opinions please..

[SamSpade]

That said - back to the origin of this thread - I watched that interview with Rush. Some of his premise seemed far-fetched. I don't think they are screwing with the economy because they want to crush it to gain control. I think they're true believers. I think they believe in their agenda as a religious zealot believes in his ideology. I think they are willing to do things that are absurd and defy logic, because they believe it will bring about the society and culture they want.

Ever see a child make a clay or paper copy of something, like a camera or tv remote - and even get a little annoyed when it doesn't work like the real thing? It's obvious to you and me - they mistakenly believe that imitating the form of the object transfers the function of the object. You can see this in cargo cults of the Pacific Islands, where they make bamboo copies of radio towers, and wooden replicas of airplanes.

It's because they don't know how it works. You can't reason with them. They want to fly planes, but they don't want to take the time to learn how it works.

The only difference between them, and children drawing pictures of TV remotes and whining that it doesn't work, is they are making their toys with YOUR MONEY.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by libertytyranny

Im sorry, but you shouldn't be paid 8 dollars an hour to flip burgers. no matter who initiated it. my two cents.

You "shouldn't" be paid a million bucks a concert to sing ten songs, but it happens. If you can't find a baby sitter in your neighborhood willing to sit for your offspring for ten bucks, you pay twenty. You pay what the market will bear.

And you get what you pay for. You pay less for some kid to flip burgers, and you get a schmuck who chats on the phone, sits on his butt, comes in late, and skips work to go fishing.

[libertytyranny]

[quote=SamSpade;3880433]That said - back to the origin of this thread - I watched that interview with Rush. Some of his premise seemed far-fetched. I don't think they are screwing with the economy because they want to crush it to gain control. I think they're true believers. I think they believe in their agenda as a religious zealot believes in his ideology. I think they are willing to do things that are absurd and defy logic, because they believe it will bring about the society and culture they want.[quote]

I would tend to agree with this. still love rush though.

[EmptyTimCup]

Originally Posted by Rosehaven

But the fact (and I apologize for using such a word) remains that study after study concludes the opposite. Princeton did one and the results showed an increase in employment.

Negative ...

Recent Minimum Wage Hike Too Costly For Employers?

In a free market, demand is always a function of price: The higher the price, the lower the demand. What may surprise most politicians is that these rules apply equally to both prices and wages. When employers evaluate their labor and capital needs, cost is a primary factor. When the cost of hiring low-skilled workers moves higher, jobs are lost. Despite this, minimum wage hikes, like the one set to take effect later this month, are always seen as an act of governmental benevolence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When confronted with a clogged drain, most of us will call several plumbers and hire the one who quotes us the lowest price. If all the quotes are too high, most of us will grab some Drano and a wrench, and have at it. Labor markets work the same way.

Before bringing on another worker, an employer must be convinced that the added productivity will exceed the added cost (this includes not just wages, but all payroll taxes and other benefits). So if an unskilled worker is capable of delivering only $6 per hour of increased productivity, such an individual is legally unemployable with a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

how could you consider that Gobberment Mandated Pay Raises would result in Employment ......

New Survey: Majority of Labor Economists Believe Minimum Wage Hikes Cause Unemployment

WASHINGTON, July 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- An overwhelming majority of American labor economists agree that minimum wage hikes are an inefficient way to address the needs of poor families, according to a new national survey of the American Economic Association (AEA). The survey was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center and sponsored by the Employment Policies Institute.

Over 73 percent of AEA labor economists believe that a significant increase will lead to employment losses and 68 percent think these employment losses fall disproportionately on the least skilled. Only 6 percent feel that minimum wage hikes are an efficient way to alleviate poverty. The survey also found:

-- Employers would turn to better skilled employees: More than two-thirds of labor economists (68 percent) believe a mandated wage increase will cause employers to hire applicants with greater skills.

-- The minimum wage is not an effective anti-poverty measure: 70 percent say that an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) would best assist those in poverty. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) believe that an expanded EITC would lead to employment gains. Meanwhile, just 9 Percent say a higher minimum wage is the best anti-poverty measure and only 6 percent believe that a minimum wage increase would lead to employment gains.

Recent studies on the effects of the minimum wage support the majority's opinion. Research from David Neumark at the University of California at Irvine shows that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, low-skilled unemployment increases by 8 percent. His results also indicate that states fully affected by a $7.25 federal minimum wage will see young minority unemployment rates increase by as much as 15.6 percent. Based on these results, today's wage hike is bad news for African American teens who already suffer unemployment seven times higher than the rest of the nation.

