country, than moving toward being a rich country, because the wealth of the country is concentrated, more and more, into the hands of the few, rather than into the hands of the many.

    [​IMG]http://www.krusekronicle.com/kruse_kronicle/2006/08/the_question_of.html#.WVZxksbMyRs
     
  21. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We expect increases in wages to decrease employment.

    Other factors will be at play.
     
  22. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,309
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He does that.
     
  23. upside222

    upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You missed the point. He is making that salary because he made good life choices! No kid. Public transportation. Living close to public transportation. Not blowing money on clothes and partying. Etc..........

    Those that choose to have three kids out of wedlock severely limit their choices of job. It's hard to move in this case. It's hard to work a full-time job. It's hard to pay for day care. That all changes if you wait to have kids till you can afford it.

    Fully half of all babies born in the US today are born under Medicaid coverage. That is truly atrocious!



    [quote[You listed the median income of the US as $48K a year. That means half the country makes less than $48K a year. Half.The.Country.[/quote]

    This is a statistical bell curve:
    [​IMG]
    That is the form our income distribution should take where the vast majority of people are in the middle, with much fewer poor on one end and much fewer rich on the other end.

    This is where we are:
    [​IMG]

    Notice the shift and compare where we are now to where we were in 1971.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure what you think this shows. More people were at the left end of the curve in 1971 than today! The average wage in 1971 according to Soc Sec was $6500. This doesn't really show that at all! Is the graph normalized to some year to make the dollars equal?

    Nor can I find this at the nakedcapitalism.com site. I have no idea what the context is.

    If the dollar figures have been normalized then you had more households at the left of the curve in 1971 than today. Have you thought about what that means? If the figures havn't been normalized then the graph is useless.
     
  24. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    12,975
    Likes Received:
    3,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its not that I'm confused, its that Im calling you on your BS. There is nothing in what you are saying that I do not understand. It is merely that what you are saying is a weak nonsensical argument. I realize that you are parroting someone else desperately trying to discredit the study that didnt turn out how they hoped. When pushed to explain the mindset of the person that you are parroting, you have been unable to do so, presumably because you dont truly understand their mindset.

    They are trying to measure the effects of the increased minimum wage where it is implemented. That increased minimum wage is within the city borders of Seattle. If you are trying to argue that the higher unemployment recorded WITHIN the city of Seattle, was made up for by lower unemployment OUTSIDE of the city limits, that STILL is an indication that the increase in minimum wage decreased employment WHERE it was implemented. The purpose of the study was to determine the effect WITHIN the area where minimum wage was increased.

    I know that you are saying you look outside of the borders to see how other areas were affected. I am asking you that given my above statement, why is it important to measure areas outside of the targeted area, when effects to the targeted area is the purpose of the study? I suspect your source didn't answer that, so you haven't the faintest idea how to respond. I am asking you to think for yourself, and up until this point you have been unable to do so. I apologize for asking you to actually think.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
  25. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,641
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for your explanation on choice of graph

    Revolutions are caused by income inequality? Bullshit.

    America is becoming richer. People have more TV's. More cars, and more houses.
    More wealth per person than ever before.

    Income inequality, the gap between the richer and poorer? Who cares?
    When you have enough, you have enough. No reason to start killing people by the million.
    No reason for civil war.

    Oh someone has more than you, no problem.

    So America is not getting poorer and income inequality does not cause revolutions. While every good Marxist does indeed want a revolution and does indeed intend to use income inequality as a hook for the sense of injustice he requires the populace to be motivated for revolution by.
    It utterly fails to be one, in one of the richest societies in the history of mankind.

    In my country, people on benefits can be 5%ers. That is how poor our poor is.
    Not very poor at all.


    Now, take the same socialist sob story to Venezuala, where poor people really are poor and you can expect that political commentary to get a very different response. Revolution.
    But that's not where you live. So when you cry income inequality, no one cares. Because they are not starving, they are overweight.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017

Share This Page