Minimum wage & The cost of living

[frankncali]

Russ

First off Keep your head down and stay safe.

I am not going to get into a pissing contest on information and thought I
had kept my post civil. However please note that my brother in law is
my family and is in a position to know a few things. I did not state his
opinions but rather what his thoughts were based on his knowledge.
He thinks we should be there and that we should stay. He believes its a 10-20 year plan and that one should be made and executed.
My thoughts are that we have no business being there and I will die believing that. However, we are there and I would never not give support to the troops.
No matter whose sources come from where I just take it all in and form an opinion. Bashing family wont get you anywhere with me.

My biggest complaint in the whole ordeal is two part --
1- Bin Laden has not been found and dealt with. I have heard reasons
for not capturing him and that he is dead.
He *****slapped us and I would like to see him pay.
2- that americans(including myself) have become too complacent and wont stand for anything. I have wondered if the settlers and founders of America were considered the ranting few and if the majority just went along with everything like we do now.

Again Russ stay safe. I think its healthy and fair to have different opinions about many things. Its what makes us different and interesting.
Civil statements and thoughts can usually be thought provoking, educational and fun.
Glad to hear the new General is doing well and hopefully we can get out of there with minimal damage.
frank

 

[bob_bushka]

Sure I bring in Bush's ineptude and stir up a hornets nest. I would like to point out a couple facts. Sure Bush was listening to advisors about the infamous weapons of mass destruction. But wasn't it his advisors??? One would think he would be ultimately responsible(where does the buck stop?). But somehow blame Clinton. Wasn't Saddam the same tyrant we provided arms to to fight our hated enemy Iran??? But somehow blame Clinton. I agree Sadam was a tyrant however so was Idi Amin and we didn't go to war there(what??? no oil)??? Al Qaeda attacked us not Iraq and there was like 20 Saudis on those planes which is one of our big Allies? But somewhere Al Qaeda is getting its financing...mmmmmmmmm I thought Bin Laden was a Saudi prince of some sort. But somehow blame Clinton. It is not the point of not getting attacked since 9/11 on American soil...technically the embassy in Lebanon was considered American soil during Reagans Administration and the planned airstrike in the Bacca Valley to retaliate was nixied by Cap Weinberger while the planes were staged to go on our aircarft carriers. But blame Clinton, he was governor of Arkansas then. Its the fact that Bin Laden is still unaccounted for. But blame Clinton. Now we can drop a laser guided bomb down a chimney from 40,000 feet but we can't find a maniac that needs dialysis. Bill's fault again. What are the odds that say next October, in 2008, the next presidential election cycle, that the terrorists saviours of Bush's administration, will somehow magically produce Bin Laden and purport what a slendid job they have done. I think our troops are the finest and bravest in the world and this will be an ultimate insult to them. As far as comparing the casualty numbers, if Irag was like Vietnam numbers we would have been out of there a long time ago. There has not been democaracy in that area for 5000 years but some dillusional idiot thinks he's going to create it in a few years. He just don't get it. Yep the price of milk is going up but blame Clinton, it is his fault.

 

[sky..]

I thought threads about war and politics are trademarked to the NPR section?

 

[hemicudas]

Straight Shooting Foot Soldiers???

Wow, hemi... I mean, WOW.. Why didn't the U.S. already think of that?

Oh yeah.. Insurgents live right next door to innocent Iraqis. If we bomb that "stronghold" from afar, then we kill more innocents than necessary.

Why not just let the Iraqis go in and root them out? Hmm... Well, considering that the Iraqi government still has not paid the Army and Police force, if the Americans pull out, or as I like to call it, "QUIT".. Then the Iraqis are looking at possibly dying, for no pay, and with no backup. We have to stay here until the Iraqis can show they have stable security, government, etc..

They're not as far away as you think.. I understand though... Pessimistic thinking is easier, it just doesn't get anything done, however..

