|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 14 2013 12:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. Raising the minimum wage actually benefits the economy, and Paul Ryan isn't proposing any tough cuts in fact he mentions the savings of Obamacare and the extra revenue coming in from the increased taxes on the higher tiers of the tax bracket, he hates it but at the same wants to take credit for it. A tough cut would be to stop the subsidies for Big Agriculture, and taxing Wall St loopholes, while closing military bases in Europe. I doubt raising the minimum wage would help the economy. Most likely it would do a bit of harm. Some people will lose their jobs or get reduced hours. A lot of those that keep them will lose much of their added spending power through taxes / benefit reductions. We'd be better off reforming our poverty traps first. I'll agree with you on the tough cuts - I'd be happy to see those go along with additional military cuts and entitlement reforms.
This same tired argument has been refuted some many times, explain how raising the minimum wage would harm the economy, do you think people will just sit on the few, and I do mean few, extra dollars they earn? Or will they put it back in the economy? How would Walmart suffer from people paying a living wage, they wouldn't but the reason they don't is that they are in the mind set of more money = more success.
EDIT: It's like the Wall St analyst who said that Costco should lower pay for workers in order to make more profits for shareholders as several hundred million could easily be a billion plus if only the employees were on slave wages without healthcare.
|
On March 14 2013 12:10 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. It's an incredibly stupid proposal that 1. Is wrong in all sorts of fundamental mathematical ways 2. Makes all sorts of unreasonable assumptions 3. Clearly has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. It's a useless piece of legislation. All it does is present an incredibly polarizing starting point that more reasonably-minded people will have to work away from when crafting an actual solution that both sides can agree on. There's a balance between pragmatism and ideology, and this thing Paul has presented is clearly not it.
You're right that it will never become law. Everything else you say sounds nonsensical to me. Or maybe a better word is hysterical. "Wrong in all sorts of fundamental mathematical ways"? What in the world are you talking about? "Makes all sorts of unreasonable assumptions"? Okay, I'll look forward to your next post when you explain which assumptions it makes that are unreasonable -- but I won't hold my breath.
My opinion is that, even though it won't pass, the proposal is very valuable because it has a big impact on the national conversation about the debt. Democrats and many Republicans seem happy to just carry along pretending that the problem doesn't exist. An enormous debt is a big drag on the economy and on the national standard of living. I believe it should be tackled head on. Proposals like this one make it harder for the average person (or the average politician) to keep hiding their head in the sand.
|
On March 14 2013 12:33 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 12:10 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. It's an incredibly stupid proposal that 1. Is wrong in all sorts of fundamental mathematical ways 2. Makes all sorts of unreasonable assumptions 3. Clearly has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. It's a useless piece of legislation. All it does is present an incredibly polarizing starting point that more reasonably-minded people will have to work away from when crafting an actual solution that both sides can agree on. There's a balance between pragmatism and ideology, and this thing Paul has presented is clearly not it. You're right that it will never become law. Everything else you say sounds nonsensical to me. Or maybe a better word is hysterical. "Wrong in all sorts of fundamental mathematical ways"? What in the world are you talking about? "Makes all sorts of unreasonable assumptions"? Okay, I'll look forward to your next post when you explain which assumptions it makes that are unreasonable -- but I won't hold my breath. My opinion is that, even though it won't pass, the proposal is very valuable because it has a big impact on the national conversation about the debt. Democrats and many Republicans seem happy to just carry along pretending that the problem doesn't exist. An enormous debt is a big drag on the economy and on the national standard of living. I believe it should be tackled head on. Proposals like this one make it harder for the average person (or the average politician) to keep hiding their head in the sand.
