Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

This totally blows away the claim of the right that increasing the minimum wage will damage the economy.



More data is available here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/12/02/employment-situation-november

 

What are you on the right going to tell me about Obama's record?





How about this?..... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyrqaL5UQAATTF7.jpg

 

I would be OK with that as long as I got a raise as well, a definition everyone else. Essentially we all get a quality of life increase at the riches expense. Otherwise, absolutely not.

 

Obama's record:
- 13 Million more on food stamps than 2008
- 8 million more in poverty
- 95 million out of the labor force
- 52 year low home-ownership rate
- Accumulated more debt than 43 previous presidents combined.

Incidentally, those 95 million without jobs are the ones who are hurt the most by any federal MW increase.

 

Not very convincing.

 

Nice graphs. They remind me of the lefty media graphs about polling data and how Hillary was going to win in a landslide.

 

But unemployment is so low! He blew these stats right out of the water!

- - - Updated - - -

Well if carrier is any indication, dems will have ZERO chance in the rust belt 2020

 

I'm going to tell you that the former President of the United States has no business experience, and I studied business extensively. So I can easily debunk this chart: It "charts" the growth(of a few dollars, which doesn't amount to much. Virtually a 2 dollar increase(which they mask by calling it a 6%) increase, but what it does not chart were the rising prices that would come from rising the wages.

An arbitrary rise in income, that is not promoted will inevitably result in market corrections and thus higher prices. This is why even Warren Buffet opposes #fightfor15. Because he knows the logistics of it is impossible.

We could very well have a living wage, and I've detailed a proposal for that. We should get rid of the minimum wage and make the living wage the new standard. Tied to the Median GDP in America. And thus in doing so, we promote a high quality of life for All Americans while putting millions of them back to work.

 

Well, maybe not. That measurement only includes those that kept their jobs, and a subset will, and enjoy higher wages. But then to only measure the wages of the sub-set that were not let go when the minimum wage rose is to guild the lilly.

Average Hourly Earnings Worst Since 2014

Average hourly earnings declined by 0.1%, the first negative print in 2016 and the worst print since 2014.


The constant loss of purchasing power, the need for multiple minimum wage jobs and the eroding wages are tearing the heart right out of the chest of the American Worker, it cannot end soon enough. 49 more days until Obama goes from a full time golfer and part time President to a full time Golfer who shows up to stutter before large crowds during election season.

 

And all due to rightie refusal to keep the minimum wage up with the rate of inflation.

Regarding "- 95 million out of the labor force", that was dealt with in the graph link that apparently didn't view, so here it is again - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyrqaL5UQAATTF7.jpg

Or maybe you are referring to those who have given up. Again, that is due to republicans blocking everything.

 

Extensive study but not much ability to explain things I see. And the prices you are worried about are mostly prices of nation-wide marketing of products by national and international corporations, so we are still left with the difference between the two lines in the chart, -one being of one set of states and the other being of a different set of states.

Are you saying the prices went up even in states that didn't raise the minimum wage? It's an interesting claim. At least I posted external evidence for my claim. You, OTOH, only have "believe me". Show me reliable evidence of the cost of living increasing in states that increased the minimum wage as opposed to states that didn't. It doesn't exist. Nice try though.

Sounds great but I didn't see your proposal. Did congress see it?

 

It all means little unless you can show a drop in employment unique to states that raised the minimum wage. Otherwise it's just words.

 

Here's another graph:



See that shaded area? That's unemployment. What are their average hourly earnings?

 

It means nothing without a link to the source so that definitions and parameters can be determined.

 

Not necessary at all, this is a basic economic concept, taught in any elementary level economics courses on college campuses everywhere.

It's too bad Economics is not a requirement in the pursuit of most liberal arts degrees. I think this country would be a lot better off if people didn't believe that tripling the cost of something causes no effect on its consumption.

 

The good news is that thanks to the Trump Bump, Obama's abysmal record might finish slightly better than 4th worst in history...