Oh yeah, and by the way.. Pretty much every commanding general since air power first came into being would disagree with you. You HAVE to have ground tropps to fight an insurgent war.

Russ

First, you are assuming they have already thought of it, Russ. This particular thought came directly from my mind. I didn't read it any where. I offered a possible solution that would get our ground troops out of harm's way. Mine was the only post which offers any solution in this entire thread. As you say, Insurgents live right next door to innocent Iraqis. Our US Air force is capable of placing a small, just large enough to damage one room if needed, explosive through one certain windowpane in one certain window. Leaving the house next door totally intact. You seem to insinuate that the house next door is safe if ground solders attack the house with their machine guns. Obviously you feel there is no chance of stray bullets going through walls and into the innocent Iraqi's house next door. I can't go for that. Innocent Iraqis are dying every day from stray bullets from ground troops. My point is, our US Air Force shoots straighter than ground troops when they are able to lock in on one windowpane instead of spraying the entire house. Removing our ground troops and fighting the war smartly for a change from afar is not "QUITING" as you put it. It is being smart and saving so many of our beloved sons and daughters lives.

 

[ShaneS]

Tell that to Amartya Sen, 1998 Nobel Prize winner in Economics (and there are many others e.g. Solow, Stiglitz,...). Very little is "pretty much proven" in economics, and the relationship between the minimum wage and poverty is definitely in the not-well-understood category.

Most current surveys of professional economists come out about 50/50 in favor or against the minimum wage. Read about it on wikipedia or google the topic if you don't trust wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

The strange thing about libertarians is this insistence that their point of view is "proven": that the market knows best and other points of view are naive and uneducated. That's freshman econ 101, and reality is much more complicated. It's one thing to believe that minimum wage is bad, due to the standard supply/demand arguments. It's quite quite another to assert this as some kind of established fact--that's plainly dishonest. You can guess where I come down on this issue, but I'm not going to pretend that my opinion is "proven", because I understand what the word "proven" means.

Also, it's fitting that you cite a study from the 80's since the general opinion of economists has been moving steadily more in favor of the minimum wage over the last decades. For example this article, which begins:


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=atp2MiOAZ3Xc&refer=home

Usually, I would stay out of politics threads, but I'm bored and know something about this topic...

Ineedaspot,

It sounds like you know more than the average person on this. You're correct in saying that very little is proven in economics -- due to ceteris paribus, subsidiary assumptions or hypothesis concerning distributions, measurement devices, proxies for unmeasurable variables, the absence of various uncertainties, and so forth. As you know, it's all about methodology.

The lack of realism in the assumptions of neo-classical labor mkt. model led the "social economic revisionists" -- John Dunlop, Clark Kerr, Lloyd Reynolds, and Richard Lester -- to develop an institutional theory that in some cases min. wage legislation wouldn't adversely affect unemployment rates. They concluded, based upon empirical evidence -- a "sophisticated" survey method -- that there is a "range of indeterminacy" within which wages could vary w/o affecting employment levels; in some cases higher wages could "shock" firms into adopting better management practices, which would lead to gains in productivity and employment.

However, many, many opponents attack this view on the grounds that voluntary survey results given to management of firms in a certain industry -- textiles in this case -- hardly represent the whole economy. Furthermore, the mere fact the surveys were voluntary leads many to conclude that the results of they surveys do not even represent the industry...

In the 80's and 90's, Katz, Krueger and Card expanded upon the "revisionists" school with help of econometric analysis. They found that in a California study of low-wage workers, and in a study of New Jersey fast food workers, minimum wage policy not only didn't decrease employment to the unskilled workers, but in one case increased employment. Their Cali. study also showed that inflation remained constant, and consistent with the rest of the nation.

However, again, opposition attacked their use of survey results as unscientific. Neumark and Wischer conceded the survey evidence to Katz, Krueger and Card, but they found some major flaws in their econometric model. By tweaking a few things, Neumark and Wischer found that in both cases employment for young adults and teenagers decreased, with elasticities between -0.1 and -0.2.