No it makes the Republicans look ever more radical, and don't think for a second Paul Ryan is concerned about the debt. He is jockeying for position for a possible Presidential run in the future and trying to keep potential far right primary battles out of the way.
|
On March 14 2013 12:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 12:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2013 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. Raising the minimum wage actually benefits the economy, and Paul Ryan isn't proposing any tough cuts in fact he mentions the savings of Obamacare and the extra revenue coming in from the increased taxes on the higher tiers of the tax bracket, he hates it but at the same wants to take credit for it. A tough cut would be to stop the subsidies for Big Agriculture, and taxing Wall St loopholes, while closing military bases in Europe. I doubt raising the minimum wage would help the economy. Most likely it would do a bit of harm. Some people will lose their jobs or get reduced hours. A lot of those that keep them will lose much of their added spending power through taxes / benefit reductions. We'd be better off reforming our poverty traps first. I'll agree with you on the tough cuts - I'd be happy to see those go along with additional military cuts and entitlement reforms. This same tired argument has been refuted some many times, explain how raising the minimum wage would harm the economy, do you think people will just sit on the few, and I do mean few, extra dollars they earn? Or will they put it back in the economy? How would Walmart suffer from people paying a living wage, they wouldn't but the reason they don't is that they are in the mind set of more money = more success. EDIT: It's like the Wall St analyst who said that Costco should lower pay for workers in order to make more profits for shareholders as several hundred million could easily be a billion plus if only the employees were on slave wages without healthcare.
If you increase the cost of a commodity (like the labour of people willing to work for minimum wage) you reduce the amount that people buy. It really is that simple. Here is a blog I read a few weeks ago that explains the big picture pretty well. The guy's point is that honest proponents of the minimum wage would recognize that a few people would lose their jobs, but then argue that it's worth the loss to get some other benefits. Buf of course it's not politically correct to say that
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/02/minimum-wage?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that wage increasee will in turn increase consumption.
it's a circuit.
|
On March 14 2013 12:36 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 12:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 12:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2013 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. Raising the minimum wage actually benefits the economy, and Paul Ryan isn't proposing any tough cuts in fact he mentions the savings of Obamacare and the extra revenue coming in from the increased taxes on the higher tiers of the tax bracket, he hates it but at the same wants to take credit for it. A tough cut would be to stop the subsidies for Big Agriculture, and taxing Wall St loopholes, while closing military bases in Europe. I doubt raising the minimum wage would help the economy. Most likely it would do a bit of harm. Some people will lose their jobs or get reduced hours. A lot of those that keep them will lose much of their added spending power through taxes / benefit reductions. We'd be better off reforming our poverty traps first. I'll agree with you on the tough cuts - I'd be happy to see those go along with additional military cuts and entitlement reforms. This same tired argument has been refuted some many times, explain how raising the minimum wage would harm the economy, do you think people will just sit on the few, and I do mean few, extra dollars they earn? Or will they put it back in the economy? How would Walmart suffer from people paying a living wage, they wouldn't but the reason they don't is that they are in the mind set of more money = more success. EDIT: It's like the Wall St analyst who said that Costco should lower pay for workers in order to make more profits for shareholders as several hundred million could easily be a billion plus if only the employees were on slave wages without healthcare. If you increase the cost of a commodity (like the labour of people willing to work for minimum wage) you reduce the amount that people buy. It really is that simple. Here is a blog I read a few weeks ago that explains the big picture pretty well. The guy's point is that honest proponents of the minimum wage would recognize that a few people would lose their jobs, but then argue that it's worth the loss to get some other benefits. Buf of course it's not politically correct to say that http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/02/minimum-wage?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
You are aware that minimum wage increases need to go hand in hand with inflation, correct? And that the price of well everything is not the same it was fifty years, or even a decade ago right?
|
On March 14 2013 12:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 12:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2013 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. Raising the minimum wage actually benefits the economy, and Paul Ryan isn't proposing any tough cuts in fact he mentions the savings of Obamacare and the extra revenue coming in from the increased taxes on the higher tiers of the tax bracket, he hates it but at the same wants to take credit for it. A tough cut would be to stop the subsidies for Big Agriculture, and taxing Wall St loopholes, while closing military bases in Europe. I doubt raising the minimum wage would help the economy. Most likely it would do a bit of harm. Some people will lose their jobs or get reduced hours. A lot of those that keep them will lose much of their added spending power through taxes / benefit reductions. We'd be better off reforming our poverty traps first. I'll agree with you on the tough cuts - I'd be happy to see those go along with additional military cuts and entitlement reforms. This same tired argument has been refuted some many times, explain how raising the minimum wage would harm the economy, do you think people will just sit on the few, and I do mean few, extra dollars? Or will they put it back in the economy?
