Will a Higher Minimum Wage Cost Jobs?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
“We” don’t need to make sure anybody is making enough to buy anything, the market will take care of that. [/quote]

The market did a fine job in 19th-century England, right? And in Guinea? North Korea? Somalia?[/quote]

Ah, North Korea, the last and greatest bastion of freedom and market forces. I feel that by continuing to participate in this debate after that comment, I am in danger of being seen the same way the winner of the 400m dash at the Special Olympics is, so I’m going to go ahead and bow out.[/quote]

How did the free market help with the finance sector in the past 5 years?

142

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
“We” don’t need to make sure anybody is making enough to buy anything, the market will take care of that. [/quote]

The market did a fine job in 19th-century England, right? And in Guinea? North Korea? Somalia?[/quote]

Ah, North Korea, the last and greatest bastion of freedom and market forces. I feel that by continuing to participate in this debate after that comment, I am in danger of being seen the same way the winner of the 400m dash at the Special Olympics is, so I’m going to go ahead and bow out.[/quote]

Curious that you ignore the example of 19th-century England.

143

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

How did the free market help with the finance sector in the past 5 years?[/quote]

Fantastic actually. Markets are at an all time high, RE in Boston is on fire and people with money are actually starting to move again. Apparently they got tired of waiting for the government to fix itself.

Now you want to go back longer than 5 years it is a different story. But you won’t want to listen to the facts and circumstances that don’t fit your narrative.

144

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The liberal Utopia would compel Walmart to pay a lawn-and-picket-fence, sedan-in-the-driveway middle class salary to people whose job description is only barely distinguishable from that of a garden statue.

The conservative Utopia would allow Walmart to pay its employees whatever it damn well pleases because, you know, the only thing stopping every single American citizen with a functioning cerebral cortex from starting their own business and rising to untold fortune is laziness and lack of ambition. The upper echelons of the American economy have the capacity to accommodate millions, haven’t you heard?

As is so often the case, both are stupid. Nobody is owed affluence simply for showing up. And on the other hand, every Sam Walton needs a million Joe Six-Packs, so we might as well make sure they are making enough to buy Sam Walton’s shit. Somewhere in the balance of those two platitudes is the reasonable solution.[/quote]

You don’t think it’s in a business owner’s best interest to make goods affordable for people? “We” don’t need to make sure anybody is making enough to buy anything, the market will take care of that. Whether or not business owners are as evil as we are taught in public school, the media, etc., who do you think pays for it when their operating costs are increased? The consumer. Business owners are not going to accept a longterm profit loss. Does anyone really think that paying everyone a ‘living wage’ would help things? After all, Bill Gates makes more than what people are wanting everyone to make(at least I assume people don’t want everyone making what Bill Gates does). Jealousy is not going to end. What IS in everyone’s best interest is to support a free economy. [/quote]

I disagree. What is in the best interest of this nation is to support an economy that benefits the majority of the public.

145

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

How did the free market help with the finance sector in the past 5 years?[/quote]

Fantastic actually. Markets are at an all time high, RE in Boston is on fire and people with money are actually starting to move again. Apparently they got tired of waiting for the government to fix itself.

Now you want to go back longer than 5 years it is a different story. But you won’t want to listen to the facts and circumstances that don’t fit your narrative. [/quote]

I should have asked a more specific question. How did the finance sector help the general economy? It didn’t! It almost single handedly crushed this nations economy. Unemployment is high and so is the market. There is no correlation to the over all health of the economy and the “market”.

146

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
“We” don’t need to make sure anybody is making enough to buy anything, the market will take care of that. [/quote]

The market did a fine job in 19th-century England, right? And in Guinea? North Korea? Somalia?[/quote]

Ah, North Korea, the last and greatest bastion of freedom and market forces. I feel that by continuing to participate in this debate after that comment, I am in danger of being seen the same way the winner of the 400m dash at the Special Olympics is, so I’m going to go ahead and bow out.[/quote]

Curious that you ignore the example of 19th-century England.[/quote]

147

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
How did the finance sector help the general economy?[/quote]

Depends on whether you are talking about short or long term, and what you mean by “finance sector”. That term is a lot braoder than you want it to be.

By what measure?

Lol, no not really. Yes the RE bubble popping lead to significant economic melt down that was felt across the world, but to use the phrase “single handedly” only shows the person using it really doesn’t understand what happened, how long it took, and where the problem started and compounded.

This is something else you can’t prove, but will stick your fingers in your and say “but look at the current situation” as any sort of proof.

