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.
As mortgage rates rise and refinancings fall dramatically, banks are in search of new business. That, in turn, has them easing lending standards for some borrowers, according to a new monthly survey from the Mortgage Bankers Association.
Credit availability rose 2 percent in July and is up 3 percent from May, when interest rates began their climb, according to the MBA index.
"The increase was primarily driven by increases in product offerings that allow cash-out refinancing, and some increase in offerings for borrowers with higher LTVs, or lower credit scores," according to the report.
It is likely no coincidence that standards are easing as rates rise and mortgage applications fall. Total mortgage applications were down 47 percent last week from a year ago. Refinances, which had been the banks bread and butter during the housing crash, are down 59 percent from a year ago. Applications to purchase a home are up just 5 percent. ...
WASHINGTON -- The Republican National Committee on Monday threatened not to partner with NBC and CNN for the 2016 GOP primary debates if the networks don't cancel their plans to air documentaries on Hillary Clinton.
"It's appalling to know executives at major networks like NBC and CNN who have donated to Democrats and Hillary Clinton have taken it upon themselves to be Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives," RNC chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement. "Their actions to promote Secretary Clinton are disturbing and disappointing."
Priebus added that if the networks do not agree to pull their programming prior to the start of the RNC's Summer Meeting on Aug. 14, he will "seek a binding vote stating that the RNC will neither partner with these networks in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates they sponsor."
In recent weeks, CNN announced a documentary on Clinton that will run in theaters and on TV. NBC said it was planning a miniseries starring Diane Lane as the former secretary of state.
The RNC also released separate letters (see below) penned by Priebus to Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide, and NBC chair Robert Greenblatt, in which he accused the networks of giving "special treatment" to Clinton ahead of her possible presidential bid in 2016. The RNC chair noted that by focusing their programming on Clinton, CNN and NBC are being "unfair" to other potential Democratic candidates, such as Vice President Joe Biden and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, and to the Republican candidates.
On August 06 2013 03:08 Rassy wrote: No they are not normalising it, this guy is in the most far right wing of republicans. This is no senator or even a congresman,its a nobody even in the republican party. You are verry biased in presenting this as "The Republican Party continues to normalize the extreme elements of their party and make it more mainstream" Annyway his message is quiet alarming, what if he is right? The collapse of the american economy is predicted every year by manny conspiracy believers and doomdenkers but lately it seems to pop up more frequent,even though the economy slowly improves.
Ted Cruz, Steve King, in my state we have EW Jackson (not to mention our whacked out state legislature). Rand Paul is a hopeful for 2016 and is also a neo-confederate. Rick Perry is far to the right than W ever was. And that's off the top of my head. This guy is actually a top Republican in Washington State legislature. I don't know why you think only federal "matters."
And I think it's hilarious how you end your post going off the deep end and taking conspiracy theories seriously. And the rise in frequency is important because of how extreme one end of the politics is becoming. They are very much giving more voice to the extreme elements of their party. Of course people are going to freak out more.
Hmm you misunderstood me then, i am not taking conspiracy theories seriously at all. It was meant to relativate the prediction of the politician,by saying that all sorts of not realy knowledgeable people predict such a collapse all the time despite the fact that the usa economy has clearly improved in this year so far.
Personally i think 2014 will be a key point in the economic development of the usa, and i think it can still go 2 ways. Either a decent growth, better then this years one, or a quiete strong dip going back into recession. I do think there will be a fall back in the last quarter of this year due to the tappering of qe in the usa wich seems inevitable.This in combination with the euro crisis coming a bit more to the surface again after the german elections (wich i expect to happen). It then depends on what europe will do in the months after the german elections. If europe expands its own qe in the beginning of 2014 (wich i expect, because alot of neccesary reforms have been pushed through in the past 2 years) then i think the usa economy will do quiet well, they dont have to turn of qe completly and they can profit from the growing economy in the eurozone. If europe will continue on the current path for 1 more year and the usa is more or less forced to completely turn of qe i think that the usa economy will do prety bad. The usa lost quiet a bit of its competitive advantage to asia and also europe, and i also think the scale boom is overhyped(shell recently had to write down 50% on its usa scale activities). Therefor i see the usa economy as beeing alot more vulnarable and dependable on the world economies then it used to be, the current improvement in the economy has been possible largely due to the 85b a month wich the fed pumped into it. Besides europe china is also of great importance but by the looks of it now i dont think we can expect to much from china, the growth sleems to slow down quiet strongly there in the past few months wich will probably continue into 2014, specially if growth in europe and the usa wont pick up. So:it can go either way lol, i am leaning towards beeing positive but there are still a few big hurdles along the way.
