A point of view not found in the corporate media. Accounting for inflation and increases in productivity Robert Polin estimates that minimum wage should be about $25/hr.
I thought it should be $12.45/hr. What number shall we use?
How about $48/hr? Got a problem with that?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
A point of view not found in the corporate media. Accounting for inflation and increases in productivity Robert Polin estimates that minimum wage should be about $25/hr.
[/quote]
So the guy flipping burgers at Burger King part time for 30hrs a week should be making $40,000 a year. Really??
52k a year?
What a clown.
Good luck starting and maintaining a business.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
A point of view not found in the corporate media. [/quote]
Probably because it is moronic.
You really have not even the slightest understanding of basic economics do you? I also question your ability with your personal finances if you believe that this wage is necessary for someone to live on without assistance.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
52k a year?
What a clown.
Good luck starting and maintaining a business.[/quote]
Yeah he has studied this extensively but he is a clown. Raising the minimum wage to where it was in the late 60’s causes an increase of a whopping 2.7%. If you believe in free-market economist Henry Hazlitt’s posit that an increase in wage is only valid if there is an increase in productivity, then what is your defense of that component of his research?
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
You really have not even the slightest understanding of basic economics do you? I also question your ability with your personal finances if you believe that this wage is necessary for someone to live on without assistance.[/quote]
I’m posting a video of an interview with an active economist that does current research. I can’t help it he comes up with conclusions that fly in the face of your pre-concieved notions of how an economy works. But I guess Mr. Polin has no idea what he is talking about but you do? Why don’t you challenge him to a debate and show him how smart you are in a field you are most likely not an expert?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
A point of view not found in the corporate media. [/quote]
Probably because it is moronic.
[/quote]
Moronic to you because it comes out with conclusions that you don’t agree with.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
A point of view not found in the corporate media. Accounting for inflation and increases in productivity Robert Polin estimates that minimum wage should be about $25/hr.
[/quote]
So the guy flipping burgers at Burger King part time for 30hrs a week should be making $40,000 a year. Really?? [/quote]
That is your defense?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I thought it should be $12.45/hr. What number shall we use?
How about $48/hr? Got a problem with that?[/quote]
How about $4/hr? This way we can employ most everybody even though they won’t be able to survive.
12.45/hr. is the inflation rate of minimum or maybe that is 10.65/hr. The $25hr. figures in the rise of productivity. I’m sure most people would be happy with an almost $5/hr. increase in their wage so they can have the same purchasing power as people did in the late 60’s. But to someone like you that must be too much to ask for.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
You really have not even the slightest understanding of basic economics do you? I also question your ability with your personal finances if you believe that this wage is necessary for someone to live on without assistance.[/quote]
I’m posting a video of an interview with an active economist that does current research. I can’t help it he comes up with conclusions that fly in the face of your pre-concieved notions of how an economy works. But I guess Mr. Polin has no idea what he is talking about but you do? Why don’t you challenge him to a debate and show him how smart you are in a field you are most likely not an expert?
[/quote]
You’re the one that made the claim, why don’t you debate beans? Stop baiting.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I thought it should be $12.45/hr. What number shall we use?
How about $48/hr? Got a problem with that?[/quote]
How about $4/hr? This way we can employ most everybody even though they won’t be able to survive.
12.45/hr. is the inflation rate of minimum or maybe that is 10.65/hr. The $25hr. figures in the rise of productivity. I’m sure most people would be happy with an almost $5/hr. increase in their wage so they can have the same purchasing power as people did in the late 60’s. But to someone like you that must be too much to ask for.
[/quote]
So you’re not cool with $48/hr?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I thought it should be $12.45/hr. What number shall we use?
How about $48/hr? Got a problem with that?[/quote]
How about $4/hr? This way we can employ most everybody even though they won’t be able to survive.
12.45/hr. is the inflation rate of minimum or maybe that is 10.65/hr. The $25hr. figures in the rise of productivity. I’m sure most people would be happy with an almost $5/hr. increase in their wage so they can have the same purchasing power as people did in the late 60’s. But to someone like you that must be too much to ask for.
[/quote]
So you’re not cool with $48/hr? [/quote]
I guess not. Zep is just trying to actually use logic. At $48/hr we would have unemployment of 30%, but he is alright with $12.45/hr and 15% unemployment. At $4.50/hr we would have 2-3% unemployment. Which would you want?
The man believes that what has happened with the California economy is a good thing. Maybe not as smart as you think he is. Also his family was liberal Dems and his grandparents were communists. So keep trying to tell me that the man doesn’t have an agenda with a bunch of fluff that sounds good to the uneducated stoners that buy into it but actually carries no real substance.
FPN: What is it going to take to bring about a fundamental shift in the economy?