Sure, the rise in the stock market hasn’t translated into a reduction in unemployment, but to assume that it would or wouldn’t may or may not be short sighted. One might very well be irrelevant to the other as hiring and firing has more to it than stock price.

But when you actually look at things, the 5 year yeild was like 1% as of the end of the year, and things are finally getting back to pre-2007 levels. The housing market in some areas (mine at least ) has swung back into a sellers market and things seem to be either stagnant or upticking slightly. Employment is a lagging stat, and I’m not sure why anyone would expect it to suddenly turn into a leading stat.

148

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
How did the finance sector help the general economy?[/quote]

Depends on whether you are talking about short or long term, and what you mean by “finance sector”. That term is a lot braoder than you want it to be.

By what measure?

Lol, no not really. Yes the RE bubble popping lead to significant economic melt down that was felt across the world, but to use the phrase “single handedly” only shows the person using it really doesn’t understand what happened, how long it took, and where the problem started and compounded.

This is something else you can’t prove, but will stick your fingers in your and say “but look at the current situation” as any sort of proof.

Sure, the rise in the stock market hasn’t translated into a reduction in unemployment, but to assume that it would or wouldn’t may or may not be short sighted. One might very well be irrelevant to the other as hiring and firing has more to it than stock price.

But when you actually look at things, the 5 year yeild was like 1% as of the end of the year, and things are finally getting back to pre-2007 levels. The housing market in some areas (mine at least ) has swung back into a sellers market and things seem to be either stagnant or upticking slightly. Employment is a lagging stat, and I’m not sure why anyone would expect it to suddenly turn into a leading stat. [/quote]

And you can’t prove there is a correlation you like to accuse others of the things you can’t do. There is no correlation between the two and there never has been . Can you prove there is? And you will stick your hands over your eyes and pretend there isn’t correlation.

How long it took the economic meltdown? How is that germane to the issue? The problem started when the regulations were gutted. This gave the banksters free reign to delve into extremely risky behavior that they were not held accountable for.

149

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The problem started when the regulations were gutted. This gave the banksters free reign to delve into extremely risky behavior that they were not held accountable for.
[/quote]

What regulations were gutted? One of the largest regulatory pieces of legislation in my life time, the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, was passed long before the recession. Why didn’t this increase in regulation stop the “banksters”?

150

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The problem started when the regulations were gutted. This gave the banksters free reign to delve into extremely risky behavior that they were not held accountable for.
[/quote]

What regulations were gutted? One of the largest regulatory pieces of legislation in my life time, the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, was passed long before the recession. Why didn’t this increase in regulation stop the “banksters”? [/quote]

It was the Glass Stegal act of 1933 or something like that was gotten rid of under Clinton that allowed Banks to get into insurance and investments. This was the start of the down turn that culminated in 2008.

151

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The problem started when the regulations were gutted. This gave the banksters free reign to delve into extremely risky behavior that they were not held accountable for.
[/quote]

What regulations were gutted? One of the largest regulatory pieces of legislation in my life time, the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, was passed long before the recession. Why didn’t this increase in regulation stop the “banksters”? [/quote]

It was the Glass Stegal act of 1933 or something like that was gotten rid of under Clinton that allowed Banks to get into insurance and investments. This was the start of the down turn that culminated in 2008.[/quote]

Interesting, that’s where I’ll start, thanks!

152

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The problem started when the regulations were gutted. This gave the banksters free reign to delve into extremely risky behavior that they were not held accountable for.
[/quote]

What regulations were gutted? One of the largest regulatory pieces of legislation in my life time, the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, was passed long before the recession. Why didn’t this increase in regulation stop the “banksters”? [/quote]

It was the Glass Stegal act of 1933 or something like that was gotten rid of under Clinton that allowed Banks to get into insurance and investments. This was the start of the down turn that culminated in 2008.[/quote]

Interesting, that’s where I’ll start, thanks![/quote]

Glass Steagall Act of 1932.

153

^ Yep, the wall of separation between retail and investment banking came down under Clinton and helped pave the way for 2007-8.

154

[quote]smh23 wrote:
^ Yep, the wall of separation between retail and investment banking came down under Clinton and helped pave the way for 2007-8.[/quote]

Clinton wont admit it, but history shows that he is where it started.

155

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

And you can’t prove there is a correlation you like to accuse others of the things you can’t do. There is no correlation between the two and there never has been . Can you prove there is? And you will stick your hands over your eyes and pretend there isn’t correlation. [/quote]

Not sure I ever stated there was a correlation…

Did I?

Are you missing a comma in here? I don’t understand your question.