WASHINGTON -- The Republican National Committee on Monday threatened not to partner with NBC and CNN for the 2016 GOP primary debates if the networks don't cancel their plans to air documentaries on Hillary Clinton.
"It's appalling to know executives at major networks like NBC and CNN who have donated to Democrats and Hillary Clinton have taken it upon themselves to be Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives," RNC chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement. "Their actions to promote Secretary Clinton are disturbing and disappointing."
Priebus added that if the networks do not agree to pull their programming prior to the start of the RNC's Summer Meeting on Aug. 14, he will "seek a binding vote stating that the RNC will neither partner with these networks in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates they sponsor."
In recent weeks, CNN announced a documentary on Clinton that will run in theaters and on TV. NBC said it was planning a miniseries starring Diane Lane as the former secretary of state.
The RNC also released separate letters (see below) penned by Priebus to Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide, and NBC chair Robert Greenblatt, in which he accused the networks of giving "special treatment" to Clinton ahead of her possible presidential bid in 2016. The RNC chair noted that by focusing their programming on Clinton, CNN and NBC are being "unfair" to other potential Democratic candidates, such as Vice President Joe Biden and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, and to the Republican candidates.
That sounds like an odd game of brinkmanship to be playing in our contemporary media culture. If NBC and CNN are as vested in Hillary as Priebus suggests, then their not carrying the Republican Primary debates seems like yet another hit to Republican exposure.
Apparently there's a new paper out on minimum wages.
Is the main effect of the minimum wage on job growth? by Tyler Cowen In their new paper, Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West report:
"The voluminous literature on minimum wages offers little consensus on the extent to which a wage floor impacts employment. For both theoretical and econometric reasons, we argue that the effect of the minimum wage should be more apparent in new employment growth than in employment levels. In addition, we conduct a simulation showing that the common practice of including state-specific time trends will attenuate the measured effects of the minimum wage on employment if the true effect is in fact on the rate of job growth. Using a long state-year panel on the population of private-sector employers in the United States, we find that the minimum wage reduces net job growth, primarily through its effect on job creation by expanding establishments."
In a slightly different terminology, the effect of the minimum wage may well be attenuated in the short run, but over longer time horizons there is a “great reset” against low-skilled labor.
Is the main effect of the minimum wage on job growth? by Tyler Cowen In their new paper, Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West report:
"The voluminous literature on minimum wages offers little consensus on the extent to which a wage floor impacts employment. For both theoretical and econometric reasons, we argue that the effect of the minimum wage should be more apparent in new employment growth than in employment levels. In addition, we conduct a simulation showing that the common practice of including state-specific time trends will attenuate the measured effects of the minimum wage on employment if the true effect is in fact on the rate of job growth. Using a long state-year panel on the population of private-sector employers in the United States, we find that the minimum wage reduces net job growth, primarily through its effect on job creation by expanding establishments."
In a slightly different terminology, the effect of the minimum wage may well be attenuated in the short run, but over longer time horizons there is a “great reset” against low-skilled labor.
What is this even... Minimum wage isn't there to encourage or discourage job growth. Its there to ensure people can live off the work they do. Its there to prevent people from being exploited, especially in job area's with a surplus of workers like low skilled labor.
On August 06 2013 07:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Apparently there's a new paper out on minimum wages.
Is the main effect of the minimum wage on job growth? by Tyler Cowen In their new paper, Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West report:
"The voluminous literature on minimum wages offers little consensus on the extent to which a wage floor impacts employment. For both theoretical and econometric reasons, we argue that the effect of the minimum wage should be more apparent in new employment growth than in employment levels. In addition, we conduct a simulation showing that the common practice of including state-specific time trends will attenuate the measured effects of the minimum wage on employment if the true effect is in fact on the rate of job growth. Using a long state-year panel on the population of private-sector employers in the United States, we find that the minimum wage reduces net job growth, primarily through its effect on job creation by expanding establishments."
In a slightly different terminology, the effect of the minimum wage may well be attenuated in the short run, but over longer time horizons there is a “great reset” against low-skilled labor.
What is this even... Minimum wage isn't there to encourage or discourage job growth. Its there to ensure people can live off the work they do. Its there to prevent people from being exploited, especially in job area's with a surplus of workers like low skilled labor.
A lot of people on the left claim that raising minimum wages doesn't affect employment.