RP: You are the ones to answer that ? LAANE has been extremely successful in changing politics in the biggest state in the union. We all assume that California is deep-blue Democrat at present. That wasn?t the case when I was living in California. We have seen a political transformation of California becoming pro-union, of integrating immigrants into the political process. Who did that? If I had to point to one organization I would point to LAANE. Harold Meyerson said the same thing in his recent American Prospect article. Whatever you did, that?s the formula. The other organization I would cite is the National Nurses Union, which has been extremely innovative. Their campaign for the national Wall Street Robin Hood tax has been extremely successful
FPN: You grew up in an affluent family. What inspired you to become a progressive economist?
RP: My parents and grandparents were liberal Democrats. They were not engaged on a day-to-day basis on these issues but felt strongly and passionately about them. I remember my father said to me when I was young that communism is the best system we can envision, though it?s not realistic. But it?s the best because it?s based on the idea of people being equal. My father and grandfather were both well-known as extremely generous, community-minded, that was how they acted even when nobody was looking. Both sides of my grandparents? families were poor Russian immigrants from the shtetl, and they carried that with them. Some were members of the Communist Party. Also, growing up in the ?60s you would have to be a total lughead to not catch any of the spirit of what was happening.
FPN: Is your work on living wage what you are proudest of?
RP: Absolutely, one of the things. One reason is it came completely from the movement, not from my own research agenda. I wasn?t doing work on it at all, I had no background on minimum wage or labor economics. It was because Madeline [Janis] approached me.
Doing economics and talking to people outside of academia made it all come alive to me. Talking to activists, connecting to them and understanding what it takes to get something passed. I decided I was going to listen to all the critics of living wages and take their criticisms seriously. Until I could convince myself through research that they were wrong, I was going to assume that the critics were right. I wanted to do enough research in a serious way to convince myself that the arguments for a living wage would really work
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I thought it should be $12.45/hr. What number shall we use?
How about $48/hr? Got a problem with that?[/quote]
How about $4/hr? This way we can employ most everybody even though they won’t be able to survive.
12.45/hr. is the inflation rate of minimum or maybe that is 10.65/hr. The $25hr. figures in the rise of productivity. I’m sure most people would be happy with an almost $5/hr. increase in their wage so they can have the same purchasing power as people did in the late 60’s. But to someone like you that must be too much to ask for.
[/quote]
So you’re not cool with $48/hr? [/quote]
I guess not. Zep is just trying to actually use logic. At $48/hr we would have unemployment of 30%, but he is alright with $12.45/hr and 15% unemployment. At $4.50/hr we would have 2-3% unemployment. Which would you want?
[/quote]
At 12.45/hr. we would have 15% unemployment, says who?
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
The man believes that what has happened with the California economy is a good thing. Maybe not as smart as you think he is. Also his family was liberal Dems and his grandparents were communists. So keep trying to tell me that the man doesn’t have an agenda with a bunch of fluff that sounds good to the uneducated stoners that buy into it but actually carries no real substance.
FPN: What is it going to take to bring about a fundamental shift in the economy?
RP: You are the ones to answer that ? LAANE has been extremely successful in changing politics in the biggest state in the union. We all assume that California is deep-blue Democrat at present. That wasn?t the case when I was living in California. We have seen a political transformation of California becoming pro-union, of integrating immigrants into the political process. Who did that? If I had to point to one organization I would point to LAANE. Harold Meyerson said the same thing in his recent American Prospect article. Whatever you did, that?s the formula. The other organization I would cite is the National Nurses Union, which has been extremely innovative. Their campaign for the national Wall Street Robin Hood tax has been extremely successful
FPN: You grew up in an affluent family. What inspired you to become a progressive economist?
RP: My parents and grandparents were liberal Democrats. They were not engaged on a day-to-day basis on these issues but felt strongly and passionately about them. I remember my father said to me when I was young that communism is the best system we can envision, though it?s not realistic. But it?s the best because it?s based on the idea of people being equal. My father and grandfather were both well-known as extremely generous, community-minded, that was how they acted even when nobody was looking. Both sides of my grandparents? families were poor Russian immigrants from the shtetl, and they carried that with them. Some were members of the Communist Party. Also, growing up in the ?60s you would have to be a total lughead to not catch any of the spirit of what was happening.
FPN: Is your work on living wage what you are proudest of?
RP: Absolutely, one of the things. One reason is it came completely from the movement, not from my own research agenda. I wasn?t doing work on it at all, I had no background on minimum wage or labor economics. It was because Madeline [Janis] approached me.
Doing economics and talking to people outside of academia made it all come alive to me. Talking to activists, connecting to them and understanding what it takes to get something passed. I decided I was going to listen to all the critics of living wages and take their criticisms seriously. Until I could convince myself through research that they were wrong, I was going to assume that the critics were right. I wanted to do enough research in a serious way to convince myself that the arguments for a living wage would really work
[/quote]
And the economists who are funded by corporations do not have an agenda?
Pardon me if I put no stock in anything an economist that was taught “communism is the best system we can envision”. Of course he advocates an ultra high minimum wage. It is merely his way of redistributing the wealth.