"Today's federal minimum wage hike may sound like a good idea, but the experts disagree," said Jill Jenkins, Chief Economist at the Employment Policies Institute. "Low-skilled workers are getting much less than has been promised. Over time, many may even find themselves worse off."

For more information, go to Employment Policies Institute. For a copy of this survey or for interviews, please contact Sarah Longwell at (202) 463-7650.

The Employment Policies Institute is a Washington, D.C.-based research organization dedicated to studying issues that affect entry-level employment.

CONTACT: Sarah Longwell of Employment Policies Institute
+1-202-463-7650
Web site: Employment Policies Institute /

[Tilted]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Raise prices and/or cut labor costs. Easiest way to handle short-term rise in cost of doing business.

The minimum wage situation has always been a non-issue. It bothers some people, because they have this mistaken image of sections of our population trying to etch out a living on minimum wage, and it just isn't true. Most minimum wage earners are kids, part-timers or elderly.

Really. It's a non-issue. We can go years, or months, or decades without an increase in the minimum wage. If it was still as low as 2.35 an hour, like it was when I was a kid, no one would do the work. Simple economics sets what is necessary. It is not needed.

Yeah, the practical and systemic effects of minimum wage laws on the economy are probably fairly small. But, that's not why they are bad.

They are bad on principle, and on the individual level. They are an interference with people's ability to contract with each other. They violate the rights of potential employees, just as much as they violate the rights of potential employers. They tell people that they are not allowed to work for a certain pay rate, when people should have the right to work for whatever compensation they want to, need to, and are willing to work for. I firmly believe that the greatest Constitutional oversight on the part of our founding fathers, was failing to recognize the need to place an explicit protection within the Bill or Rights, of the right to contract. Our government, and people from both ends of the ideological spectrum, routinely trample on that right.

[-SS-]

Originally Posted by Rosehaven

You can't make a glittering generality about an increase in the minimum wage results in an increase in unemployment. Of course, it does sound good doesn't it? And when Rush says it with his distinctive air of authority, it sounds even better.

But the fact (and I apologize for using such a word) remains that study after study concludes the opposite. Princeton did one and the results showed an increase in employment.

O RLY? Study after study? Why didnt you post them up to support your statement then?

Here, I offer "study after study" for your perusal instead:

Postpone Minimum Wage Increase until Low-skilled Unemployment Falls

High minimum wage = high unemployment

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=961374

Minimum Wage Versus Unemployment

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st190.pdf

Just sayin'

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by Rosehaven

You can't make a glittering generality about an increase in the minimum wage results in an increase in unemployment.

It's true, you can't.

You just... can't.

Originally Posted by Rosehaven

But the fact (and I apologize for using such a word) remains that study after study concludes the opposite. Princeton did one and the results showed an increase in employment.

Facts or no facts, it's the only logical conclusion. If I - Mr. Business Owner - am forced to increase the amount of compensation to my entry level employees, the only reaction I can see as reasonable is to hire more people!!!!


I'm actually surprised that they don't simply raise minimum wage to $50/hr, completely eliminate unemployment altogether. Of course, you damned Republicans would never go for that, since you hate America and poor people so much.

[hvp05 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Toxick

raise minimum wage to $50/hr, completely eliminate unemployment altogether.

The O could still attempt this before the 2010 elections.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Rosehaven

You can't make a glittering generality about an increase in the minimum wage results in an increase in unemployment. Of course, it does sound good doesn't it? And when Rush says it with his distinctive air of authority, it sounds even better.

But the fact (and I apologize for using such a word) remains that study after study concludes the opposite. Princeton did one and the results showed an increase in employment.

We’ve raised the minimum wage before — seventeen times so far — so I figured it should be easy enough to check out the history. So here’s a graph of monthly unemployment rates from January 1948—December 2005 with an indicator for every time that the minimum wage was raised.

20060803_unemployment.gif

Seven times unemployment drops afterwards, seven times it goes up, and three times it has no clear or immediate effect. There’s certainly no clear correlation.


Minimum wage data from the Department of Labor. Unemployment rate data from The DoL Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by aps45819

Sure seems like the government does a lot to increase unemployment.

Of course. How else to you create dependency?

I don't think it's nutty at all to suggest that our government is trying to enslave us. I mean, all you really have to do is take a look around and check out some of their pet policies. Only stupid people don't see it plain as day. It's simply history repeating itself - this time in the US.