Minimum wage & The cost of living

[pocketspeed]

The correlation it sounds like you've made between American military presence in Iraq and the lack of terrorist attacks on American soil is indirect, at best.

not just iraq sir, but the entire effort. has it been effective? indirect you say? dont you think that the jihadists would love to stike the heart of the "great satan"? you know they would. but the entire strategy of which iraq is one part has been successful in preventing that from happening. there is no indirect correlation here sir. the only conclusion is that whatever president bush is doing, whether popular or not has been effective at keeping american soil safe.

johnnyt, you just want to chuck the whole thing then and start over?

brian

 

[Russ Chewning]

I want to respond to something frank said, so everyone knows where I stand. The oil companies are reaping record profits, and Congress is not doing one damn thing about it. I think it shows that the politicians as a whole do not have our best interest in mind.. If they did, they would address what the oil companies are doing to us.

That being said, we are just as much to blame for that as the oil companies are. We can cut back on gas usage as a country, but we don't. We like our freedom too much. People can get up 90 minutes early and bike to work, and bike back, but for the most part, we don't. We could bike the two miles to the store to pick up some little thing we need, but we won't.

The oil companies are taking advantage of a combination of increased/steady demand, and the rising price of oil. They are just being good business people, you can't blame them.

We CAN blame Congress, though, because Congress is responsible for controlling stuff like this. Put blame where it belongs. If you had a product that everyone needed, and you were the CEO of the company, you are required to take steps to make as much money as the market will bear. If you do not do so, you are in very real danger of losing your job.

That's one of the situations where the government should step in and make sure controls are put in place to protect the American people, so the CEO can do his job according to the law, and the American people pay a reasonable price for fuel.

Russ

 

[Neil]

.............

 

[DZilla]

Russ you said it very nicely. To sum it up, Americans in general are lazy when it comes to making a difference on their own such as boycotting and not buying as much gasoline, etc. There are too many "keeping up with the Jones'" types who must have their gass-guzzlers because the next-door neighbor does. When you add to that a whole lot of ignorance and the media continually brainwashing the sheeple, it adds up to a lot of stinking CRAP!!!

 

[Fatboy]

O Ho Ho Ho! The Corey/Shane match must have my nose open!

"Lock", you say??? Hmm, well if it is a lock, then I would say you should give me 7 to 1 against a Republican winning the White House in '08..

That's fair, wouldn't you say? And if it's not, lay me a real price on it. But before you do, remember, you said the Democrats are a lock, so lay the price accordingly..

Russ

well ,,,ok almost a lock, i'll lay 4 to 1 on a small bet. good to see you hope your doing good

 

[easy-e]

Holy crap! I left for the airport a few hours back, and now I am in the Houtson Airport USO reading all of this! This is getting crazy

 

[easy-e]

I'm done with milk for good, can we all get along now?

 

[Russ Chewning]

well ,,,ok almost a lock, i'll lay 4 to 1 on a small bet. good to see you hope your doing good

Okay.. $40 to $10, or $80 to $20?

Russ

 

[ineedaspot]

It's pretty much proven that a federal minimum wage increase does nothing good for the people it's set to help. In many cases, however, it does create inflation. It works pretty much the same way the labor unions work. When one interrupts a free market by setting an arbitrary price floor -- the minimum price above equilibrium in which prices cannot drop -- than one creates greater supply than demand; or, in other words, by stifling the price mechanism, one creates unemployment.

Bureaucrats/technocrats/ politicians do not fully understand the implications to their welfare policies. A study done back in the 80's showed that for every $8 dollars allocated for redistribution, and collected from tax dollars, only $1 actually reached the person it was intended to help.

-Shane

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:

Prominent economists of all ideological persuasions long believed that raising the U.S. minimum wage would retard job growth, creating unintended hardship for those at the bottom of the ladder.

Today, that consensus is eroding, and a vigorous debate has developed as some argue that boosting the wage would pull millions out of poverty.

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...