And that is where the debate stands today. Some still buy into Katz, Kruegar and Card's findings, others don't. One of the leading authorities in welfare economics, Richard B. Freeman, states that the effectiveness of min. wage increase ultimately depends on the conditions of the labor market and the structure of the welfare system. In some cases, the wage legislation is subsidized by the workers it's intending to help, through job displacement; in other cases, stakeholders and shareholders foot the bill by sharing their rents with the workers; and in many cases, consumers pay through higher prices.

Again, there is no "conclusive" evidence one way or another. However, to many professional economists out there, there is enough evidence for them.

When I said that it is "pretty much proven", I revealed my own opinion to this debate. But you knew that.

-Shane

P.S. Citing wikipedia is so econ. 101.

 

[Nine Ball]

Hery nine ball,take your sorry ass to Iran, where they hold President Bush in the same light. Your Lillipution Intelligence will be greatly appreciated there.

Yep.... I guess I'm just young, dumb, and full of five dollar and twelve cent milk but how dare you speak to me that way. Bush is still garbage. Oh yeah, It's Lilliputian not lillipution smart guy.

 

[corvette1340]

man we all like to complain dont we? welcome to the free market system my friends. you know what the alternative is? socialism/communism. how has that worked out? is that what you really want here? upset about high gas prices? you want the government to regulate those? how many SUVs with one person in them do you see going down the road getting 15 mpg? theres the real reason gas prices are so high. we love our gas hogs. i'm not saying its wrong. this is the land of the free. do what you want. but when you could be driving cars that get 50 mpg but choose to drive an SUV that gets 15 and drives up demand thus price, dont *****. dont blame the government.

bush the worst huh? since the war on terror began, how many attacks have taken place on american soil? oh yeah, none. your governement protecting you, doing its job. what about the clinton years? made a mockery of the presidency. talk about morally bankrupt. and when given the chance to prevent the war on terror but nipping the whole thing in the bud, he chose to do nothing. yep great president there.

if you love freedom, democracy and the free market system, sometimes that means you gotta pay $5 for milk.

everything has a price

brian

I agree on all counts. All of these diehard liberal clowns complain about the war and the cost of things. Its really easy to complain and say that we should pull out of Iraq, but what if we stop spending money on defense and then get attacked? Then the same left wing idiots will complain that we weren't doing enough to protect ourselves. The fact that we haven't had any attacks since 9/11 speaks volumes for the efforts of our military and defense.

 

[corvette1340]

No way can you survive paying bills on your own for minimum wage. Car payment, Insurance, House or apartment bill, utilities, groceries, etc.. Yeah right....

Get an education and make more money.

 

[chefjeff]

If people are so concerned about minimum wage why are we attacking milk prices? Milk is a good that the government pays subsidies to the makers of. Milk farmers are worse off than most people money wise. If milk prices increase that means they start making more money.People who believe minimum wage is too low should support the raise in milk prices because it means farmers are making more money. This has nothing to do with the president because milk farmers have been sudsibized by the government since before GWB was born.
As for minimum wage in general...it is the people who work those jobs own faults. I am just out of high school (class of 07) and have never made minimum wage, there are jobs for those who want them that pay more than minimum wage.
How did GWB get dragged into this conversation?

Ben

Good post, Ben, and right on the point.

Welfare in the form of "helping" producers produce always, without exception, creates problems where before none existed. You've identified several of these clearly.

Glad to see that a punkster thinks...Yeah!

Jeff Livingston

 

[corvette1340]

It's also misleading when you think of the families that live well beneath the poverty line, and keep having children that they can't afford....

Exactly! It makes me sick when I see a lady with 6 kids in the line at the grocery store paying with food stamps. Goddamnit, use some protection and stop having kids! It isn't fair for the rest of us to pay for your kids and it damn sure isn't fair to the kids to grow up in poverty. Almost all of these kids then themselves become a strain on the rest of the working class and follow in the same footsteps of their irresponsible parents.

