State of the Union

[Raavak]

Originally Posted by Ecguy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The point isn't that it's arbitrary. The point is that when a wage is mandated it has other consequences besides simply increasing the amount of money some people make.

Increasing minimum wage doesn't increase the amount of money available to pay people, so the whole concept sucks. And Econ 101 shows us that minimum wage causes a surplus in available labor. Its nothing more than a political ploy... it works because most people don't understand the concept in my first sentence. All money comes from Obama's stash, amirite?

[Raavak]

For the people with brains...
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If you don't understand how it works, stfu.

[moklianne]

Originally Posted by Raavak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Bush's fault

Who's your avatar on the left? damn

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raavak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Increasing minimum wage doesn't increase the amount of money available to pay people, so the whole concept sucks. And Econ 101 shows us that minimum wage causes a surplus in available labor. Its nothing more than a political ploy... it works because most people don't understand the concept in my first sentence. All money comes from Obama's stash, amirite?

As much as economics loves to pretend it's a real science up there with physics and chemistry, in reality it's just a filthy fucking mongrel somewhere between the other social sciences and real ones. So I wouldn't put much stock in some symbolic assessment of how they think minimum wage interacts with pure, hypothetical, or historical systems that are muddled with variables and complexities they are wholly incapable of properly accounting for.

Many of the economies who do far better than us (Not larger, better: Less inequality and poverty, more happiness and social mobility, higher per capita wealth) have dramatically higher wages for even their most unskilled workers, along with lower unemployment.

Part of the idea is to put cash back in the hands of perennially cash-strapped Americans who, in the last decade, have watched wages shrink and economic opportunity decline. People without money can't buy homes, or any of the other innumerable horseshit that drives our pig economy. (Note that one of the factors leading up to the bursting of the housing bubble in 2007 was the sustained, astronomical increase in the price of petroleum that sucked absurd amounts of cash out of every family and business in the United States, and catalyzed the crash like a needle popping a bubble).

This is one of the reasons the Obama and Bush administrations have pushed (ineffectually) to reduce oil consumption. It's because the moment our economy starts booming again, we will see a commensurate increase in the price and consumption of petroleum that will temper economic growth and act as a 'soft cap' on the extent to which our economy can thrive. We're lucky domestic production has increased so much, but it won't do much good in the long run.

[Raavak]

Minimum wage causes higher unemployment. If you don't understand that you are a babbling idiot.

[myriverse]

Originally Posted by Raavak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Minimum wage causes higher unemployment. If you don't understand that you are a babbling idiot.

History proves you wrong.
Economics experts know you are.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raavak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Minimum wage causes higher unemployment. If you don't understand that you are a babbling idiot.

It's not that simple. I know your Econ 101 professor sounded totally convincing and you feel confident parroting his perceived expertise everywhere you go, but sometimes (often) economists are wrong, or at the very least inaccurate or only marginally applicable to real circumstances.

This is some Alan Greenspan tier-"Financial regulation is bad!" followed by "I was wrong, sorry about that"-level horseshit.

Pull your head out of tea party ass and learn to think on your own

[baalzy]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not that simple. I know your Econ 101 professor sounded totally convincing and you feel confident parroting his perceived expertise everywhere you go, but sometimes (often) economists are wrong, or at the very least inaccurate or only marginally applicable to real circumstances.

This is some Alan Greenspan tier-"Financial regulation is bad!" followed by "I was wrong, sorry about that"-level horseshit.

Pull your head out of tea party ass and learn to think on your own

My Econ101 professor constantly touted giving money to the people who would spend it. IE: The people with low incomes who need to eat or bills to pay.

We've had 30 years of supply side trickle down bullshit which demonstrably doesn't work. Let's try something else.

[Raavak]

Originally Posted by myriverse [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

History proves you wrong.
Economics experts know you are.

Uhm, you're a moron. Yes it does. Look at what happened when it was instituted. You need to stfu. Idiot, lol.

[Raavak]

You raise minimum wage.... where does the money for the wages come from? Its a fairly simple answer. If you think it comes from managements wages, overhead, R&D, or anything like that you are clueless. There are two answers.