 

[Russ Chewning]

It would pull millions out of poverty, assuming one thing: That the industries relying on low wage workers were content to see their profits dip.

Since we know this is not the case, we can surmise what would happen:

Minimum wage goes up, impacting profits. Prices of the goods those workers make goes up in order to offset increased costs. Poverty line goes up, thereby putting workers on the underside of it again.

Now, I know this is overly simplistic, and assumes a lot of things. But all things being equal, I think if minimum wage goes up, so do the prices of certain consumer goods, thereby cancelling out the effect.

I personally don't think the minimum wage's purpose is to allow anyone to support their family off of. I think it's purpose is to establish a standard for the minimum price you pay for unskilled, barely trained labor.

That's JMHO, it's worth what yah paid for it..

Russ

 

[ineedaspot]

Fair enough, and we can definitely agree that the minimum wage is not going to solve the problem of poverty. I'm just against the "let the market do its job" theory.

My general opinion is that the free market is really good at some things--e.g. deciding how many steel mills and auto plants there should be--and not so good at others--e.g. dealing with poverty--due in part to the fact that standard economic statistics (e.g. the GDP) do not reflect the social aspects of this problem. The debilitating effects of poverty are beyond just issues of labor supply and demand, so it is not realistic to expect the free market to provide a solution.

 

[jay helfert]

Oooooohhh boy... Gotta correct this Jay. Before we start dancing, you know I love you, buddy..

What have we accomplished? A hell of a lot more than we did in Vietnam, that's for sure. The Iraqi people voted under threat of being blown up. Quite a few Iraqis seemed to have a patriotic spirit during the elections, don'tcha know?

There was a huge religious celebration this week. Lots of pilgrims making their way to a shrine in Baghdad.. Lots as in..a million or so.. No huge explosions killing hundreds like there have been the last few years. The Iraqi Army and Police are starting to step forward and take responsibility for security.

Iraqi soldiers used to run away from the insurgents, Jay. They were scared. Now, quite a few units have a burning desire to make a difference ON THEIR OWN, without the U.S. Army having to step in. Iraqi soldiers are fighting, and DYING to protect their own country.

The Iraqi people are beginning to report insurgent activity in their area, as long as troops move in and prove security to keep the insurgents from coming back.

Pardon me, Jay.. Seems as if in Vietnam, we sometimes had a MONTH where more American soldiers died than have died in the WHOLE WAR here.. I am stunned that you know that Iraqis stepped over body parts in the street on their way to the voting booth, and you can sit there and say these American lives are wasted.

I am just happy the generation of my grandparents was not as weak-willed as the American people seem to be nowadays. If so, we might be speaking Japanese or German.

A friendly piece of advice. If you guys and gals don't know what's REALLY going on over here, then don't talk like you do. We are RAMPING UP FOR AN ELECTION, PEOPLE! Of COURSE the party not in office is going to say that everything is going horribly! It is in their best interest to!

Russ

With all due respect Russ, please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not convinced that our presence in Iraq is helping to alleviate the tensions between the various sects, who are battling each other and us at the same time.

One day we are fighting Shiite fundamentalists and the next Sunni sects. And at the same time, they are busy killing each other for reasons that somehow escape me. Only the Kurds have not sent "militia" to fight us. It's hard to keep score when you don't know who are your enemies, and who are your allies. Do you truly know Russ?

I suspect the internecine civil war which is being played out all across Iraq will contine unabated until all the American troops have pulled out. There is an old adage that someone much smarter than me unttered many years ago. "The presence of foreign troops always serves to fuel an insurgency."

Russ, do you think that the lives of the Iraqi people has been enriched during our five year engagement there? Are they better off now than before we came?

 

[jay helfert]

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

Did you just say stay until they have a stable government? How about until Hell freezes over, whichever comes first?

This is the scattered, diffused bunch of "leaders" who in the midst of this tumult, decided to give themselves August OFF!

