MontereyJack
 
  3  
Sat 23 Nov, 2013 09:36 pm
Paul Krugman, whose work in economics won him a Nobel Prize disagrees with you, coldjoint, as do many, many studies on the effects of minimum wage raises. Won any Nobels lately, coldjoint?
Quote:

Raise That Wage
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 17, 2013 581 Comments

President Obama laid out a number of good ideas in his State of the Union address. Unfortunately, almost all of them would require spending money — and given Republican control of the House of Representatives, it’s hard to imagine that happening.




One major proposal, however, wouldn’t involve budget outlays: the president’s call for a rise in the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9, with subsequent increases in line with inflation. The question we need to ask is: Would this be good policy? And the answer, perhaps surprisingly, is a clear yes.

Why “surprisingly”? Well, Economics 101 tells us to be very cautious about attempts to legislate market outcomes. Every textbook — mine included — lays out the unintended consequences that flow from policies like rent controls or agricultural price supports. And even most liberal economists would, I suspect, agree that setting a minimum wage of, say, $20 an hour would create a lot of problems.

But that’s not what’s on the table. And there are strong reasons to believe that the kind of minimum wage increase the president is proposing would have overwhelmingly positive effects.

First of all, the current level of the minimum wage is very low by any reasonable standard. For about four decades, increases in the minimum wage have consistently fallen behind inflation, so that in real terms the minimum wage is substantially lower than it was in the 1960s. Meanwhile, worker productivity has doubled. Isn’t it time for a raise?

Now, you might argue that even if the current minimum wage seems low, raising it would cost jobs. But there’s evidence on that question — lots and lots of evidence, because the minimum wage is one of the most studied issues in all of economics. U.S. experience, it turns out, offers many “natural experiments” here, in which one state raises its minimum wage while others do not. And while there are dissenters, as there always are, the great preponderance of the evidence from these natural experiments points to little if any negative effect of minimum wage increases on employment.

Why is this true? That’s a subject of continuing research, but one theme in all the explanations is that workers aren’t bushels of wheat or even Manhattan apartments; they’re human beings, and the human relationships involved in hiring and firing are inevitably more complex than markets for mere commodities. And one byproduct of this human complexity seems to be that modest increases in wages for the least-paid don’t necessarily reduce the number of jobs.

What this means, in turn, is that the main effect of a rise in minimum wages is a rise in the incomes of hard-working but low-paid Americans — which is, of course, what we’re trying to accomplish.

Finally, it’s important to understand how the minimum wage interacts with other policies aimed at helping lower-paid workers, in particular the earned-income tax credit, which helps low-income families who help themselves. The tax credit — which has traditionally had bipartisan support, although that may be ending — is also good policy. But it has a well-known defect: Some of its benefits end up flowing not to workers but to employers, in the form of lower wages. And guess what? An increase in the minimum wage helps correct this defect. It turns out that the tax credit and the minimum wage aren’t competing policies, they’re complementary policies that work best in tandem.

So Mr. Obama’s wage proposal is good economics. It’s also good politics: a wage increase is supported by an overwhelming majority of voters, including a strong majority of self-identified Republican women (but not men). Yet G.O.P. leaders in Congress are opposed to any rise. Why? They say that they’re concerned about the people who might lose their jobs, never mind the evidence that this won’t actually happen. But this isn’t credible.

For today’s Republican leaders clearly feel disdain for low-wage workers. Bear in mind that such workers, even if they work full time, by and large don’t pay income taxes (although they pay plenty in payroll and sales taxes), while they may receive benefits like Medicaid and food stamps. And you know what this makes them, in the eyes of the G.O.P.: “takers,” members of the contemptible 47 percent who, as Mitt Romney said to nods of approval, won’t take responsibility for their own lives.

Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, offered a perfect illustration of this disdain last Labor Day: He chose to commemorate a holiday dedicated to workers by sending out a message that said nothing at all about workers, but praised the efforts of business owners instead.