 

[chefjeff]

(snip)
The strange thing about libertarians is this insistence that their point of view is "proven": that the market knows best and other points of view are naive and uneducated. That's freshman econ 101, and reality is much more complicated. It's one thing to believe that minimum wage is bad, due to the standard supply/demand arguments. It's quite quite another to assert this as some kind of established fact--that's plainly dishonest. You can guess where I come down on this issue, but I'm not going to pretend that my opinion is "proven", because I understand what the word "proven" means.

(snip)...

Some of the point is proven: A job is merely an agreement between two parties to trade labor for money. When a third party interferes, using guns, that is bad for the deal or else the deal makers would have voluntarily added the violence to their original agreement. They didn't.

'Does this violence negatively affect the market as a whole?' might be the more complicated part to which you're referring.

Gotta go, will say more later,

Jeff Livingston

 

[corvette1340]

Trustyrusty
I don't think we disagree. I couldn't make it on the 3.75 an hour 20 hours a week. I have no idea what other people can live on.
Jay, priorities are definatley ****ed up in our country. People want and can't tell the difference between that and need. I think we all have good examples of people we know that you just want to smack in the head when they start talking about their toys. Financing TVs,couches stereos etc etc so the friends will be impressed. My wife makes abouy 50k a year I make about 5k. We shopped at yards sales for the furniture for our house, trade kids close with other families, bought used cars. So we can pay cash (remeber cash) for the toys we like to have. Cues, running shoes, vacations etc. We have a nice house in a nice neighborhood with a couple of 10 year old cars in the driveway and a 15 inch yard sale Tv in the family room. Life is good, I'm going fishing.

Andy

This is what America is all about. Everyone should be able to live the way they want to as long as they pay for it themselves. I drive a gas gusling Jeep Wrangler 4 door, a corvette convertible, and have 4 big LCD tv's in my house. I eat steak whenever and from wherever I want, I play golf anytime I can, and can fly out and play poker in Vegas on a whim. But, you know what, I work my ass off 55 hours a week even if its not physical labor in order to enjoy these things. Nobody else pays for anything I have and my daughter will enjoy a great childhood. I am appreciative to everyone that has helped me and I'm thankful for the protection of our military and government that allows me to live the way I want to live. If I want to pay $10 a gallon for gas and $12 for a gallon of milk then by God, I should be able to. Then again, if I don't want to pay that for goods then I won't.

 

[Nine Ball]

Get an education and make more money.

Yes, I agree with you. Having a good education definitely helps but my comment was directed at someone who said people can survive on minimum wage. Which I disagree with if you have the usual bills.

 

[jay helfert]

Taken any polls on this worldwide hatred for all Americans lately?
I believe we're in the damned if you do, and damned if you don't category when it comes to the US solving problems abroad. If we up and stop now, the other countries might say we're now those selfish Americans who now only spend on ourselves and don't care anymore about their fates. If we keep it up then those who have disliked our international policies all along will just keep right on b!tchin!!! Of course this is besides the fact that we've gone into many wars due to trade/economic factors, similar to why we will defend Taiwan against Chinese takeover.

I'm just an observer with an opinion. But it doesn't take a genius to see that the arrogance of the Bush administration has not helped our image abroad. In his first year in office, he broke treaties that had been in existence for years, saying they were no longer "relevant". And it only got better after that. Bush answers to no one, not Congress and certainly not the American people.

This guy is not capable of a mid level management position and he is our President. Kind of makes us a laughing stock around the world. Someone said earlier that what we need is a leader. I agree with that assessment. We need a man with some real backbone. Not a wimp who only knows how to pose for photo ops, and talk down to the populace.

This guy hasn't said anything of importance in six years. Of course, he's been "scripted" most of that time. An old friend once told me that when you take a "positon" and do not remain flexible, you become "stuck". Bush is stuck and arrogant about it.