 

[LAMas]

Tap tap tap

 

[jay helfert]

Your Brother in Law is in the Pentagon... I sit 10 feet from the guy running the entire war in Iraq, General Petraeus. I think I like my sources better than yours. I was talking to a Colonel the other day, and he was telling about when he went through war college. The instructor asked them how they would go about winning the war in Iraq. This officer said "Put Gen Petraeus in charge!" Everyone else started in about Gen P was "too junior".

Well, lookie here. He's in charge, and things have started changing already. The man is much more hands on then Casey was. Moreover, I think he is much more in tune with what it takes to fight a counterinsurgency war. You really have nothing to go on but your brother-in-law's opinion, but that's okay. Sometimes we jump to a conclusion without knowing the big picture. I don't hold that against you.

But I will say this. Gen Petraeus formed a security plan that has kept the religious observances safe that have for the past few years, been so bloody. If the insurgents can't kill people, can't scare people, they are irrelevant. That's not to say they aren' going to try, and sometimes succeed, but it does make their goal a HELL of a lot harder.

You guys don't hear the briefing where intel comes in of so-and-so (insurgent leader) going on the run and basically "giving up the jihad" because he is so paranoid, because only three people knew about a plan to attack such-and-such a place. Almost his whole team was decimated, and now he is the most paranoid bad dude since Bin Laden.

That's the effect we are having on the insurgents. They don't know who they can trust, and trusting the wrong person can, and does, get them killed. It's a little tough carrying out a complicated plan to blow up 300-400 people when you can't trust the guys on your team.

You have two people on here telling you we are making a difference. Me and easy-e. You have a brother-in-law who has a different opinion.

Maybe people should either seek out the opinion of the people who ARE here or have BEEN here, or listen to those same people they already know, rather than finding someone who will parrot the opinion they already have.

Russ

I'd sure like to believe you Russ. It's been a long five years. Do you think that by us "taking" the war to them, it has served as a recruitment tool for Al Queda. My observation is that there are more militant groups waging Jihad all over the globe than ever before. If anything, the proliferation of Islamic Fundamentalist sects has been exponential worldwide.

My fear is that after Iraq is done, we will face similar troubling situations in many other countries. I do not feel that the United States can be the "enforcer" for the whole planet. Look how thin our military is stretched already.

 

[jay helfert]

This is correct, beef, and well put. Even though violent Muslims are a minority, since there are a billion or more Muslims out there, the 4 or 5% of Muslims who want to kill us is still 40 to 50 million. Let's think about that for a second.. That's only 4-5%... 40-50 million who want us dead. And some of them have a lot of money.

It's not a matter of what we have done to them, it is as beef said, what we are.. These are people like the Taliban who would kill a woman for being outside of her home without her husband. They see Western influence coming into their countries through satellite television (which can't be easily controlled) and it drives them absolutely NUTS. They see the "hot" channels (yeah, baybee!) coming in, and see THAT as a crime against Allah, and they look at America as a trendsetter (which we are) that exports fashion to other countries (which we do), and a main cause of women showing bare shoulders in their country. (Which we kind of are, because America is loved overseas as well as hated..)

So these nutjobs go off to remote villages and set up little schools in villages where the children would never have learned how to read otherwise. The parents are grateful, and allow their children to go to "school".

In these schools, the children are taught the most radical form of Islam, and are taught to devalue their own lives, and to hate all things Western. Should I bother to mention this sort of thing has been going on for a very, very, very long time? Loooooonnnnngggg before Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.

Saying we created these people is the height of ignorance. It shows a total disconnection with the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem in the Middle East is that the majority of these people are poor and uneducated. Guess what? THIS IS NOT OUR FAULT.

The radical nutjobs who want to make the entire Middle East one big caliphate need to control the poor and uneducated somehow. They are brainwashed by their radical leaders to believe that anyone not like them is evil, and must be destroyed. Combine this with a total disregard for their own lives, and this created some very dangerous warriors.

