Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

Uh, no. Since they is factually incorrect.

No it wasn't.

I am correcting your conservative dogma you get from batshit crazy rightwing rags.

No you don't.

 

The results showed a marked decrease in employment WITHIN the area in which it was enacted, which is what was being measured. Since employment decreased, this offset the increased wages to the point that overall less money was paid out to the whole of low wage workers in the city of Seattle. The increased hourly wage is not in dispute for the measured area, and is NOT a variable being measured. That number is hard data that was gathered by actual time cards. You are obviously trying to postulate that somehow the decreased employment inside the city of Seattle, would therefore increase wages OUTSIDE of Seattle. Not only is that notion irrelevant to what is being measured, it defies economic principles. If employment inside Seattle decreases, that increases the labor pool of available candidates OUTSIDE of Seattle. Via supply and demand, an increase in the labor pool puts downward pressure on wages, and CERTAINLY not the opposite.

What is devastating to liberals on these findings is the fact that unemployment soared amongst low wage workers. The fact that those newly unemployed can find work outside of the city does not change that fact. If anything, that further corroborates the notion that a marked increase in minimum wage increases unemployment amongst low wage workers.

As far as the condescending "Blind Friend" nonsense.... you may as well give that up, because you aren't fooling anyone. Our words are plain to see, and it is obvious that I express myself far more clearly and have a far greater grasp of this subject.

 

LOL, why do you think the people didn't have anything to eat or a place to sleep when there was money in the country? Income inequality! The rich had all the money and the poor had none.

What you don't seem to understand is that there are not many wealthy people. There are lots of middle and poor people. All the wealthy people's money is NOT going to provide salaries for others. When a wealthy person buys a yacht, they spend a lot of money at one time. However, they only buy one yacht, not 15. There is a limit to their spending and thus a limit to the amount of velocity they can create. We need a magnitude of spending, not just a few rich people.

Again, what is happening in China has no relevance to solving the problem of economic velocity here. Here is where we live. I'm fine with tax regulations that keep money here. I'm fine with the rich investing in business here. I'm fine with cutting taxes on the middle class, and not the top income earners. I'm fine with raising the minimum wage, but I can see that it may need to be different in different areas of the country. We have to start somewhere, and the minimum wage is as good a starting place as anywhere else. As long as lots of people have more money to spend, we're moving in the right direction. A rising tide lifts all boats.

 

You totally missed the hint I gave you! They got the money from AIG as a payout on the insurance policies! AIG got the money from TARP.

 

It's hilarious watching conservatives talk about economics, when they have no idea how economics works.

Businesses don't hire or fire based on tax rates or these mysterious regulations. They hire or fire SOLELY based on need for increased or decreased production.

 

Yes businesses do.

You stop before you get to 50 employee's in my country. Otherwise all the heavy regulations kick in.

Increased and decreased production has to be balanced against overheads and available money for investment.

I may want more production and more staff but need larger premises to do so. And not have the money or indeed the market opportunity to get bigger premises.

Further more if you tax me an extra 5% if I grow my business, I must think it able to grow 5+% before it is worth my time investing. Extra work just to pay extra tax, nope. No thank you.

 

*sigh*

We're not going to agree. You insist that the richest are living like everyone else, when they absolutely are not.

Bush's stimulus did work. Obama's stimulus did work. Neither worked long term, because both were one time injections, not sustained spending. We need sustained spending by lots of people.

If you can figure out a way to get large numbers of Americans to spend more money without raising the minimum wage, then please, by all means, tell me how. Most are tapped out, and in debt.

 

You can also think of velocity as a mom taking her son to get a haircut. Then the barber buys his kid some shoes with the money he just made giving the haircut. Then the guy that sells shoes buys some groceries. When money changes through many hands, it allows all parts of the economy to grow. Yes, taxes might be a portion of each sale, but those taxes go right back into infrastructure, police and fire protection, etc., that all benefit business as well, and you have construction workers, firemen, police officers with money in their pocket to spend into the economy too. If mom doesn't have the money to take the kid to the barber, and instead takes him into the bathroom with some scissors, the entire chain is slowed. That's where we are with 1-2% growth.

 

**IF** there is stock, it would be subject to bylaws governing the structure and operation of the co-op.

 

Well, the timeline is the truth. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Now you are just being a troll. This is the lfpr for the 65-up cohort.

No, you are just being a child arguing black is white. TROLL.

 

Here is a bigger hint.



Goldman sacks lost 80% of it's assets in that crisis.
80% of the money had disappeared.

They didn't walk away without loses and unharmed, cleverly protected by insurance.
They got utterly arse-raped. Reduced in value to one fifth of everything they had been worth just a year before.

 

I didn't say the rich are living just like us. I said they don't bury their money in the back yard!

Something you just can't quite seem to get your head wrapped around!

Neither stimulus worked. Obama never had a single year of 3% growth. Bush did after his tax cut!

MORE JOBS! MORE CAPITAL INVESTMENT! QUICKER DEPRECIATION! GET RID OF THE 30 HR WORK WEEK!

I keep giving you the fixes and you just keep ignoring them.

 

I'm striving to be polite, so I will just wish you a nice day. I see that we will not agree and I do not wish to engage you aggressively.

 

Just like in an LLC!

 

It doesn't work like that Bois. Sorry.

Money can only buy what is on sale.
After you have bought the apples, no one else can sell them or buy them.

Money is a trade good. If there was no money, I would simply barter for my apples.
The velocity of trade would go on with out money. We would use something else as money most likely. A bitcoin (or even a chocolate coin). A promissory note from a trusted rich man. Or just keep book. I'll give you credit until you've sold it on. Etc.