 

Yeahwellnevermind. I found it. https://aceconomist.wordpress.com/

It is exceptionally poorly written by a wannabee. But what really matters is that it is a theoretical explanation based on capitalist textbook economic theory. There is no substantiating statistical data provided. It just explains a theory that sounds nice when taken alone. But in doing so it omits relevant facts, like a basic unemployment rate that always remains in any capitalist system, even when we are told we are at "full employment". How much of that pink triangle represents this unemployment rate? It doesn't say.

The graphs I provided are based on data. Yours is based on theory and is merely an explanation of that theory. Well capitalism also has a theory that capitalism's strength is in its reliance on competition to produce the best product at the lowest price and we know how much validity there is in that in actual practice.

Try again.

 

I'm referring to all those people who make the REAL minimum wage; $0hr, or are jobless on fixed incomes. There are 95 million of them. THESE are the people who are devastated by a raise in the MW. Why do you want to raise the cost of living for the 1 in 3 Americans who do not have jobs, just to benefit a relative few mostly teenage part-timers? Why do you want to knock the bottom rungs off the ladder for the 95 million, making it even harder for them to find work?

 

Bush was the first to see an annual GDP sink to a negative nearly 3% shrinkage rate. https://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/

And the Obama years must be viewed in the context of a republican party that obstructed everything they could including some of their own better ideas, and in terms of the context of Bush's regime producing a record exit of manufacturing out of the U.S. and to other low-labor-cost nations. And if you think the poor GDP rate is only Obama's responsibility, let's wait until you see what Trump is going to give you. With the exit of manufacturers as world capitalism stumbles and struggles to increase profits while workers lack the income necessary to spend and keep the capitalist happy, we will see economic times getting far worse world-wide. We are going to see clear attacks on citizens' incomes and assets in the next phase of this as world capitalism goes into full crash.

 

I wonder how many of those food stamp people fall into the category of....working poor.
Those who work 40 hours a week, who's wages are set low. You know, perhaps a Walmart worker.
Or some one that works 2 part time jobs because no full time positions are available.

 

Thanks for revealing the bogus nature of your "data". I guess you haven't heard: there HAS BEEN no federal "raise in the MW"!
Your data is not specific to states that raised the MW! Therefore it is nation-wide!

 

This is a ridiculous misrepresentation utilizing the correlation = causation fallacy. Forcing transactions results in inefficiency. You are removing the price from labor as a communication device.

 

Try again to do what, exactly? Explain to someone a feature economics to someone who doesn't believe in economic capitalism? That sounds pretty pointless, doesn't it?

I said there was no source necessary because a source is truly unnecessary in this instance. Not just to someone who understands basic economic principles (like supply and demand, which is what this graph essentially shows), but to someone who can follow just the logic behind it.

To people who do believe in the idea of markets (i.e - non-socialists), if someone has a 10 widgets for sale, and buyers are able to buy widgets at a price of X dollars from his competitors on an open market, the seller is going to list his widgets for sale at a price close to X dollars. If he puts the price significantly over X dollars, less buyers will buy his products. If he puts his price significantly under X dollars, more buyers will buy his products. That's a basic example of how it works.

When we are talking about labor, two things come into play. How much a business owner is willing to pay for a worker, and how much that worker is willing to work for. There's a specific price point where the supply of labor (how many workers are willing to work at that particular price) equals the demand for labor (how many employers are willing to hire a worker). That's called the equilibrium price point, represented by QE in the chart I posted.

Raising the minimum wage, assuming it is past the price point where equilibrium would naturally settle at, creates a price floor, which you also see in the above chart. More workers are willing to work at the higher price, however, less business owners are willing to hire at that higher point. This difference is caused unemployment. There are more workers than there are available jobs. What is the average hourly earning of someone with no job? Simple question.

These are all basic, and I mean basic economic principles, but socialists generally don't believe in them because they reject the idea of markets. There's really no meaningful discussion that can be had with these people on the topic.

 

WTF are you talking about?

 

You do realize that the wealthy benefit from inflation. There are hundreds of articles, etc. written on this subject.