 

[jay helfert]

Sorry guys (and gals), I got carried away a little. I guess you know by now that I am an unhappy camper with the course things have taken in this country in the last six years. Yes, I do blame the current adminsitration big time.

Like everyone else, I was sickened by 9/11. I just think that Bush and friends used it as an opportunity to carry out their own personal agenda. Now, I'll leave it alone.

 

[corvette1340]

I'm just an observer with an opinion. But it doesn't take a genius to see that the arrogance of the Bush administration has not helped our image abroad. In his first year in office, he broke treaties that had been in existence for years, saying they were no longer "relevant". And it only got better after that. Bush answers to no one, not Congress and certainly not the American people.

This guy is not capable of a mid level management position and he is our President. Kind of makes us a laughing stock around the world. Someone said earlier that what we need is a leader. I agree with that assessment. We need a man with some real backbone. Not a wimp who only knows how to pose for photo ops, and talk down to the populace.

This guy hasn't said anything of importance in six years. Of course, he's been "scripted" most of that time. An old friend once told me that when you take a "positon" and do not remain flexible, you become "stuck". Bush is stuck and arrogant about it.

Jay,
I will have to respectfully disagree with you here. I think that "Dubya" has done a good job especially with all the turmoil with Irag and terrorism. Im not sure why everyone complains when we haven't had an attack since 9/11. The people that say we should pull out of Iraq can say that until we are attacked again and then it will be a big "I told you so" for all the liberal naysayers. I also believe that a certain arrogance is a must for the position of leader of the most powerful country in the world. He is respectful of other nations, but has made it abundantly clear that if you mess with the United States then we are going to deal with you. He has also reached out to help others in need not only here but abroad. He stresses and shows that the US will help other countries until they show that they aren't worthy of our help. The only think I wish he would be harder on is the stance of illegal immigrants. I can't stand the fact that a mexican family living here illegally with 20 people in a trailer can continue to have kids and I pay for them to go to school and live tax free. Other than that, I have no problem with the economy or diplomatic relations over the past several years.

 

[Big Perm]

notice, focused on main thread and topic, didn't read most of it...

In regards to the cost of goods, I think the oil companies have taken advantage of recent events....which caused gas prices to rise, and now the cost of goods is rising in response to the higher fuel prices so companies can make a profit....it sucks to pay $3 a gallon....also, I need milk, so not happy at $5 a gallon for that either....IMHO, some of it is inflation, remaining is price gouging by oil companies....

In regards to minimum wage, there are millionaires out there with an 8th grade education.....there are immigrants that came to this country 50 years ago with only pennies and have built huge businesses through hard work and determination......worked for min wage myself as a youngster....for those that don't like min wage, they should have paid attention in school, smoked less weed, and should work harder/smarter to get a better job...

 

[jay helfert]

Jay,
I will have to respectfully disagree with you here. I think that "Dubya" has done a good job especially with all the turmoil with Irag and terrorism. Im not sure why everyone complains when we haven't had an attack since 9/11. The people that say we should pull out of Iraq can say that until we are attacked again and then it will be a big "I told you so" for all the liberal naysayers. I also believe that a certain arrogance is a must for the position of leader of the most powerful country in the world. He is respectful of other nations, but has made it abundantly clear that if you mess with the United States then we are going to deal with you. He has also reached out to help others in need not only here but abroad. He stresses and shows that the US will help other countries until they show that they aren't worthy of our help. The only think I wish he would be harder on is the stance of illegal immigrants. I can't stand the fact that a mexican family living here illegally with 20 people in a trailer can continue to have kids and I pay for them to go to school and live tax free. Other than that, I have no problem with the economy or diplomatic relations over the past several years.

'C' baby, we are definitely seeing things from a different perspective. I love ya, and I agree to disagree.

 

[corvette1340]

'C' baby, we are definitely seeing things from a different perspective. I love ya, and I agree to disagree.

I will agree to disagree only after we have played poker together. I need to get a good read on ya first.
Seriously, I think its fine that people have differing opinions on several topics because thats what makes this country so great.