It would appear to be a favorite task for many arguers to start with, "Oh that's been refuted ages ago," to launch into the opening salvo of the same debate that's been going on for ages. Namely, that the cost born by companies in paying out higher wages has more benefit in the terms of the worker spending. Part of the opposite argument is that minimum wage increases force out unskilled workers that cannot compete against the more qualified because their only weapon is to agree to work for less. I'll reiterate also what was said before: workers get laid off over this as companies try to defray the cost, or get their hours reduced. Less workers are hired because the current workers are costing more.
The worry is not that an increase in federally or state mandated pay just gets stuffed in the mattress. It's the consequences in other areas from the costs to the employer, as he loses more freedom to assign wages to jobs. Is it any wonder why black teenage employment is the worst since WWII, sitting at 50%.
|
On March 14 2013 12:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 12:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2013 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. Raising the minimum wage actually benefits the economy, and Paul Ryan isn't proposing any tough cuts in fact he mentions the savings of Obamacare and the extra revenue coming in from the increased taxes on the higher tiers of the tax bracket, he hates it but at the same wants to take credit for it. A tough cut would be to stop the subsidies for Big Agriculture, and taxing Wall St loopholes, while closing military bases in Europe. I doubt raising the minimum wage would help the economy. Most likely it would do a bit of harm. Some people will lose their jobs or get reduced hours. A lot of those that keep them will lose much of their added spending power through taxes / benefit reductions. We'd be better off reforming our poverty traps first. I'll agree with you on the tough cuts - I'd be happy to see those go along with additional military cuts and entitlement reforms. This same tired argument has been refuted some many times, explain how raising the minimum wage would harm the economy, do you think people will just sit on the few, and I do mean few, extra dollars they earn? Or will they put it back in the economy? How would Walmart suffer from people paying a living wage, they wouldn't but the reason they don't is that they are in the mind set of more money = more success. EDIT: It's like the Wall St analyst who said that Costco should lower pay for workers in order to make more profits for shareholders as several hundred million could easily be a billion plus if only the employees were on slave wages without healthcare.
I'm making an argument that they won't have any extra dollars to spend. They'll lose those extra dollars via cut hours, lost employment, taxes and lost benefits.
Walmart's margins are extremely slim - if they have pay people significantly more it'll mean lost employment and higher prices as well as losses to the shareholders.
|
United States43948 Posts
On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc.
We did that in the UK. Unfortunately slashing the public sector with spending cuts while reducing the disposable income of those on benefits caused the economy to suddenly contract. The recession turned into a double dip recession, then into a triple dip recession. Unemployment rose, investment fell during the instability and government spending actually rose as people fell onto the safety net. The estimates for debt repayment were first pushed backwards, then scrapped and a new estimate for when the budget would be balanced was created, then that was scrapped and they stopped making estimates because it was making them look like they had no clue what they were doing.
|
On March 14 2013 12:33 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 12:10 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. It's an incredibly stupid proposal that 1. Is wrong in all sorts of fundamental mathematical ways 2. Makes all sorts of unreasonable assumptions 3. Clearly has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. It's a useless piece of legislation. All it does is present an incredibly polarizing starting point that more reasonably-minded people will have to work away from when crafting an actual solution that both sides can agree on. There's a balance between pragmatism and ideology, and this thing Paul has presented is clearly not it. You're right that it will never become law. Everything else you say sounds nonsensical to me. Or maybe a better word is hysterical. "Wrong in all sorts of fundamental mathematical ways"? What in the world are you talking about? "Makes all sorts of unreasonable assumptions"? Okay, I'll look forward to your next post when you explain which assumptions it makes that are unreasonable -- but I won't hold my breath. My opinion is that, even though it won't pass, the proposal is very valuable because it has a big impact on the national conversation about the debt. Democrats and many Republicans seem happy to just carry along pretending that the problem doesn't exist. An enormous debt is a big drag on the economy and on the national standard of living. I believe it should be tackled head on. Proposals like this one make it harder for the average person (or the average politician) to keep hiding their head in the sand.