The good news is that not many Americans share that disdain; just about everyone except Republican men believes that the lowest-paid workers deserve a raise. And they’re right. We should raise the minimum wage, now.


coldjoint
 
  1  
Sat 23 Nov, 2013 10:01 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Paul Krugman,


Obama won the Nobel prize. It is no big deal now.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 23 Nov, 2013 11:26 pm
@coldjoint,
You can say that again! This Nobel prize winner increased our troops in Afghanistan by 50,000. PEACE!
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 12:56 am
https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1460275_555175614567308_1618408451_n.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 10:10 am
@RexRed,
From where I stand, I don't have any confidence that either the republicans or democrats will do the right thing for our country. We are first and foremost a war-mongering country that spends more on defense and the killing of innocents all over this planet - at high cost of our treasure and people - rather than spending it for the good of our children's education and health - and their future security.

Our federal, state, and local governments are mostly irresponsible denizens of self-interest rather than for the people they are supposed to represent.

It's a miracle that our economy has survived all of this crap.
RexRed
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 01:28 pm
Now that they have broken the filibuster the Senate has to make some new rules. Rule 1, the house cannot default on our national debt or they (members) are subject to criminal prosecution.

Rule 2 the houses cannot shut down government without a super majority...
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 01:33 pm
@RexRed,
Quote:
Rule 2 the houses cannot shut down government without a super majority...
in otherwords only a super minority would be required to approve spending.

one of the more nutty things you have ever said, which is saying a lot.
RexRed
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 01:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You know there are people out there that chant "Death To America"!

They are not upset with America because we are a war mongering state as they are. They are upset with use because we have our liberty and democracy. Because our women have the right to walk around half clad and our men can worship whatever God they want.

If we no longer were "war mongering" as you call it these people that chant death to America would still be there planning and plotting our demise..

CI what do you propose we do about them, should we allow their radical ideas to over-run our democracy? Should we put down our own sword of freedom just so we can pick up their sword of radical fundamentalism?

What is more important, surrendering militarily and losing our freedom or resisting militarily and being "war mongers" so as to keep our liberties and freedoms?

So we become pacifist only to surrender and then pick up even more war from our opponents ways?

Does not seem like a good plan to me.
RexRed
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 01:50 pm
@hawkeye10,
The spending has by that point has already been approved it is now time to pay the bill... The spending should never have been allocated if the intention was to default on the payment.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 03:02 pm
@RexRed,
Have you ever heard the term "over kill?"
The US spends $712 billion. The next biggest defense budget is by China at $100 billion.

Do you understand anything about excess?

How about excess waste?
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 03:26 pm
@MontereyJack,
Excerpt from the last few lines by the "Editorial Board"

Quote:
President Obama’s erroneous statements that all people who like their current insurance policies can keep them — not true for many people buying insurance in the individual market — has added to anger and misunderstanding.


The insurance most people own in the finality is not worth the paper they're printed on. (This of course is not to excuse Obama's hasty speech about keeping one's current insurance.) One of my professors was hit with cancer....working at an Ivy League University, he had the best insurance money could buy. His insurance company's name was Aetna; he went in for his operation (they did not get all the cancer). After leaving the hospital, and having extensive cancer treatment followups, eventually, AETNA dropped him because of the escalating costs of his insurance which they would not cover. He was told to get on Medicare at age 56.

Affordable Health Care will cover all illnesses and no kicking you off in the end. So in many ways, those people receiving letters saying they were being dropped, don't realize they did not really lose anything as long as they were not too ill or had a prolonged illness with surging costs.

In some states the Affordable Health Care site is now up and running, quite successfully. And when all the kinks have been ironed out the American people will love it as a base of profound security. Insurance companies, despite its name, is in the business of making big money and they do exploit the client. Some prescriptions are so expensive here in the US that quite a significant number of people cross over into Canada to get their prescriptions filled much cheaper.