 

[chefjeff]

(snip)
The strange thing about libertarians is this insistence that their point of view is "proven": that the market knows best and other points of view are naive and uneducated. That's freshman econ 101, and reality is much more complicated. It's one thing to believe that minimum wage is bad, due to the standard supply/demand arguments. It's quite quite another to assert this as some kind of established fact--that's plainly dishonest. You can guess where I come down on this issue, but I'm not going to pretend that my opinion is "proven", because I understand what the word "proven" means.

(snip)...

My previous post...

Some of the point is proven: A job is merely an agreement between two parties to trade labor for money. When a third party interferes, using guns, that is bad for the deal or else the deal makers would have voluntarily added the violence to their original agreement. They didn't.

'Does this violence negatively affect the market as a whole?' might be the more complicated part to which you're referring.​

To continue...

Proving that minimum wages affect the market is easy and has been done by many. Now, does it affect it negatively or postively? To this, I refer you to this article. Basically, it makes the Austrian argument that value is subjective so what might be good for some might be bad for others. So, how to measure "good for society" when no such objective standard exist for this question.

Here's an excerpt from the article with the link below it:

...The economic case for minimum wage increases has gained some ground with public and even professional opinion. Even some free market leaning economists, like Steven Landsburg, have conceded that minimum wages increases do not affect employment significantly.[2] Landsburg notes that critics of minimum wage laws emphasize that they have a disproportionate effect on teens and blacks. But he dismisses these critics because "minimum wages have at most a tiny impact on employment ? The minimum wage kills very few jobs, and the jobs it kills were lousy jobs anyway. It is almost impossible to maintain the old argument that minimum wages are bad for minimum-wage workers."

Real statistics indicate that the critics of minimum wage laws were right all along. While it is true that minimum wages do not drive the national unemployment rate up to astronomical levels, it does adversely affect teenagers and ethnic minorities. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the unemployment rate for everyone over the age of 16 was 5.6% in 2005. Yet unemployment was 17.3% for those aged 16-19 years. For those aged 16-17 unemployment was 19.7%. In the 18-19 age group unemployment was 15.8%. Minimum wage laws do affect ethnic minorities more so than others.[3] The unemployment rate for white teens in the 16-17 age group was 17.3% in 2005. The same figures for Hispanic and black teens were 25% and 40.9% respectively. Of course, these figures decrease for older minorities. Blacks aged 18-19 and 20-24 had 25.7% and 19.9% unemployment in 2005. For Hispanics unemployment was slightly lower ? 17.8% at age 18-19 and 9.6% at age 20-24.

Landsburg might maintain that most of these lost jobs are lousy jobs that teens will not miss. DeLong thinks that minimum wage laws can help to avert poverty ? workers who keep their jobs at the minimum wage gain much, while unemployed workers lose little. Part of the problem with this argument is that it involves arbitrary value judgments. According to mainstream economic theory, we achieve economic efficiency when markets clear because this is how we realize all gains from trade. With teen unemployment in double digits ? running as high as 40.9% ? it is obvious that some labor markets are not clearing. If labor market imperfections led to such levels of unemployment, economists like DeLong, Card, and Krueger would call for government intervention to correct these "market failures." Yet they find double digit teen unemployment acceptable when it derives from government intervention. Why? Because they want to use such policies to redistribute income.[4]

Mainstream economic theory lacks any basis for judging the effects of income redistribution. According to textbook economics we attain the highest level of economic efficiency when markets clear, when we realize the maximum gains from mutually advantageous trade. Income transfers benefit some at the expense of others. Economists have no scientific methods for comparing gains and losses through income transfers.[5] Once economists depart from discussing efficiency conditions and begin to speak about income redistribution, they become advocates of a political agenda, rather than objective scientists....

http://www.mises.org/story/2130​

Enjoy...and there are about a dozen or more price-control type articles at this site for those inclined to learn all you can about this important policy.

Jeff Livingston