Alright, I'll give you some points so you can do something apart from throw ad hominems.
-It cuts ACA, assuming that doing so will result in massive savings. I don't see a plausible future in which ACA will be cut, therefore the "savings" from that are nonexistent. Next, he has the gall to say that the revenue (taxes) from ACA can be counted in his plan when he has, well, eliminated ACA. That's about a trillion bucks.
-At the center of Ryan's plan is the idea cutting taxes will increase growth to a point where it will offset the decrease in tax-- essentially say if we tax 10% now and cut to 5%, we need income of the taxpayers to at least DOUBLE in order to have the same amount of government revenue. Obviously this is not a perfect example (and Ryan is cutting government so we need less revenue), but it shows how ridiculously difficult it is to cut taxes and depend on growth to maintain revenue.
-The closing of tax loopholes. Do I agree that there's a lot of money the government could get by closing loopholes? Yes. Is it always going to be the magical amount that Paul Ryan needs to make his budget plan work? No. Again, closing tax loopholes and raising taxes are two names for the same thing-- increasing the effective tax rate so the government has more revenue.
-A trillion dollars cut from "mandatory government spending". Hmm, mandatory, doesn't that means important stuff? Why yes! It includes retirement and stuff owed to veterans and federal employees, as well as programs for disabled, elderly, poor. While I think cuts to welfare (the latter) are possible, pension payments and such (the former) are obligations the government must meet.
-Again, cutting welfare spending and assuming the improving economy will somehow pick up everyone as it goes. That's trickle-down economics. I think its consensus that this (and supply side) are pretty invalid models of how wealth is distributed.
These are, for the most part, pretty general categories which Paul addresses in his budget. I am amazed how in 99 pages of a BUDGET he has so few details (what loopholes closed? what projects cut? are you really going to freeze government pay regardless of inflation, cut 10% of workers and force them to renegotiate benefits etc.?). There's a lot of flowery language, some pretty diagrams and figures, but very few numbers. Of those few numbers, there are even less that I'd be willing to believe are real.
|
On March 14 2013 12:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 12:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 12:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2013 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. Raising the minimum wage actually benefits the economy, and Paul Ryan isn't proposing any tough cuts in fact he mentions the savings of Obamacare and the extra revenue coming in from the increased taxes on the higher tiers of the tax bracket, he hates it but at the same wants to take credit for it. A tough cut would be to stop the subsidies for Big Agriculture, and taxing Wall St loopholes, while closing military bases in Europe. I doubt raising the minimum wage would help the economy. Most likely it would do a bit of harm. Some people will lose their jobs or get reduced hours. A lot of those that keep them will lose much of their added spending power through taxes / benefit reductions. We'd be better off reforming our poverty traps first. I'll agree with you on the tough cuts - I'd be happy to see those go along with additional military cuts and entitlement reforms. This same tired argument has been refuted some many times, explain how raising the minimum wage would harm the economy, do you think people will just sit on the few, and I do mean few, extra dollars? Or will they put it back in the economy? It would appear to be a favorite task for many arguers to start with, "Oh that's been refuted ages ago," to launch into the opening salvo of the same debate that's been going on for ages. Namely, that the cost born by companies in paying out higher wages has more benefit in the terms of the worker spending. Part of the opposite argument is that minimum wage increases force out unskilled workers that cannot compete against the more qualified because their only weapon is to agree to work for less. I'll reiterate also what was said before: workers get laid off over this as companies try to defray the cost, or get their hours reduced. Less workers are hired because the current workers are costing more. The worry is not that an increase in federally or state mandated pay just gets stuffed in the mattress. It's the consequences in other areas from the costs to the employer, as he loses more freedom to assign wages to jobs. Is it any wonder why black teenage employment is the worst since WWII, sitting at 50%.
If you increase the minimum wage then employers can afford to better their chances for education and yes even job training and I doubt companies like WalMart which makes tens of billions of dollars will suffer so much. Minimum wage will also help the taxpayer as Walmart actually costs the American taxpayer as a full time employee with a family needs government assistance for food, health, and even living.