On August 06 2013 07:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Apparently there's a new paper out on minimum wages.
Is the main effect of the minimum wage on job growth? by Tyler Cowen In their new paper, Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West report:
"The voluminous literature on minimum wages offers little consensus on the extent to which a wage floor impacts employment. For both theoretical and econometric reasons, we argue that the effect of the minimum wage should be more apparent in new employment growth than in employment levels. In addition, we conduct a simulation showing that the common practice of including state-specific time trends will attenuate the measured effects of the minimum wage on employment if the true effect is in fact on the rate of job growth. Using a long state-year panel on the population of private-sector employers in the United States, we find that the minimum wage reduces net job growth, primarily through its effect on job creation by expanding establishments."
In a slightly different terminology, the effect of the minimum wage may well be attenuated in the short run, but over longer time horizons there is a “great reset” against low-skilled labor.
What is this even... Minimum wage isn't there to encourage or discourage job growth. Its there to ensure people can live off the work they do. Its there to prevent people from being exploited, especially in job area's with a surplus of workers like low skilled labor.
A lot of people on the left claim that raising minimum wages doesn't affect employment.
Ah ok well yes raising minimum wage can and probably will low employment. However a minimum wage has little use if it is so low that you cant live off it and still require government support.
WASHINGTON -- The Republican National Committee on Monday threatened not to partner with NBC and CNN for the 2016 GOP primary debates if the networks don't cancel their plans to air documentaries on Hillary Clinton.
"It's appalling to know executives at major networks like NBC and CNN who have donated to Democrats and Hillary Clinton have taken it upon themselves to be Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives," RNC chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement. "Their actions to promote Secretary Clinton are disturbing and disappointing."
Priebus added that if the networks do not agree to pull their programming prior to the start of the RNC's Summer Meeting on Aug. 14, he will "seek a binding vote stating that the RNC will neither partner with these networks in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates they sponsor."
In recent weeks, CNN announced a documentary on Clinton that will run in theaters and on TV. NBC said it was planning a miniseries starring Diane Lane as the former secretary of state.
The RNC also released separate letters (see below) penned by Priebus to Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide, and NBC chair Robert Greenblatt, in which he accused the networks of giving "special treatment" to Clinton ahead of her possible presidential bid in 2016. The RNC chair noted that by focusing their programming on Clinton, CNN and NBC are being "unfair" to other potential Democratic candidates, such as Vice President Joe Biden and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, and to the Republican candidates.
On August 06 2013 07:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Apparently there's a new paper out on minimum wages.
Is the main effect of the minimum wage on job growth? by Tyler Cowen In their new paper, Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West report:
"The voluminous literature on minimum wages offers little consensus on the extent to which a wage floor impacts employment. For both theoretical and econometric reasons, we argue that the effect of the minimum wage should be more apparent in new employment growth than in employment levels. In addition, we conduct a simulation showing that the common practice of including state-specific time trends will attenuate the measured effects of the minimum wage on employment if the true effect is in fact on the rate of job growth. Using a long state-year panel on the population of private-sector employers in the United States, we find that the minimum wage reduces net job growth, primarily through its effect on job creation by expanding establishments."
In a slightly different terminology, the effect of the minimum wage may well be attenuated in the short run, but over longer time horizons there is a “great reset” against low-skilled labor.
What is this even... Minimum wage isn't there to encourage or discourage job growth. Its there to ensure people can live off the work they do. Its there to prevent people from being exploited, especially in job area's with a surplus of workers like low skilled labor.
A lot of people on the left claim that raising minimum wages doesn't affect employment.
I've seen evidence both ways (although if it affects unemployment at all seems to be pretty suspect). But remember that we have skyrocketing profits and a corporate hoarding problem. We also have been hit with a massive recession, which is going to dramatically reduce demand. The idea is that putting more money into people's pockets (especially with people's massive debt) will increase demand, and therefore allow corporations to actually expand.
If you only look at things supply-side, then people just say that it increases unemployment. I think there's a strong tendency for people, especially conservatives, to only look at everything as supply-side. As if corporations benevolently grant us things, rather than make cost-benefit analyses. But in reality, corporations don't expand if there's no demand to expand.
On August 06 2013 03:08 Rassy wrote: No they are not normalising it, this guy is in the most far right wing of republicans. This is no senator or even a congresman,its a nobody even in the republican party. You are verry biased in presenting this as "The Republican Party continues to normalize the extreme elements of their party and make it more mainstream" Annyway his message is quiet alarming, what if he is right? The collapse of the american economy is predicted every year by manny conspiracy believers and doomdenkers but lately it seems to pop up more frequent,even though the economy slowly improves.