And the leaders of the Middle Eastern countries are more than willing to go along with all this. Why? Here's why: They are sitting on BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars that their royal family uses as it own personal bank account, which in effect, it is. They must distract the populace from the fact they are doing nothing to build the economies of their country. To make a better future for all of its' citizens. So these leaders let the radicals preach their hate against all things Western, to pull the attention of the populace away from themselves. Lies told by the radicals about the West DO NOT MATTER to these leaders.

Thanks for speaking up worriedbeef, and hopefully this post will educate a few people. I doubt it though. I've posted all this before..They have their own view of the way things are in the world, and the truth rarely matters.

Russ

You dont paint a pretty picture Russ. My question remains, why is it our job to cure the ills of every foreign nation? I guess I just don't get it.

I'd like to see us spend BILLIONS at home curing our own ills, and developing our own national security. The thanks we are getting for our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq is worldwide hatred for all Americans.

 

[LAMas]

From NPR

Lets get back to the topic of this thread - high milk prices linked to Ethenal Alky in the persuit of reducing global warming. It is going to get more expensive.

Nation
Milk Costs Surge Due to Corn
by Sarah McCammon

Weekend Edition Saturday, July 14, 2007 ? As high as gas prices are, milk is more expensive. And the high prices for both can be traced to the high cost of another commodity: corn.

Just a year ago, quite a few dairy farmers were calling it quits. The fuel and grain needed to run a dairy were getting more expensive, and farmers were getting such low prices for their milk that it was hard to make ends meet. So some cut back their herd sizes or sold off their cows and got out of the business altogether.

What a difference a year makes. Feeding cows still isn't cheap, but this year, milk prices are rising to near-record levels and farmers are hoping to see more income.

Higher milk prices mean customers are paying more at Amy Green's ice cream shop in downtown Lincoln, Neb. A small cone will set you back $3.50 before tax ? up from $2.95 just a few months ago.

Green said she's now paying an extra $150 a week for the rich butterfat she uses to make old-fashioned, slow-churned ice cream.

"I've been serving ice cream for 23 years, and it's really hard for me to say that it will be $16 to a family of four for, you know, four cones. It just feels wrong. But I have no choice," Green said.

The retail price for a gallon of whole milk tops $3, and experts predict it will soon set a new record.

Several factors are creating a sort of "perfect storm" for milk prices this summer. Americans are drinking more milk. Add to that, droughts in major milk-producing countries like Australia.

But another key factor is the demand for ethanol, according to Chris Galen, a spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation. Ethanol is increasingly being used as an alternative fuel for gasoline.

"Everyone is paying more for feed; and it's not just corn," he said, noting that the increase in corn plantings means there's less acreage available for soybeans and for alfalfa. "So the products that go into cows that make milk are much higher than they've typically been in the past."

One year ago, it cost about $2 for a bushel of corn. Now that price has nearly doubled.

Galen says when you pile that on top of high fuel prices and last year's low milk prices, it has been hard for the dairy industry to respond to the growing demand.

It's a warm summer afternoon on Lowell Mueller's dairy farm about 70 miles north of Lincoln. Wearing a red and white baseball cap and a short-sleeved plaid shirt, Mueller and a farmhand usher a new group of cows ? eight at a time ? into the small barn that holds his milking machines.

He considers himself one of the lucky ones because he grows his own corn, soybeans and alfalfa. But even he struggled last year to make back what he was spending to produce milk. Mueller says he's hoping things will improve this year.

"Milk prices are a little higher, but unfortunately our costs have gotten a little higher too. So it's always tough to keep up with all the escalating costs," he said.

Industry leaders predict milk prices could top out this summer at about $4.60 a gallon, which just might make a gallon of gasoline look like a bargain.

Sarah McCammon reports for member station Nebraska Public Radio.

 

[jay helfert]

not just iraq sir, but the entire effort. has it been effective? indirect you say? dont you think that the jihadists would love to stike the heart of the "great satan"? you know they would. but the entire strategy of which iraq is one part has been successful in preventing that from happening. there is no indirect correlation here sir. the only conclusion is that whatever president bush is doing, whether popular or not has been effective at keeping american soil safe.

johnnyt, you just want to chuck the whole thing then and start over?

brian

I'm going out on a limb here and making a long shot guess. I suspect there are more Jihadist "cells" operating INSIDE this country than ever before. And they are not planning a tea party either. When the necessary combination of know-how, resources and opportunity intersect, I don't think it will be pretty.

