| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/18/2008 7:01:44 AM |
So, I guess I should expect six replies that say an increase in Minimum wage causes Unemployment, because you said so.
Maybe, maybe not, but this will probably be my last post on this subject as arguing with zealots over the internet is rather a waste of my time. 
Ok, OP from your first post, (which appears to be little more then you promoting a pet project or idea) all you have done so far is beat the drum for said pet project or idea, never actually providing any data to support your theory that raising the minimum wage helps the economy.
In-fact I would say your original post was little more than a troll post so you could then pat everybody on the back that agreed with you and jumped on your little bandwagon, or turn and attack those that didn’t, as that is all you have done until finally in your 5th post (where you wanted to delete my actual factual post) you offer up this http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastch07.htm a link to the US Dept. of Labor showing a chart that only shows the changes last year for State unemployment rates,
 NM is doing good, it’s #1 yea for NM.,
OK, now show me your proof that it is related to your minimum wage laws compared to the other states, say Texas which is number 2 and has no State/city mandated wage laws. ( feel free to get back to us with links to those studies)
Look, I can use the same chart (using your logic of course) to show for example, that the State min wage laws that took effect the first of the year in California have caused unemployment to rise .5%. Did it ? probably, but I don’t really know, but of course by using your logic and provided information, I guess I could claim it did.
Then you rant a rave a couple more times before your 7th post, where you offer up a lame link to a website that is little more than an online ad touting the growing economy & for doing business in NM. (http://www.nmsitesearch.com/labor/labor_1_4.htm)
There is nothing there in either one of your provided links that connects or correlates your original position, all it tells me is that NM. has a good economy despite it’s wage laws.
So if you please, I’m still waiting for you to point me to those facts and or studies of yours that actually prove something, instead of insisting I believe you, just because you said so .  | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 11:25:06 AM | Sorry about the delayed response. I have very little free time. Instead of a lot of cut and paste information, I will provide the links for you to read for yourself, so context is not an issue.
Study: Minimum-wage law hasn't hurt job growth
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/47669.html
Study: Minimum-Wage Hikes Boost Retail Employment
http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Employment/minimum_wage_hikes_boost_retail_employment.html
"There may be a Henry Ford effect at work here," they write. "If you pay workers more, they can buy more, boosting the overall economy, especially among small retail businesses."
Here is an example of what I mean by misinformation!
Minimum Wage Study Turns Up Surprising Results
http://www.rgs.uky.edu/odyssey/winter07/minimum_wage.html
I've already shown you information that shows that Santa Fe has had extremely positive results. Their employment levels have exceeded nearly everyone else in the country. However, this piece of BS uses patently false information to make it sound like there were no positive results. Overall income isn't going to rise sharply, since a boost in minumum wage for the small population that earns it, isn't going to be a large overall number in the economy. You could give every minimum wage earner an extra dollar in Seattle, but that wouldn't even touch what Bill Gates made that day. Articles like this one, or by organizations like the Heritage Foundation are dishonest.
Along with a minimum wage, perhaps a maximum wage would be in order. Maybe a CEO should only be allowed to earn 50 times what his bottom employee earns. Somehow, I don't think Exxon's CEO would be for that. Ben And Jerry's has a 20-1 ratio, I think. I don't remember the exact ratio for them, but it is far more generous than any other company that I am aware of. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 11:43:48 AM | | If raising the minimum wage really reduces unemployment why should we stop at $10-$12 dollars an hour? Let’s raise minimum wage to $10,000 or $20,000 an hour. Imagine all of the spending that would happen then. I could buy 4 new cars every shift or a new house every day. I bet that will take the 2.8% of unemployment in your study down to 0%. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 12:02:20 PM | Another lets play red vs blue stupidity.. I'm sooo tired of the ignorance.
Maybe, maybe not, but this will probably be my last post on this subject as arguing with zealots over the internet is rather a waste of my time
Excepting that as I will show in a moment and others have already shown this poster is the zealot. What makes him a zealot? The fact that without thinking or researching he repeats whatever it is he wants to believe. Let us begin the fascinating journey into the mind of a red minded free-market zealot.
OK, now show me your proof that it is related to your minimum wage laws compared to the other states, say Texas which is number 2 and has no State/city mandated wage laws.