Money in itself is valueless. Only as a medium of exchange is it helpful.
If you run out of money, you can still trade, but if you run out of things to trade for, money is useless.

So money adds no labour or resources to the economy.

If mum doesn't have any money for the barber, kid keeps his long hair, or gets a bowl cut.
Barber, gets a proper job growing food himself.
So does policeman, fireman and all the other overpaid slackers.

 

BECAUSE THE INSURANCE POLICIES DIDN'T PAY OUT!

Look what happened in 2009 when AIG got the TARP loans and started paying out!

 

You also said, who doesn't spend all their money.

You assume much about me, when you know nothing of me. I have my head wrapped around the things you say. I just know that they don't work economically.

Capital investment does not always result in more jobs, unless the capital investment is going into creating new companies. Capital investment into older companies sheds jobs. https://www.forbes.com/sites/steved...-about-where-new-jobs-come-from/#7522e5b63382

 

That is exactly the way an economy works. If there was no money, the mom could get her son's hair cut by offering a bartered good or service, which could then be traded for the barber's son's shoes. Currency just makes it simpler to trade. In our economy, you have to have something to trade to participate. People with nothing to trade add nothing to the economy. That's where we are now.. too many people aren't trading.

Your model has everyone moving back to subsistence living. That won't fly in modern society or in cities, where people don't have a way to grow their own food. We're not going back to hunter/gatherer/farmer type economies.

 

All I know of you is that you keep posting the very same thing over and over and over even after many different people have shown you how wrong it is.

Did you actually *read* the article you reference? *NEW* businesses create a large share of jobs.

HOW DO NEW BUSINESSES GET STARTED?

Answer that and you will have your answer as to how to help the economy!

Hint: it isn't taking money out of my pocket to give to someone else!

 

I don't need money to trade. So if I'm not trading, money isn't the reason I am not trading.
Yes money makes it easier. It is a tool that facilitates easy trading.
But I can keep book. I can simply sign for my apples. If I have no money I can find something I can use as money real easily.
And normatively, that often happens. I get an invoice. I don't actually pay for my goods as I use them.
My supplier extends me credit. Not through a bank, but directly in goods and services. My Boss pays me at the end of the month, not the beginning or as I go. I credit him a months labour. No money passes hands but the trade is still made.

My model uses subsistence because that is an easy model to understand. A demonstration model. As you can see with my working for a salary or paying by invoice models, you are not limited to subsistance living by the number of £'s printed in an economy. In Zimbabwe a gazillion new dollars didn't make any more food.

Being "a modern economy" doesn't mean you can exchange money for food that doesn't exist.

 

Conveniently cost of living and purchasing power is complete ignored. No surprise.

 

But we do *NOT* have that kind of income inequality!

And how many people does it take to build just that one yacht? Do you think just one person builds the entire thing?

If there is a limit to the velocity they can create then there is a limit to what their money can create no matter who spends it! Velocity is built up one transfer at a time.

If the rich don't have enough money then that leads to the conclusion that the money must come from someplace else? Where is that? Printing more money? Because borrowing the money doesn't help, that just increases the interest payment which means even more money must be taken out of my pocket!

MALARKY! If those cell phones are built here instead of China that has a *direct* impact on our economy. If Caterpillar makes bulldozers here instead of China that has a *direct* impact on our economy! If GE makes their medical equipment here instead of in China it has a *direct* impact on our economy! If Carrier air conditioners are made here instead of Mexico that has a *direct* impact on our economy.

As Seattle is finding out, raising the minimum wage is a mirage, just like a lake in the desert. It's a reflective shiny thing that draws attention but is actually of no use at all!

 

If you take a dollar out of my pocket to give to mom you haven't changed the velocity of that money in any manner at all!

 

The minimum wage, or any forced wage rise, means that marginally profitable enterprises will go bust.
It means that profits will be reduced. Or indeed removed completely.

I'll give some real life examples of businesses I work in.

At the cake factory my mate owns, it has been suggested that instead of paying his 300 staff minimum wage (£7) he should pay them the living wage. (£10) per hour.
At 300 staff running 18 hours a day, for 300 working days, that comes at an additional cost of £4.5 million a year. Which is more than his company and his entire net worth.
He doesn't have 4.5 million spare in his business let alone 4.5 million extra per year.
So a wage rise for him, means either he has to increase prices, and hence lose sales, and hence down staff or he must fold completely.
Lose all those jobs.

At the coffee shop I started, the business makes £80 a week profit. If the boss gives me that same £3 an hour rise, his business now loses £40 a week. So my job has to go. Or his business and my job has to go. One of the two.
Or he can put his prices up...and be unable to compete with Starbucks. Get less sales, make less money and still not be able to afford me.

In the fields, I must compete with a man on a tractor. I and my friends must do more labour for less cost than a man and an expensive machine. Increase my wages, and the tractor gets the job and not me.

When I teach at the university, I am competing for international students. If the pound is too high or I bid too highly for my services, I don't get the contract.
I can't just put up my wages and expect to get the same amount of work. Because there is competition out there.

 

Yes he has.

He has washed it through the taxman's hands, 1-4 banks hands and a local council office.
And each of those places has taken a slice of your money before passing, what's left of it, on to your mum.

The total resources have not been increased. But the velocity at which you gave it to the government and the banks has been.
They simply think that they can make better use of your money than you can.
I can make better use of your money than you can too. Please velocity me some.