Ted Cruz, Steve King, in my state we have EW Jackson (not to mention our whacked out state legislature). Rand Paul is a hopeful for 2016 and is also a neo-confederate. Rick Perry is far to the right than W ever was. And that's off the top of my head. This guy is actually a top Republican in Washington State legislature. I don't know why you think only federal "matters."
And I think it's hilarious how you end your post going off the deep end and taking conspiracy theories seriously. And the rise in frequency is important because of how extreme one end of the politics is becoming. They are very much giving more voice to the extreme elements of their party. Of course people are going to freak out more.
Therefor i see the usa economy as beeing alot more vulnarable and dependable on the world economies then it used to be, the current improvement in the economy has been possible largely due to the 85b a month wich the fed pumped into it. Besides europe china is also of great importance but by the looks of it now i dont think we can expect to much from china, the growth sleems to slow down quiet strongly there in the past few months wich will probably continue into 2014, specially if growth in europe and the usa wont pick up. So:it can go either way lol, i am leaning towards beeing positive but there are still a few big hurdles along the way.
Have to quible with you here, how can a country that has a structural trade deficit with the rest of the world be more depended on the world economy?
On August 06 2013 03:08 Rassy wrote: No they are not normalising it, this guy is in the most far right wing of republicans. This is no senator or even a congresman,its a nobody even in the republican party. You are verry biased in presenting this as "The Republican Party continues to normalize the extreme elements of their party and make it more mainstream" Annyway his message is quiet alarming, what if he is right? The collapse of the american economy is predicted every year by manny conspiracy believers and doomdenkers but lately it seems to pop up more frequent,even though the economy slowly improves.
in my state we have EW Jackson
EW Jackson is a throw-away candidate. Ralph Northman is going to win 65/35 and everybody knows it.
And after Northman wins...there will be a special election for his senate seat.
And if Senator Herring beats Obenshain there will be a special election for his seat as well.
The biggest secret in the Virginia elections this year is that there are ALOT of people who want Northman and Herring to win so the Republicans have shots to take both Senate seats in special elections.
With a Republican House and a Republican Sentate it won't matter if it's a McAullife/Northman/Herring sweep.
(Right now there is a 20/20 tie in the Virginia senate)
On August 06 2013 07:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Apparently there's a new paper out on minimum wages.
Is the main effect of the minimum wage on job growth? by Tyler Cowen In their new paper, Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West report:
"The voluminous literature on minimum wages offers little consensus on the extent to which a wage floor impacts employment. For both theoretical and econometric reasons, we argue that the effect of the minimum wage should be more apparent in new employment growth than in employment levels. In addition, we conduct a simulation showing that the common practice of including state-specific time trends will attenuate the measured effects of the minimum wage on employment if the true effect is in fact on the rate of job growth. Using a long state-year panel on the population of private-sector employers in the United States, we find that the minimum wage reduces net job growth, primarily through its effect on job creation by expanding establishments."
In a slightly different terminology, the effect of the minimum wage may well be attenuated in the short run, but over longer time horizons there is a “great reset” against low-skilled labor.
What is this even... Minimum wage isn't there to encourage or discourage job growth. Its there to ensure people can live off the work they do. Its there to prevent people from being exploited, especially in job area's with a surplus of workers like low skilled labor.
A lot of people on the left claim that raising minimum wages doesn't affect employment.
I've seen evidence both ways (although if it affects unemployment at all seems to be pretty suspect). But remember that we have skyrocketing profits and a corporate hoarding problem. We also have been hit with a massive recession, which is going to dramatically reduce demand. The idea is that putting more money into people's pockets (especially with people's massive debt) will increase demand, and therefore allow corporations to actually expand.
If you only look at things supply-side, then people just say that it increases unemployment. I think there's a strong tendency for people, especially conservatives, to only look at everything as supply-side. As if corporations benevolently grant us things, rather than make cost-benefit analyses. But in reality, corporations don't expand if there's no demand to expand.
Business investment is one of the most volatile major components in the economy. So if everything goes as you see it, there are very few economic gains from raising the minimum wage (most is eaten up by subsidy losses). If everything goes as supply siders see it, there will be a much larger loss to the economy.
Businesses can and do expand without an increase in aggregate demand. They won't expand if the expansion isn't profitable though, regardless of demand.