Well actually Mr Zealot Texas does have State/City mandated wage laws which happen to equal the Federal. http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm or more specfically
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/lablaw/tmwsum.html. Sooooooo what about those states that really don't have minimum wage laws.?
Tennessee
Mississippi
Alabama
louisiana
and South Carolina
I might well be mistaken Mr Zealot but I am pretty sure they are all in worse economic shape then the other states. Ohh how about the ones that are less then the Federal surely those will be amazing powerhouses of industry.
Wyoming
Kansas
Georgia
Well so much for the idea that no minimum wage helps businesses. Cause most of the nation has minimum wages above the federal standard.
Mr Zealot then runs around ranting about how things do better despite their wage laws, which ironically is correct because the minimum wage laws don't ruin business lack of them does. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 12:29:45 PM | Pickme;
Why resort to rediculous statements.
Hyperinflation has only happened a few times in history.
Inflation is not bad, as long as wages for the bottom quintile exceed the inflation rate. Deflation is bad for everyone. Minimum wage prevents deflation from hapening.
FireKnight;
Good post, thanks. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 2:27:34 PM | Exodis …..
From your first link (which proves nothing) http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/47669.html
Key Findings
_Santa Fe employers affected by the city minimum-wage law increased the number of employees overall by .35 employees when compared to the year before the ordinance took effect. During the same period, overall employment levels in Albuquerque fell by 2.4 employees.
_Construction firms with 25 or more employees cut jobs at a greater rate in Santa Fe than in Albuquerque after Santa Fe's minimum-wage ordinance took effect. But researchers could not conclusively determine whether that was because of the wage law or a decreased-investment trend that already was under way.
_ Santa Fe's retail and health-care industries lost more jobs than did Albuquerque's, but at statistically insignificant levels.
_ While Santa Fe and Albuquerque both saw job declines in the hospitality industry, Santa Fe's losses were less than half those in Albuquerque during the same period.
Source: The University of New Mexico Bureau of Business and Economic Research
Overall your data is inconclusive, as for supporting the wage hikes, all of the above actually points to lost jobs, but of course at insignificant levels. ( tell that to the insignificant people that lost their jobs )
Your second link also supports the idea that artificially mandated wage hikes hurt low income workers, just as the links I previously provided do. However as you personally do not agree with them you simply try to dismiss them as lies or disinformation.
( I understand there is lots of sand in New Mexico, good, should be easy for you to find some to go stick your head in )
Firenaught … Your post isn’t even worth a response as, (but as I sometimes enjoy pointing out red vs blue stupidity, I shall indulge myself.)
One: You took what I said completely out of context, and twisted it.
Two: The topic was “MANDATES” Following Federal Guidelines is not the same as having State/City mandates, perhaps you should research the differences.
Three: Naw, nevermind, your post isn’t worth three …..
 | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 3:02:13 PM | There are NO studies that show ANY relation to unemployment, higher prices or anything but some benefit to the people at the bottom of the wage scales through a raised minimum wage.
We live in a consumer society now, not a manufacturing one, so yes, more disposable income makes the economy go round. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 3:08:19 PM |
Firenaught … Your post isn’t even worth a response as, (but as I sometimes enjoy pointing out red vs blue stupidity, I shall indulge myself.)
Aka I have absolutely nothing to redeem myself with and so will attempt to recover from my obvious ignorance by being insulting. You only get to claim intellectual superiority once Just 2 be. Once you fail in that and resort only to defamation and insult you prove you have no case.
One: You took what I said completely out of context, and twisted it
Your post exists in its entirety I took nothing out of context nor did I twist it. You claimed because you never bothered to research. I simply showed how simple it would have been to not make the mistake. If you want someone to take you seriously just 2 be respect yourself by thinking through and researching. It was you not I who choose Texas and claimed it had no state or city law about minimum wage. You made the fool of yourself and provoked by calling others zealots. I merely seasoned your foot to taste better.
Two: The topic was “MANDATES” Following Federal Guidelines is not the same as having State/City mandates, perhaps you should research the differences.
Are you really foolish enough to put your foot in your mouth twice and think its chicken? The link I provided you had you the wisdom to read it shows the following
The Texas Minimum Wage Act, Chapter 62 of the Texas Labor Code, as amended, establishes a minimum wage for non-exempt employees. The current provisions of the Texas Minimum Wage Act are found in Chapter 62 of the Texas Labor Code. It requires covered employers to provide each employee with a written earnings statement containing certain information about the employee's pay. It designates the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) as the agency responsible for disseminating information about the Act. It contains elaborate provisions concerning agricultural piece rate workers. It exempts a laundry list of employers from its coverage. Finally, the Act provides civil remedies for its violation.