Heck the top comment in the economist says it all, Henry Ford knew that if he paid his employees well they could afford to buy his products.
|
I'd tend to agree with the idea that minimum wage hurts the economy... if the minimum wage actually did what it was supposed to do or meant anything. Unfortunately, its just an arbitrary amount. $7.25 means very different things in different locales.
|
On March 14 2013 13:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 12:42 Danglars wrote:On March 14 2013 12:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 12:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2013 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. Raising the minimum wage actually benefits the economy, and Paul Ryan isn't proposing any tough cuts in fact he mentions the savings of Obamacare and the extra revenue coming in from the increased taxes on the higher tiers of the tax bracket, he hates it but at the same wants to take credit for it. A tough cut would be to stop the subsidies for Big Agriculture, and taxing Wall St loopholes, while closing military bases in Europe. I doubt raising the minimum wage would help the economy. Most likely it would do a bit of harm. Some people will lose their jobs or get reduced hours. A lot of those that keep them will lose much of their added spending power through taxes / benefit reductions. We'd be better off reforming our poverty traps first. I'll agree with you on the tough cuts - I'd be happy to see those go along with additional military cuts and entitlement reforms. This same tired argument has been refuted some many times, explain how raising the minimum wage would harm the economy, do you think people will just sit on the few, and I do mean few, extra dollars? Or will they put it back in the economy? It would appear to be a favorite task for many arguers to start with, "Oh that's been refuted ages ago," to launch into the opening salvo of the same debate that's been going on for ages. Namely, that the cost born by companies in paying out higher wages has more benefit in the terms of the worker spending. Part of the opposite argument is that minimum wage increases force out unskilled workers that cannot compete against the more qualified because their only weapon is to agree to work for less. I'll reiterate also what was said before: workers get laid off over this as companies try to defray the cost, or get their hours reduced. Less workers are hired because the current workers are costing more. The worry is not that an increase in federally or state mandated pay just gets stuffed in the mattress. It's the consequences in other areas from the costs to the employer, as he loses more freedom to assign wages to jobs. Is it any wonder why black teenage employment is the worst since WWII, sitting at 50%. If you increase the minimum wage then employers can afford to better their chances for education and yes even job training and I doubt companies like WalMart which makes tens of billions of dollars will suffer so much. Minimum wage will also help the taxpayer as Walmart actually costs the American taxpayer as a full time employee with a family needs government assistance for food, health, and even living. Heck the top comment in the economist says it all, Henry Ford knew that if he paid his employees well they could afford to buy his products.
Walmart's net profit margin is about 3.5%. There's not a huge amount of room for pay hikes there. Walmart is also one of the most efficient companies out there so raising wages there is a best case scenario.
The idea that Walmart workers receive government benefits is a red herring - that's true for people well beyond the minimum wage too.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in the case of walmart it'll probably just be passed onto consumers. this is not necessarily a bad thing though. also walmart's margin is in light of the extreme degree of expansion and other capital expense intense stuff they do. if raising minimum wage lets them build one less store a year, then that's not so bad.
minimum wage should be divided according to sector anyway.