Milton Freidman says:
The fact is, the programs labeled as being ?for the poor,? or ?for the needy,? almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have.
Let me give you a very simple example ? take the minimum wage law. Its well-meaning sponsors? there are always in these cases two groups of sponsors ? there are the well-meaning sponsors and there are the special interests, who are using the well-meaning sponsors as front men. You almost always when you have bad programs have an unholy coalition of the do-gooders on the one hand, and the special interest on the other. The minimum wage law is as clear a case as you could want. The special interests are of course the trade unions ? the monopolistic trade craft unions. The do-gooders believe that by passing a law saying that nobody shall get less than $9 per hour (adjusted for today) or whatever the minimum wage is, you are helping poor people who need the money. You are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is to assure, that people whose skills, are not sufficient to justify that kind of a wage will be unemployed.
The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That?s what the law says. The law says that here?s a man who has a skill that would justify a wage of $5 or $6 per hour (adjusted for today), but you may not employ him, it?s illegal, because if you employ him you must pay him $9 per hour. So what?s the result? To employ him at $9 per hour is to engage in charity. There?s nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in the position to engage in that kind of charity. Thus, the consequences of minimum wage laws have been almost wholly bad. We have increased unemployment and increased poverty.
Moreover, the effects have been concentrated on the groups that the do-gooders would most like to help. The people who have been hurt most by the minimum wage laws are the blacks. I have often said that the most anti-black law on the books of this land is the minimum wage law.
There is absolutely no positive objective achieved by the minimum wage law. Its real purpose is to reduce competition for the trade unions and make it easier for them to maintain the higher wages of their privileged members.
Thomas Sowell says:
Governor Mitt Romney’s statement about not worrying about the poor has been treated as a gaffe in much of the media, and those in the Republican establishment who have been rushing toward endorsing his coronation as the GOP’s nominee for president ? with 90 percent of the delegates still not yet chosen ? have been trying to sweep his statement under the rug.But Romney’s statement about not worrying about the poor ? because they ?have a very ample safety net? ? was followed by a statement that was not just a slip of the tongue, and should be a defining moment in telling us about this man’s qualifications as a conservative and, more important, as a potential President of the United States.Mitt Romney has come out in support of indexing the minimum wage law, to have it rise automatically to keep pace with inflation. To many people, that would seem like a small thing that can be left for economists or statisticians to deal with.But to people who call themselves conservatives, and aspire to public office, there is no excuse for not being aware of what a major social disaster the minimum wage law has been for the young, the poor and especially for young and poor blacks.It is not written in the stars that young black males must have astronomical rates of unemployment. It is written implicitly in the minimum wage laws.We have gotten so used to seeing unemployment rates of 30 or 40 percent for black teenage males that it might come as a shock to many people to learn that the unemployment rate for sixteen- and seventeen-year-old black males was just under 10 percent back in 1948. Moreover, it was slightly lower than the unemployment rate for white males of the same age.How could this be?The economic reason is quite plain. The inflation of the 1940s had pushed money wages for even unskilled, entry-level labor above the level specified in the minimum wage law passed ten years earlier. In other words, there was in practical effect no national minimum wage law in the late 1940s.Liberals were of course appalled that the federal minimum wage law had lagged so far behind inflation – and, in 1950, they began a series of escalations of the minimum wage level over the years.It was in the wake of these escalations that black teenage unemployment rose to levels that were three or four times the level in 1948. Even in the most prosperous years of later times, the unemployment rate for black teenage males was some multiple of what it was even in the recession year of 1949. And now it was often double the unemployment rate for white males of the same ages.This was not the first or the last time that liberals did something that made them feel good about themselves, while leaving havoc in their wake, especially among the poor whom they were supposedly helping.Nor are such consequences of minimum wage laws peculiar to blacks or to the United States. In Western European countries whose social policies liberals consider more ?advanced? than our own, including more generous minimum wage laws and other employer-mandated benefits, it has been common in even prosperous years for unemployment rates among young people to be 20 percent or higher.The economic reason is not complicated. When you set minimum wage levels higher than many inexperienced young people are worth, they don’t get hired. It is not rocket science.Milton Friedman explained all this, half a century ago, in his popular little book for non-economists, ?Capitalism and Freedom.? So have many other people. If a presidential candidate who calls himself ?conservative? has still not heard of these facts, that simply shows that you can call yourself anything you want to
Here in Canada Min wage is 12 $ I own a couple different companies, and it’s hard to justify 12$ for unskilled people, it’s over 500$ a week when you add in taxes, insurance," to train someone," thats hard to swallow. If it gets any higher, I will simply cut hours, or pay people less under the table. There’s all kinds of imigrant workers here, working for less under the table, and they’re lining up to come here, they seem to survive on less. I think people need to realize we can’t go on living above our means, like generations before us. We’re paying for it now.