That would mean that it is in fact a state mandate and not a federal one.
Texas adopts the federal minimum wage rate by reference, thus any changes affecting the federal minimum wage automatically becomes the Texas minimum wage for all intended purposes. Based on federal legislation, the federal minimum wage will increase in three stages: Meaning Texas chooses by default to follow the federal minimum wage not that it has to. Infact it could do what most states have done which is increase the minimum above the Federal.
Three: Naw, nevermind, your post isn’t worth three …..
And your blinder then a deaf bat but there is always hope. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 3:17:38 PM | Of the two of us, one has a Bachelor's degree in Economics, I thhink we both know who that is. I didn't start this thread for people like you, who's mind would not sway no matter how much evidence there is. I started it to provide information to those who don't know the truth. The fact that YOU can't have an intelligent conversation without AD HOMINEN fallacies ((Exodis and Firenaught)) says that YOU are the one who has a problem.
Obviously you went to the links I provided, but you didn't take the time to understand the meaning.
Santa Fe has the HIGHEST minimum wage in the country and despite a recession, they experienced job growth while the rest of the country had job loss. Even Albequerque had job loss. So what is it about Santa Fe that caused it to have growth, despite hard times.
It doesn't matter how much data you provide closed minded people. There isn't a single scientific study where unemployment EVER went up due to increased minimum wage. EVERY study has demostrated the opposite. EVERY one, so how is it that so much misinformation is spread? Because of the ones spreading the misinformation. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 3:38:59 PM |
Santa Fe has one of the LOWEST Unemployment rates in the country and the have the HIGHEST minimum wage. THUS; a high minimum wage LOWERS Unemployment.
OP How yer doin'?
This is yours from msg 17. Now forgive me for not getting a collage degree before posting in your thread but this sounds like one of them thar logical fallicies. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 7:47:21 PM | Which one, there are 42, obviously you can eliminate number one; AD HOMINEN.
Please inform me which one? | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 8:08:49 PM | Mandates on employer to pay living wage drives out the lower skilled out of the market place. The minimum wage mandate at employer legally has to pay certian wage is poor policy because it drive the lower skilled out of the market place, and expands the criminal class even more. Income tax credits should be given to ensure workers dont live in tin room shacks. Sweden does not have minimum wage it is set by the Unions negiotating the prevailing wage. Unions are not the problem its just the goverment should not create mandates which wages are acceptable. Wage in Texas for low skilled work is gonna be way different than for low skilled work in New York, or Massacuttes.
Wage should be set by supply and demand, and Unions be easier to organize. Still, do not trust the federal goverment to set wages and prices and the markets are more efficent at that. Goverment should not favor businessmen or labor union period.
The problem is the goverment will favor one side business too much, or Unions too much. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 8:27:53 PM | it's best for a balanced economy to have wages keep up with productivity.
people need purchasing power to create demand. with a growing gap between wages and productivity the ability of the market to consume what's produced diminishes.
example: "The unemployment rate was at it's lowest in 1969 and at the same time the minimum wage had its largest purchasing power." - economist and professor Ravi Batra
The idea that a minimum wage will reduce employment is a fallacy. the average wage adjusted for inflation has remained stagnant for 30 years. However, productivity in America is now at the point where Americans work more hours than any industrialized nation, including Japan. Americans also make less in hourly wages and have the highest productivity. At the same time with our declining dollar and higher fuel, our purchasing power is diminished.
the only thing that has kept the economy going for the last 25 years is debt, personal, coporate, and public. Because wages have not kept up with productivity (production) debt is required to consume what is produced. This explains why Americans have an average savings rate of $0 dollars.
however, we're already leveraged to the hilt. now what?
we need to jack up the minmium wage. putting money in peoples pockets worked for Roosevelt..it'll work now. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 8:28:12 PM |
Santa Fe has one of the LOWEST Unemployment rates in the country and the have the HIGHEST minimum wage. THUS; a high minimum wage LOWERS Unemployment.
Confusing cause and effect.