 

[jay helfert]

Lets get back to the topic of this thread - high milk prices linked to Ethenal Alky in the persuit of reducing global warming. It is going to get more expensive.

Nation
Milk Costs Surge Due to Corn
by Sarah McCammon

Weekend Edition Saturday, July 14, 2007 ? As high as gas prices are, milk is more expensive. And the high prices for both can be traced to the high cost of another commodity: corn.

Just a year ago, quite a few dairy farmers were calling it quits. The fuel and grain needed to run a dairy were getting more expensive, and farmers were getting such low prices for their milk that it was hard to make ends meet. So some cut back their herd sizes or sold off their cows and got out of the business altogether.

What a difference a year makes. Feeding cows still isn't cheap, but this year, milk prices are rising to near-record levels and farmers are hoping to see more income.

Higher milk prices mean customers are paying more at Amy Green's ice cream shop in downtown Lincoln, Neb. A small cone will set you back $3.50 before tax ? up from $2.95 just a few months ago.

Green said she's now paying an extra $150 a week for the rich butterfat she uses to make old-fashioned, slow-churned ice cream.

"I've been serving ice cream for 23 years, and it's really hard for me to say that it will be $16 to a family of four for, you know, four cones. It just feels wrong. But I have no choice," Green said.

The retail price for a gallon of whole milk tops $3, and experts predict it will soon set a new record.

Several factors are creating a sort of "perfect storm" for milk prices this summer. Americans are drinking more milk. Add to that, droughts in major milk-producing countries like Australia.

But another key factor is the demand for ethanol, according to Chris Galen, a spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation. Ethanol is increasingly being used as an alternative fuel for gasoline.

"Everyone is paying more for feed; and it's not just corn," he said, noting that the increase in corn plantings means there's less acreage available for soybeans and for alfalfa. "So the products that go into cows that make milk are much higher than they've typically been in the past."

One year ago, it cost about $2 for a bushel of corn. Now that price has nearly doubled.

Galen says when you pile that on top of high fuel prices and last year's low milk prices, it has been hard for the dairy industry to respond to the growing demand.

It's a warm summer afternoon on Lowell Mueller's dairy farm about 70 miles north of Lincoln. Wearing a red and white baseball cap and a short-sleeved plaid shirt, Mueller and a farmhand usher a new group of cows ? eight at a time ? into the small barn that holds his milking machines.

He considers himself one of the lucky ones because he grows his own corn, soybeans and alfalfa. But even he struggled last year to make back what he was spending to produce milk. Mueller says he's hoping things will improve this year.

"Milk prices are a little higher, but unfortunately our costs have gotten a little higher too. So it's always tough to keep up with all the escalating costs," he said.

Industry leaders predict milk prices could top out this summer at about $4.60 a gallon, which just might make a gallon of gasoline look like a bargain.

Sarah McCammon reports for member station Nebraska Public Radio.

This is old fashioned "supply and demand" at work. If more people quit drinking milk (hey, you can survive without it), the price would come down.
Same goes for gasoline. When the day comes that more and more of us are driving alternative fuel vehicles, gas will become plentiful. And the Sheiks of Arabia will have to tighten their purse strings for once.

Another old saying (I seem to be full of them), "Necessity is the Mother of invention." It is quickly becoming necessary to find other fuel sources. And we will, even if we have to fight Exon-Mobil tooth and nail to develop it.

 

[DZilla]

You dont paint a pretty picture Russ. My question remains, why is it our job to cure the ills of every foreign nation? I guess I just don't get it.

I'd like to see us spend BILLIONS at home curing our own ills, and developing our own national security. The thanks we are getting for our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq is worldwide hatred for all Americans.

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.