In a few years, after Americans realize just what a gold mine AHC act is politicians will be loathed to touch it, reminiscent of their reluctance to attack Entitlement Programs, i.e., social security and medicare head on.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 03:34 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
Quote:
In a few years, after Americans realize just what a gold mine AHC act is politicians will be loathed to touch it, reminiscent of their reluctance to attack Entitlement Programs, i.e., social security and medicare head on.
i think most of us have given up on the politicians doing anything about the problem tell the bankers force a fix, which will be when they refuse to provide more credit. ObamaCare is the equivalent of the family that is already $100,000k in debt deciding to go to Disneyland because everyone wants to go to Disneyland, and hey, we still have some credit cards that work.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 05:35 pm
@RexRed,
If we werent so feared we wouldent have to fight wars. We spend more on the military than the next 10 countries in the world. This only makes our politicians more belligerent and willing to fight wars that dont mean shyt to most americans. If the politicians had to fight in every shooting war they started I bet there would be damn few wars.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 06:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
How much is excess in the pursuit of liberty and freedom?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 07:50 pm
@RexRed,
You,
Quote:
How much is excess in the pursuit of liberty and freedom?


Our liberties and freedoms are being taken from our own government. The cost of defense of this country that has no political consensus takes away from our children's education, our infrastructure, food and shelter for our citizens, while increasing the national debt. TNCFS

Quote:
ex·cess
ikˈses,ˈekses/Submit
noun
1.
an amount of something that is more than necessary, permitted, or desirable.
"are you suffering from an excess of stress in your life?"
synonyms: surplus, surfeit, overabundance, superabundance, superfluity, glut More remainder, rest, residue; leftovers, remnants; surplus, extra, difference antonyms: lack, dearth the amount by which one quantity or number exceeds another. "the excess of imports over exports rose $1.4 billion"
synonyms: remainder, rest, residue; More
2.
lack of moderation in an activity, esp. eating or drinking.
"bouts of alcoholic excess"
synonyms: overindulgence, intemperance, immoderation, profligacy, lavishness, extravagance, decadence, self-indulgence, overconsumption More
antonyms: moderation, restraint
outrageous or immoderate behavior.
"the worst excesses of the French Revolution"
3.
the action of exceeding a permitted limit.
"there is no issue as to excess of jurisdiction"
adjective
adjective: excess
1.
exceeding a prescribed or desirable amount.
"trim any excess fat off the meat"
synonyms: surplus, superfluous, redundant, unwanted, unneeded, excessive;
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 08:13 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Our liberties and freedoms are being taken from our own government.
it is worse than that, there is a organized effort by power to brainwash us into believing that giving up freedom is necessary, that we must. government is now on the side of evil.

as a socialist I depend upon the utility of government to work for the best interests of the collective, but at the moment we have pressing problem of government being our advisory. We must remove power from the government until such time as we can cure it, and get it functioning its proper role once again.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 09:52 pm
@RexRed,
I don't see any bombs going off in that cartoon. If you want a violent religion look to your east.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 10:20 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

I don't see any bombs going off in that cartoon. If you want a violent religion look to your east.
you have no doubt noticed that those trying to equate Islamic violence against the individual to Christian violence against the individual feel compelled to travel all the way back to the Crusades to support their argument. The West barely cares about religion now,and this fact is ignored. try to correlate popular press reporting post 911 that muslims were increasingly oppressed with your personal experience, if you can. my reality is that people are more hospitable towards muslims than ever post 911 out of fear of bing the ugly american.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 10:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
my reality is that people are more hospitable towards muslims than ever post 911 out of fear of bing the ugly american.


How did they become the victim is a bigger question? We are fighting "radical"(devout) Islamists. Is that what Americans Muslims are? They seem to take offense when terrorists are killed, why is that?

The fact that people are afraid to talk about Islam says volumes about Islam and free societies. And the fact that even the word Muslim sends armies of liberal defenders who do not realize Islam only has control in common with them. Any other "moral" or humanitarian cause like gay or womens rights they could not be more different. For Gays Islam is deadly.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 24 Nov, 2013 11:03 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
The fact that people are afraid to talk about Islam says volumes about Islam and free societies
no, it speaks volumes about the atrophy of Western Civilization. examination of truth used to be what we were best at, it got us to where we are. we are failing.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 12:25:51