On August 06 2013 07:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Apparently there's a new paper out on minimum wages.
Is the main effect of the minimum wage on job growth? by Tyler Cowen In their new paper, Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West report:
"The voluminous literature on minimum wages offers little consensus on the extent to which a wage floor impacts employment. For both theoretical and econometric reasons, we argue that the effect of the minimum wage should be more apparent in new employment growth than in employment levels. In addition, we conduct a simulation showing that the common practice of including state-specific time trends will attenuate the measured effects of the minimum wage on employment if the true effect is in fact on the rate of job growth. Using a long state-year panel on the population of private-sector employers in the United States, we find that the minimum wage reduces net job growth, primarily through its effect on job creation by expanding establishments."
In a slightly different terminology, the effect of the minimum wage may well be attenuated in the short run, but over longer time horizons there is a “great reset” against low-skilled labor.
What is this even... Minimum wage isn't there to encourage or discourage job growth. Its there to ensure people can live off the work they do. Its there to prevent people from being exploited, especially in job area's with a surplus of workers like low skilled labor.
A lot of people on the left claim that raising minimum wages doesn't affect employment.
I've seen evidence both ways (although if it affects unemployment at all seems to be pretty suspect). But remember that we have skyrocketing profits and a corporate hoarding problem. We also have been hit with a massive recession, which is going to dramatically reduce demand. The idea is that putting more money into people's pockets (especially with people's massive debt) will increase demand, and therefore allow corporations to actually expand.
If you only look at things supply-side, then people just say that it increases unemployment. I think there's a strong tendency for people, especially conservatives, to only look at everything as supply-side. As if corporations benevolently grant us things, rather than make cost-benefit analyses. But in reality, corporations don't expand if there's no demand to expand.
Business investment is one of the most volatile major components in the economy. So if everything goes as you see it, there are very few economic gains from raising the minimum wage (most is eaten up by subsidy losses). If everything goes as supply siders see it, there will be a much larger loss to the economy.
Businesses can and do expand without an increase in aggregate demand. They won't expand if the expansion isn't profitable though, regardless of demand.
That's a weird thing to say. It sounds like you're hedging your bets (like "well I believe this because it has worse consequences than the other"). That's a bad mentality. That's the kind of mentality that gets scammed. Like a Pascal's Wager kind of thing. Whatever is true is true regardless of other possibilities' consequences.
Honestly, it doesn't seem to have much of an effect at all directly on unemployment. Other factors seem to dominate it by quite a lot. Such as the continuing slash to public sector spending.
On August 06 2013 07:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Apparently there's a new paper out on minimum wages.
Is the main effect of the minimum wage on job growth? by Tyler Cowen In their new paper, Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West report:
"The voluminous literature on minimum wages offers little consensus on the extent to which a wage floor impacts employment. For both theoretical and econometric reasons, we argue that the effect of the minimum wage should be more apparent in new employment growth than in employment levels. In addition, we conduct a simulation showing that the common practice of including state-specific time trends will attenuate the measured effects of the minimum wage on employment if the true effect is in fact on the rate of job growth. Using a long state-year panel on the population of private-sector employers in the United States, we find that the minimum wage reduces net job growth, primarily through its effect on job creation by expanding establishments."
In a slightly different terminology, the effect of the minimum wage may well be attenuated in the short run, but over longer time horizons there is a “great reset” against low-skilled labor.
What is this even... Minimum wage isn't there to encourage or discourage job growth. Its there to ensure people can live off the work they do. Its there to prevent people from being exploited, especially in job area's with a surplus of workers like low skilled labor.
A lot of people on the left claim that raising minimum wages doesn't affect employment.
I've seen evidence both ways (although if it affects unemployment at all seems to be pretty suspect). But remember that we have skyrocketing profits and a corporate hoarding problem. We also have been hit with a massive recession, which is going to dramatically reduce demand. The idea is that putting more money into people's pockets (especially with people's massive debt) will increase demand, and therefore allow corporations to actually expand.
If you only look at things supply-side, then people just say that it increases unemployment. I think there's a strong tendency for people, especially conservatives, to only look at everything as supply-side. As if corporations benevolently grant us things, rather than make cost-benefit analyses. But in reality, corporations don't expand if there's no demand to expand.
Business investment is one of the most volatile major components in the economy. So if everything goes as you see it, there are very few economic gains from raising the minimum wage (most is eaten up by subsidy losses). If everything goes as supply siders see it, there will be a much larger loss to the economy.