service industry minimum wage is pretty abysmal
|
On March 14 2013 13:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 13:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 12:42 Danglars wrote:On March 14 2013 12:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 12:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2013 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. Raising the minimum wage actually benefits the economy, and Paul Ryan isn't proposing any tough cuts in fact he mentions the savings of Obamacare and the extra revenue coming in from the increased taxes on the higher tiers of the tax bracket, he hates it but at the same wants to take credit for it. A tough cut would be to stop the subsidies for Big Agriculture, and taxing Wall St loopholes, while closing military bases in Europe. I doubt raising the minimum wage would help the economy. Most likely it would do a bit of harm. Some people will lose their jobs or get reduced hours. A lot of those that keep them will lose much of their added spending power through taxes / benefit reductions. We'd be better off reforming our poverty traps first. I'll agree with you on the tough cuts - I'd be happy to see those go along with additional military cuts and entitlement reforms. This same tired argument has been refuted some many times, explain how raising the minimum wage would harm the economy, do you think people will just sit on the few, and I do mean few, extra dollars? Or will they put it back in the economy? It would appear to be a favorite task for many arguers to start with, "Oh that's been refuted ages ago," to launch into the opening salvo of the same debate that's been going on for ages. Namely, that the cost born by companies in paying out higher wages has more benefit in the terms of the worker spending. Part of the opposite argument is that minimum wage increases force out unskilled workers that cannot compete against the more qualified because their only weapon is to agree to work for less. I'll reiterate also what was said before: workers get laid off over this as companies try to defray the cost, or get their hours reduced. Less workers are hired because the current workers are costing more. The worry is not that an increase in federally or state mandated pay just gets stuffed in the mattress. It's the consequences in other areas from the costs to the employer, as he loses more freedom to assign wages to jobs. Is it any wonder why black teenage employment is the worst since WWII, sitting at 50%. If you increase the minimum wage then employers can afford to better their chances for education and yes even job training and I doubt companies like WalMart which makes tens of billions of dollars will suffer so much. Minimum wage will also help the taxpayer as Walmart actually costs the American taxpayer as a full time employee with a family needs government assistance for food, health, and even living. Heck the top comment in the economist says it all, Henry Ford knew that if he paid his employees well they could afford to buy his products. Walmart's net profit margin is about 3.5%. There's not a huge amount of room for pay hikes there. Walmart is also one of the most efficient companies out there so raising wages there is a best case scenario. The idea that Walmart workers receive government benefits is a red herring - that's true for people well beyond the minimum wage too.
See, that's the problem; when someone works a full-time job above minimum wage (let alone at it) and still doesn't make enough money to live on, our system is kind of fucked up.
|
Arguing that the minimum wage increases unemployment is kinda wrong headed.
Firstly, If we are in a place where the marginal product of labour is less than $7/h for a significant proportion on the population, something is desperately wrong. How can the economy not find something for someone to do that is worth more than that? How are we educating people so poorly that they can only earn that amount?
Secondly, the actual effect of the minimum wage on unemployment (if there is one) is probably quite small. Other factors like the business cycle, structural changes in the economy, unemployment benefits, and the aforementioned shitty education & training system most likely play a bigger part.
Thirdly, whether the minimum wage causes unemployment is up for debate. The economy is not a firm and does not act like one. You could argue that raising the minimum wage causes inflation, which leaves real wages unchanged in the long run and so has no effect on unemployment. You could also argue that firms would take a smaller markup rather than lay off workers. You could also argue that the minimum wage is used by firms to pay workers below whatever a "fair market wage" would be, considering workers have less selling power than firms have buying power.
|
On March 14 2013 14:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 13:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2013 13:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 12:42 Danglars wrote:On March 14 2013 12:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 12:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2013 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. Raising the minimum wage actually benefits the economy, and Paul Ryan isn't proposing any tough cuts in fact he mentions the savings of Obamacare and the extra revenue coming in from the increased taxes on the higher tiers of the tax bracket, he hates it but at the same wants to take credit for it. A tough cut would be to stop the subsidies for Big Agriculture, and taxing Wall St loopholes, while closing military bases in Europe. I doubt raising the minimum wage would help the economy. Most likely it would do a bit of harm. Some people will lose their jobs or get reduced hours. A lot of those that keep them will lose much of their added spending power through taxes / benefit reductions. We'd be better off reforming our poverty traps first. I'll agree with you on the tough cuts - I'd be happy to see those go along with additional military cuts and entitlement reforms. This same tired argument has been refuted some many times, explain how raising the minimum wage would harm the economy, do you think people will just sit on the few, and I do mean few, extra dollars? Or will they put it back in the economy? It would appear to be a favorite task for many arguers to start with, "Oh that's been refuted ages ago," to launch into the opening salvo of the same debate that's been going on for ages. Namely, that the cost born by companies in paying out higher wages has more benefit in the terms of the worker spending. Part of the opposite argument is that minimum wage increases force out unskilled workers that cannot compete against the more qualified because their only weapon is to agree to work for less. I'll reiterate also what was said before: workers get laid off over this as companies try to defray the cost, or get their hours reduced. Less workers are hired because the current workers are costing more. The worry is not that an increase in federally or state mandated pay just gets stuffed in the mattress. It's the consequences in other areas from the costs to the employer, as he loses more freedom to assign wages to jobs. Is it any wonder why black teenage employment is the worst since WWII, sitting at 50%. If you increase the minimum wage then employers can afford to better their chances for education and yes even job training and I doubt companies like WalMart which makes tens of billions of dollars will suffer so much. Minimum wage will also help the taxpayer as Walmart actually costs the American taxpayer as a full time employee with a family needs government assistance for food, health, and even living. Heck the top comment in the economist says it all, Henry Ford knew that if he paid his employees well they could afford to buy his products. Walmart's net profit margin is about 3.5%. There's not a huge amount of room for pay hikes there. Walmart is also one of the most efficient companies out there so raising wages there is a best case scenario. The idea that Walmart workers receive government benefits is a red herring - that's true for people well beyond the minimum wage too. See, that's the problem; when someone works a full-time job above minimum wage (let alone at it) and still doesn't make enough money to live on, our system is kind of fucked up.