Imagine if the Minimum wage went up to say $10 to $12 per hour? Imagine how much more spending would occur!
Then what are you going to do for those that are doing breakneck work for $12 an hour already and going home sore and tired and injured every day ? | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 10:01:12 PM | That is the ONLY valid argument against increased minimum wage.
When minimum wage increases. Unemployment goes down, or employment goes up, every time.
It increases spending power of consumers, stimulating the economy every time.
However, the ONLY valid argument against, is the narrowing of the gap for those who have worked hard to rise. Many will also see a rise, but not all. Some will find themselves back at minimum wage again and that is a shame.
However, the overall benefits to society and to the poor, as well as the stimulation to the economy itself make it worth the change.
Economics weren't meant to be easy. | |
|
| |
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/23/2008 11:23:57 PM | | ... is it just me or is this so stupidly simple that people aren't getting it? we just got, or are getting money, each and every one of us and they are calling it an economic stimulus package..... hello? if that's not enough proof of trickle up economics i don't know what is.... | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 9:11:03 AM | ^^
..or is it proof that lower taxes benefit the economy? Considering the stimulus check is indeed a tax rebate, i.e. a refund on taxes you've already paid. It's not a gift from the government, it's an admission that the way to help the economy is to let folks keep more of their own money.  | |
|
| |
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 9:50:18 AM | | Exactly! Our ecoonomy works from the ground up, not the other way around. Increase income on the bottom, it grows, decrease it and it slows. It isn't that hard to understand. . . | |
|
| |
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 10:22:02 AM |
Good, so we're all in agreement that raising taxes is a BAD thing, right?
Not exactly the fact is there are services the government needs to and is obligated to supply and so to fund those there must be taxes. However the real truth of economics you learned in your youth from the story of a Christmas Carol. Those with too much money become attached to it and cease spending it, instead choosing to horde it to greater and greater degrees. Those people need to be taxed or otherwise severely compelled to return that money into the system. Aka you get too much money you turn into scrooge and don't do anything but count your money unless the ghost of government threatens you. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 10:38:20 AM | Good, so we're all in agreement that raising taxes is a BAD thing, right?
Nope. Those who gain more advantage from the government/infrastructure/commons should pay more for that priviledge. Example: How many times did you use the interstate highway system to the opposite side of the country this year & how much did you profit from being able to do so?
Now, how many times did the CEO of Wal-Mart depend on that publicly funded resource & how much did THEY directly profit from it's use?
Are you going to advocate that somebody who used something once should pay a similar rate of taxation than somebody who used it multiple times to great profit?
Until Reagan we paid payroll taxes on the first 30K......now we pay them on the first 90K. Your taxes have not gone down substantially under the NeoCon rule unless you were making over 250K a year. The upper 5% income folks have seen a 20% reduction in their tax rate, tho.
Want to save the middle class of the US?
Revert to the economic policies that allowed it to grow so rapidly from the 30s thru the 70s.
There has been a concerted effort by Big Biz over the last 25 years to erase every single policy that pulled this nation out of the last Great Depression. & they've gotten rid of every one except Social Security...which they are now working on. A "Free Market" economy is great for the robber barrons, but pretty crappy for the working class.
Since we now have just about every factor going that was responsible for that economic collapse.....we will likely be forced to learn that very difficult lesson all over again in the near future. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 10:48:46 AM | | haha, I would have to say that I almost believe in a maximum wage over a minimum wage. there are a lot more worthless people out there than there are priceless people. a minimum wage at $10 or $12 per hour is WAY too much money. no 16 year old kid is worth $25,000 per year just starting out. especially if they live in the middle of nowhere. that type of minimum wage would destroy small businesses in poorer areas. if you want people at the bottom to have more money, I have two words for you. FAIR TAX. you can't get any more than 100%. as in 100% of your paycheck. the problem isn't taxation, it's spending. the government spends too much money. tax dollars should only go to the things that service the community, not the individual. I am not responsible for health care for someone else's child. I am not responsible for paying for someone else's food. the government isn't a charitable organization. | |
|
| Proof of Consumer-Side Economics!
Posted: 6/24/2008 10:55:15 AM |
Those who gain more advantage from the government/infrastructure/commons should pay more for that priviledge.
Which is exactly why someone like me with no kids should pay lower taxes than folks with kids in public school  | |
|
Home
login 