Businesses can and do expand without an increase in aggregate demand. They won't expand if the expansion isn't profitable though, regardless of demand.
That's a weird thing to say. It sounds like you're hedging your bets (like "well I believe this because it has worse consequences than the other"). That's a bad mentality. That's the kind of mentality that gets scammed. Like a Pascal's Wager kind of thing. Whatever is true is true regardless of other possibilities' consequences.
Honestly, it doesn't seem to have much of an effect at all directly on unemployment. Other factors seem to dominate it by quite a lot. Such as the continuing slash to public sector spending.
Hedging my bet on a topic that isn't 100% settled fact is pretty wise in my book
But anyways, why take the risk at all? Democrats (and liberals in general) could either wait for the economy to be stronger and then push to raise the minimum wage, or scrap the idea entirely and push for higher wage subsides.
So who else is in support of individual rights and the Constitution (in US) any Marxist/Liberals here that wish to abolish the US constitution? if so why?
@JonnyBNoho if youre in support of raising the minimum wadge please watch this video (I like the 2nd video i posted much much more so I deleted this one)
On August 06 2013 12:48 Mr.ConstitutionTC wrote: So who else is in support of individual rights and the Constitution (in US) any Marxist/Liberals here that wish to abolish the US constitution? if so why?
It's probably about time for a new Constitution that guarantees rights in a broader sense. We could take something like the South African Constitution--heck even the Soviet Constitution would be great if you actually followed it.
On August 06 2013 07:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Apparently there's a new paper out on minimum wages.
Is the main effect of the minimum wage on job growth? by Tyler Cowen In their new paper, Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West report:
"The voluminous literature on minimum wages offers little consensus on the extent to which a wage floor impacts employment. For both theoretical and econometric reasons, we argue that the effect of the minimum wage should be more apparent in new employment growth than in employment levels. In addition, we conduct a simulation showing that the common practice of including state-specific time trends will attenuate the measured effects of the minimum wage on employment if the true effect is in fact on the rate of job growth. Using a long state-year panel on the population of private-sector employers in the United States, we find that the minimum wage reduces net job growth, primarily through its effect on job creation by expanding establishments."
In a slightly different terminology, the effect of the minimum wage may well be attenuated in the short run, but over longer time horizons there is a “great reset” against low-skilled labor.
What is this even... Minimum wage isn't there to encourage or discourage job growth. Its there to ensure people can live off the work they do. Its there to prevent people from being exploited, especially in job area's with a surplus of workers like low skilled labor.
A lot of people on the left claim that raising minimum wages doesn't affect employment.
I've seen evidence both ways (although if it affects unemployment at all seems to be pretty suspect). But remember that we have skyrocketing profits and a corporate hoarding problem. We also have been hit with a massive recession, which is going to dramatically reduce demand. The idea is that putting more money into people's pockets (especially with people's massive debt) will increase demand, and therefore allow corporations to actually expand.
If you only look at things supply-side, then people just say that it increases unemployment. I think there's a strong tendency for people, especially conservatives, to only look at everything as supply-side. As if corporations benevolently grant us things, rather than make cost-benefit analyses. But in reality, corporations don't expand if there's no demand to expand.
Business investment is one of the most volatile major components in the economy. So if everything goes as you see it, there are very few economic gains from raising the minimum wage (most is eaten up by subsidy losses). If everything goes as supply siders see it, there will be a much larger loss to the economy.
Businesses can and do expand without an increase in aggregate demand. They won't expand if the expansion isn't profitable though, regardless of demand.
That's a weird thing to say. It sounds like you're hedging your bets (like "well I believe this because it has worse consequences than the other"). That's a bad mentality. That's the kind of mentality that gets scammed. Like a Pascal's Wager kind of thing. Whatever is true is true regardless of other possibilities' consequences.
Honestly, it doesn't seem to have much of an effect at all directly on unemployment. Other factors seem to dominate it by quite a lot. Such as the continuing slash to public sector spending.
Hedging my bet on a topic that isn't 100% settled fact is pretty wise in my book
But anyways, why take the risk at all? Democrats (and liberals in general) could either wait for the economy to be stronger and then push to raise the minimum wage, or scrap the idea entirely and push for higher wage subsides.
Because if you believe our problem is demand side, then a solution would be to increase the disposable income of those most likely to spend it. You're right that subsidies could do this as well, but then you start messing with Ricardian Equivalence arguments. A straight increase to minimum wage cuts that out and mainly targets firms that overly rely on paying workers as little as possible.
EPT