It's an unrealistic expectation that minimum wage jobs can provide someone with enough of an income to support a family beyond benefit thresholds.
|
On March 14 2013 14:32 ControlMonkey wrote:
Arguing that the minimum wage increases unemployment is kinda wrong headed.
Firstly, If we are in a place where the marginal product of labour is less than $7/h for a significant proportion on the population, something is desperately wrong. How can the economy not find something for someone to do that is worth more than that? How are we educating people so poorly that they can only earn that amount?
To a large degree they're still in school and / or working towards a better paying job. Min wage is very transitory most people that earn it are under 25. It's not meant to be a wage someone toils at all their life.
Source
Secondly, the actual effect of the minimum wage on unemployment (if there is one) is probably quite small. Other factors like the business cycle, structural changes in the economy, unemployment benefits, and the aforementioned shitty education & training system most likely play a bigger part.
Agreed! The concern from my end is the timing - the economy is still recovering and we need those marginal jobs. Traditionally we've waited for a strong recovery then raised the min wage.
Thirdly, whether the minimum wage causes unemployment is up for debate. The economy is not a firm and does not act like one. You could argue that raising the minimum wage causes inflation, which leaves real wages unchanged in the long run and so has no effect on unemployment. You could also argue that firms would take a smaller markup rather than lay off workers. You could also argue that the minimum wage is used by firms to pay workers below whatever a "fair market wage" would be, considering workers have less selling power than firms have buying power.
Sure, there's not guarantee what the actual impact will be. Still, the most likely outcome is a marginal drop in employment. It's a good bet that the impact will be greater given labor market weaknesses.
|
On March 14 2013 12:36 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 12:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 12:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2013 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. Raising the minimum wage actually benefits the economy, and Paul Ryan isn't proposing any tough cuts in fact he mentions the savings of Obamacare and the extra revenue coming in from the increased taxes on the higher tiers of the tax bracket, he hates it but at the same wants to take credit for it. A tough cut would be to stop the subsidies for Big Agriculture, and taxing Wall St loopholes, while closing military bases in Europe. I doubt raising the minimum wage would help the economy. Most likely it would do a bit of harm. Some people will lose their jobs or get reduced hours. A lot of those that keep them will lose much of their added spending power through taxes / benefit reductions. We'd be better off reforming our poverty traps first. I'll agree with you on the tough cuts - I'd be happy to see those go along with additional military cuts and entitlement reforms. This same tired argument has been refuted some many times, explain how raising the minimum wage would harm the economy, do you think people will just sit on the few, and I do mean few, extra dollars they earn? Or will they put it back in the economy? How would Walmart suffer from people paying a living wage, they wouldn't but the reason they don't is that they are in the mind set of more money = more success. EDIT: It's like the Wall St analyst who said that Costco should lower pay for workers in order to make more profits for shareholders as several hundred million could easily be a billion plus if only the employees were on slave wages without healthcare. If you increase the cost of a commodity (like the labour of people willing to work for minimum wage) you reduce the amount that people buy. It really is that simple. Here is a blog I read a few weeks ago that explains the big picture pretty well. The guy's point is that honest proponents of the minimum wage would recognize that a few people would lose their jobs, but then argue that it's worth the loss to get some other benefits. Buf of course it's not politically correct to say that http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/02/minimum-wage?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
I see that argument a lot and it has been proved wrong.