How is what realted to what issue?

Keep telling yourself that. BUt just keep in mind saying something over and over and over again doesn’t make it true.

You literally don’t understand what happened, and this comment proves it.

[quote] This gave the banksters free reign to delve into extremely risky behavior that they were not held accountable for.
[/quote]

What cracks me up about people that spill the tired talking points that you do, is you don’t actually think for one second beyond what you want to believe.

You ignore the whole of government policy outside of “banking regulation” as if preventing the “banks” themselves for ingaging in these investments would have stopped the investments, prevented the bubble or changed the outcome.

You guys are the first one to complain about the complex tax code and how “the rich can pay accountants to find work-arounds to not pay tax.” So ask yourself this, if people can “work around” millions of dollars of taxes, and investments in RE are making billions in revenue, don’t you think it is fairly reasonable to “work around” the regulations and make these investments anyway?

Lets also ignore the role of the follow players:
Fed rates
people who took the mortgages
people selling the mortgages
government policy surrounding home ownership
insurance companies

the list goes on.

The fact there are reasonable people that willingly conclude “it was the lack of regulation that started the massive bubble” and are apeased by that conclusion pretty much points to how shitty the education system in America really is.

156

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
people who took the mortgages
[/quote]

I’d agree the cause of meltdown is complex and multifaceted and there is plenty of fault to go around. But dropping the blame of the people who took the mortgages is misguided, imo, because the system was feeding off bad loans and they were–by design–knowingly making bad loans.

From an economic standpoint, if you are a bank and I am a speculator, and you say (and I mean aggressively advertise): want a zero-down loan with no income check to buy a house? If the market goes up, just flip it and keep the profit. If the market goes down, just give me back the house. Do we have a deal? My response is, fuck ya we have a deal, how can I lose?

In fact, if I had known how bad the lending standards were back then, that’s exactly what I would have been doing. It would be economically irrational not to. The vast majority of the blame lies up the chain on the people who set this system up and/or failed to take rational steps to minimize systemic risk. You can’t offer people risk-free money and expect them not to take it. At least that’s my opinion.

157

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
people who took the mortgages
[/quote]

I’d agree the cause of meltdown is complex and multifaceted and there is plenty of fault to go around. But dropping the blame of the people who took the mortgages is misguided, imo, because the system was feeding off bad loans and they were–by design–knowingly making bad loans.

From an economic standpoint, if you are a bank and I am a speculator, and you say (and I mean aggressively advertise): want a zero-down loan with no income check to buy a house? If the market goes up, just flip it and keep the profit. If the market goes down, just give me back the house. Do we have a deal? My response is, fuck ya we have a deal, how can I lose?

In fact, if I had known how bad the lending standards were back then, that’s exactly what I would have been doing. It would be economically irrational not to. The vast majority of the blame lies up the chain on the people who set this system up and/or failed to take rational steps to minimize systemic risk. You can’t offer people risk-free money and expect them not to take it. At least that’s my opinion.

[/quote]

I get what you are saying, and there is a nugget of truth to it, but come on. I mean, you’re not trying to absolve these people of ANY of the blame are you?

I bought a house in 2007, right before shit really started to hit the fan. My mortgage was normal and I’ve made all my payments plus some. People offered me those same deals. I knew better than to take them, and know the old saying about “too good to be true”.

YEs people that didn’t do their homework on what a mortgage was, want ARM means, etc are to blame in part. Personal responsibility is not dead, as much as some try and make it out that way, it isn’t. (Not saying you are doing that.)

That is like saying all those people who get scammed buying late-night TV deals and get burned aren’t to balme for being stupid, and the Sham-WOW guy is all at fault for these people thinking a butter knife could cut through a car block.

158

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
^ Yep, the wall of separation between retail and investment banking came down under Clinton and helped pave the way for 2007-8.[/quote]

Clinton wont admit it, but history shows that he is where it started.[/quote]

No I hate to go all Anti Republican on your ass but it started with Reagan , How many lived through the S and L scandals

159

There is an article in the LA Times this morning about raising minimum wage through ballot initiatives.

While Union slimes rejoice, the cities and business continue to falter, looking to relocate, lower employee hours, or raise prices.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-labor-new-tactic-20130310,0,1275153,full.story

160

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
There is an article in the LA Times this morning about raising minimum wage through ballot initiatives.

While Union slimes rejoice, the cities and business continue to falter, looking to relocate, lower employee hours, or raise prices.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-labor-new-tactic-20130310,0,1275153,full.story[/quote]

That is awesome :slight_smile: it is about time the slaves win a victory