In a situation of pure and perfect competition yes it is true, because the wages are set on the labor market as an equilibrium between demand of work (from employers) and offer of work (from employees).
The reason as to why this is untrue in reality is that the neoclassical theory of labor market is based around the idea that the market respect a certain number of caracteristics, one being that the number of buyers and sellers is infinite.
In your text he himself shows that, as some pointed out, the labor market is in a situation of monopsony, which means the number of buyers is really low and face many sellers. In this situation, the low number of buyers (employers, company, etc.) are in a position where they can fix the wages themselves : the wages does not fix itself through the interaction of offer and demand like in the supposed neoclassical theory. In the end, employment and wages in the labor market seems to be under optimal (lower than what is best). In this situation, if you push the minimal wage up, the quantity of labor and the number of people who will apply for a job will increase (the exact opposite of unemployment). This is the main explication gave by Card and Krueger to explain why they observe an increase in job in a state which decided an increase of the minimal wage.
But there are thousands of other explications. Not to mention wages are not only costs but also ector of global demand.
Economy is more complex (and interesting) than the simple scheme some people make to explain basic principle to first year students. In truth, there is no way to actually understand the effect of an increase in minimal wages, because in society, all things are inequal : an increase of minimal wage in europe is not comparable to an increase in the US. You got to ask yourself some question about the specific American situation (% of profit, investment of employers, % of unemployment, reason of unemployment, inequalities in primary redistribution, etc.). There is no reason to think the labor market actually works like the goods market (not to even mention the imperfection of the goods market). I rarely see empirical data that prove wages are set at marginal productivity at all for exemple.
This text is overall very biased : he argue that left wing parties tend to criticize the "law of demand" but don't mention that the same law is always used as an argument by right wing parties...
Also I love that the guy is actually bold enough to refuse an increase of the minimal wage because it will "screw up the prospects of a fair number of poor young workers"... like real.
|
On March 14 2013 12:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 14 2013 10:58 ziggurat wrote:On March 14 2013 10:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 14 2013 02:34 ziggurat wrote:
I think it's refreshing to see a politician standing up for his principles, even if they're not popular. I wish Romney had been more willing to do this. You realize that Paul Ryan is doing the opposite of standing up for principles here, right? The man is either lying through his teeth now or was lying the entire electoral season and during its immediate aftermath. He's either a hypocrite, an idiot, or a maliciously manipulative politician who relies on people not actually reading the things he says and just thinking "gee he's pretty." Saying whatever is popular at the moment is not "standing up" for anything but your own wallet. You sound like you're losing your mind over this. It's a proposed piece of legislation that will balance the budget in 10 years. It's not true or false, it's just a legislative proposal. Your last sentence sounds like you misread my post. I'm saying that Paul is standing up for the idea of making tough cuts to balance the budget, even though it's not popular. Obama, by contrast, is standing up for what's popular by proposing no tough cuts, raising the minimum wage, etc. Raising the minimum wage actually benefits the economy, and Paul Ryan isn't proposing any tough cuts in fact he mentions the savings of Obamacare and the extra revenue coming in from the increased taxes on the higher tiers of the tax bracket, he hates it but at the same wants to take credit for it. A tough cut would be to stop the subsidies for Big Agriculture, and taxing Wall St loopholes, while closing military bases in Europe. I doubt raising the minimum wage would help the economy. Most likely it would do a bit of harm. Some people will lose their jobs or get reduced hours. A lot of those that keep them will lose much of their added spending power through taxes / benefit reductions. We'd be better off reforming our poverty traps first. I'll agree with you on the tough cuts - I'd be happy to see those go along with additional military cuts and entitlement reforms.
European economic history disagrees. Higher minimum wage tends to go hand in hand with increased growth. Businesses don't stop hiring or lay off employees because of higher minimum wages, that is a myth. Getting more people with spending capacity into the system easily outweighs the cost of the wage increase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
